Dem Duplicity? On DOMA

[JustRalph]

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/06/democrats-who-voted-for-doma-reaction-93480.html

[TJDave]

If republicans want to fall on their sword in favor of principle and the religious wackos...so be it. They must know that among those who identify as republican, 52% of those under 50 and 80% under 30 favor gay marriage.

When you're in a hole you should stop digging.

[delayjf]

Yet when the people get a chance to vote the issue - its gets defeated, 0 for 2 in Liberal CA.

[TJDave]

Yet when the people get a chance to vote the issue - its gets defeated, 0 for 2 in Liberal CA.

Not anymore.

[lamboguy]

which liberal president appointed Kennedy and Roberts?

[Robert Fischer]

I haven't done the research(never been a topic that hit home :D ), but what are the drawbacks of allowing gay marriage ?

Is it just that some people consider it immoral, and would prefer it doesn't happen?
Is it a tax thing, or economic thing?

I don't get it.

[Tom]

Q- President Clinton, what do you think about this?
A- What do you want me to think about it?
:rolleyes:

[johnhannibalsmith]

I haven't done the research(never been a topic that hit home :D ), but what are the drawbacks of allowing gay marriage ?

Is it just that some people consider it immoral, and would prefer it doesn't happen?
Is it a tax thing, or economic thing?

I don't get it.

It will be the end of society as we know it, the last sign of the moral decay of our species, next thing people will be marrying roadrunners and workers ants, it will be illegal not to be a pedophile....

That seems like most of the major arguments against it. There's been a few long, breathy threads here. Boxxxcat and I went round and round for about 20 pages once that I remember.

I think that there are a few compelling arguments for possible drawbacks/problems as they pertain to certain legal status conflicts as one moves outside of a particular state or deals with fed and so on and so on. There are bound to be a few snafus along the way for some people since the status here may not be recognized there, which differs from hetero unions obviously. Of course, as more and more states lean towards allowing gay marriage it probably will become one of the next big fights to determine whether or not states can even vote to deprive marriage from homosexuals strictly because of their gay preference and it will be a win for gays and a loss for state's rights, so I don't look forward to that one as someone that supports both parties/concepts most of the time.

But overall, there hasn't been a very compelling case made to me in all the years this been fought over for why one group of people should be disallowed this core element of our societal norms. I'm not married, never will be, and hate the idea. I'm anti-marriage. So, I don't care either way. With the decay of the family unit in general in this country and the way that marriage has devolved into little more than a status symbol on par with a new iPhone that you can show off for a year, maybe two, then toss it and upgrade - I think marriage has had and will have much bigger problems that Brucie and Ken holding hands in wedded matrimony. The definition of traditional marriage was re-written to its detriment by straight couples long before Brucie and Ken started wanting to make a few revisions.

[classhandicapper]

But overall, there hasn't been a very compelling case made to me in all the years this been fought over for why one group of people should be disallowed this core element of our societal norms.

It's an objective moral line in the sand (that one could easily agree or disagree with).

Suppose a brother and sister fall romantically in love (it does happen).

Do we move the line to accomodate them their happiness and love?

Suppose in some community or religion the people approve of polygamy (there's already communities and religions that allow for that).

Do we move the line to accomodate their happiness and love?

Suppose a 20 year old guy falls in love with a physically and emotionally mature girl of 15? Better yet, suppose a 20 year old guy falls in love with a physically and emotionally mature boy of 15?

Do we move the line to accomodate their happiness and love?

It's a debate about morality and whether the rules are subjective, intrinsic but without God, intrinsic from God, and where the lines should be.

IMO this is why many on the left are so hostile to God, religion, and objective morality. Without that, society gets to move the line wherever it wants and justify whatever pleasures and desires it has etc...

[DJofSD]

Moral decay is like a well polish pair of shoes. Little by little, they become not so shiny. They appear to be OK, perhaps a little scuffing here and there but until you put them next to another well polished pair, you can not really appreciate the change.

In this day and age, I'm hard pressed to know what other society or culture will be the second pair of shoes.

[johnhannibalsmith]

If the state moves to do the unthinkable and legalize those practices which are completely shunned in our society, then fine. Who cares? If it becomes legal to be in a relationship with a ten-year-old or your sister or an ostrich, then why would letting marriage enter into the equation be the point at which everything went to hell? Those things would have to become normalized in society first. If you object to the marriage part, you probably are horrified like just about everyone at the actual practice part. That would be the part to object to, not the marriage part.

[Robert Fischer]

Suppose a 20 year old guy falls in love with a physically and emotionally mature girl of 15? Better yet, suppose a 20 year old guy falls in love with a physically and emotionally mature boy of 15?

I also never understand why these types comparisons are so often raised.
It seems to be a completely separate debate, once we are no longer talking about two adults.

[JustRalph]

I think if you look into the real marriage/divorce numbers, you will find that they aren't as bad as you think.

The old "50% of marriages end in divorce" number is wrong and oft repeated.

In some studies that number drops to under 40 percent and with further study you find that the number is inflated by "serial" divorcers. 2-4 time married and divorced. This skews the number greatly.

There are also differences in divorce rates that are geographic in nature that mess up the numbers. Washington DC for example has a much higher rate of divorce than many other places. Very hard to run down the real numbers

[JustRalph]

If the state moves to do the unthinkable and legalize those practices which are completely shunned in our society, then fine. Who cares? If it becomes legal to be in a relationship with a ten-year-old or your sister or an ostrich, then why would letting marriage enter into the equation be the point at which everything went to hell? Those things would have to become normalized in society first. If you object to the marriage part, you probably are horrified like just about everyone at the actual practice part. That would be the part to object to, not the marriage part.

You miss a few things.

Under yesterday's ruling the Ostrich now qualifies for social security and military survivor benefits.

How about that Ostrich now qualifying for burial in Arlington National Cemetery?

Now to jump from the absurd, how about that guy with four wives? Do they all get the same social security benefit? Or do they split up what was being awarded prior to yesterday?

This discussion belongs in the other thread.........

[delayjf]

Is it just that some people consider it immoral, and would prefer it doesn't happen?

It’s about the shift in the moral standards that a nation lives by or the moral slippery slope. Many believe its symptomatic of this nation’s moral decline.

[johnhannibalsmith]

You miss a few things.

........

I should have quoted classhandicapper. I was replying specifically to his post since he addressed mine. I think that we agree on the topic that you are trying to narrow the discussion to and I think it is a much more worthwhile discussion to be had than the broader societal implications. We've had that debate a billion times. I won't murk up this thread with any more of that.

[classhandicapper]

If the state moves to do the unthinkable and legalize those practices which are completely shunned in our society, then fine. Who cares? If it becomes legal to be in a relationship with a ten-year-old or your sister or an ostrich, then why would letting marriage enter into the equation be the point at which everything went to hell? Those things would have to become normalized in society first. If you object to the marriage part, you probably are horrified like just about everyone at the actual practice part. That would be the part to object to, not the marriage part.

It appears that some people think there is a subtle distinction between legal behavior and being married.

Here's something we can both relate to better.

I'm a gambler and think gambling should be legal, but I think state sponsored lotteries are a horrible idea because I don't think the state should be implicitly approving of and possibly encouraging gambling.

So some might say I have no problem with giving people the freedom to do what they want in their private lives but I don't want the societal seal of approval.

Right or wrong, we are simply moving the line.

[classhandicapper]

I also never understand why these types comparisons are so often raised.
It seems to be a completely separate debate, once we are no longer talking about two adults.


Polygamy is illegal here but not illegal elsewhere.

Marrying at 15-16 used to practically be the norm many years ago when people didn't live as long.

These are simply moral standards and lines in the sand that people disagree about and that change with time. I'm not even making a judgement. I'm simply explaining why some people disapprove. Their moral line in the sand is in a different place.

[Robert Fischer]

If the state moves to do the unthinkable and legalize those practices which are completely shunned in our society, then fine. Who cares?


this is a good point.

[Robert Fischer]

You miss a few things.

...

...

Now to jump from the absurd, how about that guy with four wives? Do they all get the same social security benefit? Or do they split up what was being awarded prior to yesterday?


4 wives would have to get 1/4th of the ss benefit.

Part of having 4 wives is affording to have 4 wives.

[johnhannibalsmith]

...

Part of having 4 wives is affording to have 4 wives.

Hence a major reason for my current tally. :D

[DJofSD]

Marrying at 15-16 used to practically be the norm many years ago when people didn't live as long.

Yes. And 100 years ago, when a large percentage of the population still lived on a farm, the expectation was to be an independent adult by 16, 17 or 18.

[delayjf]

It seems to be a completely separate debate, once we are no longer talking about two adults.

But the logic to justify it's inclusion as a constitutional right will be the same. And logically speaking, based on the Courts decision yesterday - poligamy should be allowed. Not that I agree with that decision.