🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <4l22fj$6pq@boulder.earthnet.net>, bob@compopt.com (Bob Cormack) writes:
>In article <31629575.41C67EA6@skepsis.com>, Bob Donahue <donahue@skepsis.com> says:
>>
><...>
>>
>>        If they vote it down, then the issue of passing laws
>>forbidding laws that great equal rights on the basis of orientation
>>is dead.  Furthermore, it sets a strong precident that similar
>>laws forbidding the recognition of same-sex marriages will also
>>run into problems constitutationally.  
>>
>                                                                        
>I don't believe that there is any precedent relationship here at all.
>If marriage were a civil right regardless of who was married to whom,
>then marriage should be extended to any and all, including animals,
>inanimate objects, etc.  

"If marriage were a _civil right_..." 

Civil (adj.) "pertaining to city, state, or *citizen*..."

Unless you can produce a few examples of animals or inanimate objects
which can be considered citizens in the full sense of the word, the 
first part of your argument is null and void. Nothing more than the
usual alarmist slippery-slope claptrap that so often signifies your
side's idea of rational debate on the issue of homosexuality.

>In fact, there is a very long tradition of
>marriage being limited to a man and a woman, and even this has been
>denied to certain classes of men and women (siblings, 1st cousins in 
>some states, parents and children, etc.)  If same-sex marriage is a 
>right, then surely these other proscribed marriages are as well?  

There is also a very long tradition of marriage based in love, 
and mutual commitment, responsibility and support. Ideals which,
believe it or not, are not confined to those of you with hetero-
sexual orientations. 

I sometimes am amazed at the reaction to the very idea of same-sex
marriage. Our society has created this ideal of a loving, lifetime
pair-bond (and I say "ideal" because we all know what passes for
'til-death-do-us-part nowadays). Yet when the gay and lesbian
community aspires to this model of lifetime commitment and 
responsible sexuality, it is somehow taken as an offense against
heterosexual marriage, rather than a recognition of the value of
the ideal. It certainly doesn't make much sense to me.

As for the proscribed heterosexual pairings, two comments. One, it
is not inconceivable that those pairings are denied for concrete
reasons, say, reproductive ones. Two, incest taboos are ubiquitous
in human societies; the stated reasons may differ from culture to
culture, but the taboo has always been there. (And the same cannot
be said of homosexuality, either.)

>Simply assuming that same-sex marriage is a right will not convince anybody,
>since it ignores a long and nearly universal tradition of human
>society.  Hoping for a legal coup declaring that everyone must accept
>same-sex marriages without addressing the deeper issue is useless -- 
>even if it succeeded temporarily, it would trigger a legislative
>backlash that would eventually nullify the court's decision.

Well, if we actually could get twits like you to address the
deeper issues, it might not even be before the courts. Instead,
we get a bunch of straight bigots monopolizing the definition of
homosexuality ("It's a choice." "It's an unnatural lifestyle."
"It's a sin."). The experiences and testimony of millions of 
gay men and lesbians are routinely ignored in the "discussion".

We'd be quite happy to address the deeper issues--as soon as
you're able to figure out what the real issues are. HINT: try
reading for content whilst you peruse the gay newsgroups.

And maybe the "legal coup" results in a judgment that unequivocally
states that banning same-sex marriage is unjustified. A relative
handful of same-sex marriages take place; inheritance, hospital
visits, and spousal benefits get easier for a few couples; and
life goes on without God casting the USA into the sea. (Norway,
Denmark and Sweden are still there, aren't they?) Heterosexuals
will continue to fall in love, marry, have kids and possibly divorce,
without any loss of rights and/or privileges. Whew, now there's
a scary scenario, isn't it?

>No, the case for same-sex marriages must be made on merit -- the ideal
>case would relate to the long-standing traditions of society.  Ignoring
>or denigrating these traditions is not going to work.

Ooooh, an appeal to tradition. Well, slavery was a long-standing
tradition of society. Holding women as chattel was a long-standing
tradition of society. Mindless observance of tradition results in 
a stagnant and unjust society, and maybe it's time that we examined
this one...

Sooner or later, our society is going to have to deal with the
reality of its homosexual minority. Maybe the Fred Phelps's of
the world will win, and it ain't going to pretty for us (nor
will it set a very pleasant precedent, for that matter). Or
maybe we will take our places as fully equal citizens. Or,
given the nature of politics, maybe the outcome is somewhere
in the middle. What is certain is that we are not going away,
and that we will fight to be heard. Get used to it.

Pete