Breaking: Per SCOTUS, Same-Sex Marriage is now law of the land.

[Birds Away]

 

[steveh_131]

Set the bible aside for a moment, and consider it strictly on observable facts.

I can not set the Bible aside. It is my most observable fact.

I can see that the Bible does not call us to enforce a theocracy. I can see that the Bible does not instruct us to use laws to change peoples' hearts. I am a libertarian. I still believe that homosexuality is a sin and that gay marriage is offensive to the very concept of marriage created by the Bible. This belief is not equivalent to a hatred of another person because their skin is a different color than mine. In fact, I see my own sins and failures in my marriage as equally offensive to God's design for marriage.

I don't mind a disagreement on the subject of gay marriage. I do mind the presumption that this disagreement is rooted in the same type of evil prejudice, akin to racism.

 

[singlesix]

One is contrary to scripture. The other is not.

There were specific groups that the Jews were not allowed to intermarry in the Old Testament, but that was because of the pagan belief systems embraced by those groups. Not because of their skin color.

It is not contrary now, but 20 years ago scripture was used to argue against interracial marriage (of course this was in Louisiana). So did scripture change or interpretation? This the problem with using "scripture" consensus changes over time. IMO your statement about intermarrying is correct, but try saying that in La. 20 years ago.

 

[Lowe0]

I don't mind a disagreement on the subject of gay marriage. I do mind the presumption that this disagreement is rooted in the same type of evil prejudice, akin to racism.

Whether it's motivated by prejudice, scripture, or flipping a coin is irrelevant. I didn't ask for the difference between believing that interracial marriage is wrong and believing gay marriage is wrong; I asked for the difference between interracial marriage and gay marriage.

To put it another way, a good or bad idea is good or bad regardless of the motivation behind it. I'm not interested in the motivation. I'm only interested in the results.

 

[Birds Away]

 

[foszoe]

How's that forehead doing? Need an aspirin?

 

[steveh_131]

It is not contrary now, but 20 years ago scripture was used to argue against interracial marriage (of course this was in Louisiana). So did scripture change or interpretation? This the problem with using "scripture" consensus changes over time. IMO your statement about intermarrying is correct, but try saying that in La. 20 years ago.

The twisting of Scripture is used to justify all sorts of evil acts. Nevertheless, it says what it says.

Whether it's motivated by prejudice, scripture, or flipping a coin is irrelevant.

It's not irrelevant. That is the point of that Time piece. To compare Christians to racists. They are pretending to be subtle, pretending to study 'history' by comparing two things that are not comparable. One might even call it a 'Dog Whistle'. That is the part that I am disagreeing with.

To put it another way, a good or bad idea is good or bad regardless of the motivation behind it. I'm not interested in the motivation. I'm only interested in the results.

I don't see any good 'results' from prohibiting either type of marriage. I am not advocating it. At the same time, I do not support the federal over-reach and trampling of state-sovereignty that was employed to achieve the goal of allowing it.

 

[jamil]

What's the difference? (Gay vs. interracial marriage, that is, not Christians vs. racists.)

Whether it's motivated by prejudice, scripture, or flipping a coin is irrelevant. I didn't ask for the difference between believing that interracial marriage is wrong and believing gay marriage is wrong; I asked for the difference between interracial marriage and gay marriage.

To put it another way, a good or bad idea is good or bad regardless of the motivation behind it. I'm not interested in the motivation. I'm only interested in the results.

The difference between interracial marriage (presumably heterosexual) and gay marriage is the former is between opposite sexes and the latter is between same sexes. I'm not trying to be a smartass, but that's the answer to the question you asked. Probably, the question you meant to ask is what is the difference that makes one okay and the other not.

So here's my secular answer. Morality is subjective. People get to decide what they think is moral and not. They get to choose which standards determine morality, whether those standards are based on observable facts or written in a religious book and interpreted however. Neither you nor I have a legitimate place to read their book and tell them how to interpret it. So in that sense "One is contrary to the scripture. The other is not" is a perfectly adequate answer for the question you meant to ask.

 

[Birds Away]

How's that forehead doing? Need an aspirin?

This guy is giving me a headache. He believes that apples are oranges simply because that's the way he wants it to be.

 

[Expat]

 

[Lowe0]

The difference between interracial marriage (presumably heterosexual) and gay marriage is the former is between opposite sexes and the latter is between same sexes. I'm not trying to be a smartass, but that's the answer to the question you asked. Probably, the question you meant to ask is what is the difference that makes one okay and the other not.

Actually, the question I was going to ask was "why should that make one legal and the other illegal?". Which leads to my next point...

So here's my secular answer. Morality is subjective. People get to decide what they think is moral and not. They get to choose which standards determine morality, whether those standards are based on observable facts or written in a religious book and interpreted however. Neither you nor I have a legitimate place to read their book and tell them how to interpret it. So in that sense "One is contrary to the scripture. The other is not" is a perfectly adequate answer for the question you meant to ask.

... whether something is moral isn't necessarily a reflection of whether it should or shouldn't be legal. The reason that interracial marriage and gay marriage are the same is that we don't have a clear reason, backed up with solid evidence, of why either is bad public policy. Without that clear reason, what justification is there for limiting gays' right to form a marriage contract?

 

[steveh_131]

... whether something is moral isn't necessarily a reflection of whether it should or shouldn't be legal. The reason that interracial marriage and gay marriage are the same is that we don't have a clear reason, backed up with solid evidence, of why either is bad public policy. Without that clear reason, what justification is there for limiting gays' right to form a marriage contract?

First of all, gays can form whatever contracts they want. Write a contract, see a lawyer, get it done. Nobody is denying them that right.

Marriage is a government construct, not a contract. It's a defined relationship that carries with it certain benefits that ought to have been provided by the private sector to begin with, but people believed that the husband/wife nuclear family provided better social structure and thus should be subsidized (in a sense) by the government. I don't agree with this subsidization, but it is what it is. And being a government construct and not a natural right (such as entering into a voluntary contract), it is going to be defined by the people who decide what provides the most social benefit.

If you really want to get down to it, I could probably assemble a lot of evidence demonstrating that gay marriage is not beneficial to society and should not be subsidized by the government. I could not do that for an interracial marriage. In order to do that for an interracial marriage you must begin with the premise that one race is inferior to another, and I do not subscribe to that philosophy. It is at least rationally and naturally possible to make the case that two men can not raise a child as well as a man and woman. The very premise of evolution operates under the assumption that nature selected that relationship as superior.

So if I did believe that the government should 'subsidize' certain 'beneficial' facets of our society, and I believed that gays rearing children is not one of them, I could reach the conclusion that gays should not be given the same marital subsidization that straight people receive - without any type of prejudice or hatred inherent in the racism brought up in that Time article.

 

[jamil]

Actually, the question I was going to ask was "why should that make one legal and the other illegal?". Which leads to my next point...

... whether something is moral isn't necessarily a reflection of whether it should or shouldn't be legal. The reason that interracial marriage and gay marriage are the same is that we don't have a clear reason, backed up with solid evidence, of why either is bad public policy. Without that clear reason, what justification is there for limiting gays' right to form a marriage contract?

You did ask that question:

Why should scripture determine whether something is legal? Whose scripture should be authoritative, and why?

And Steve answered.

I don't think that it should. I haven't said that it should. I am saying that one is a simple prejudice and one is a Biblical imperative, and the implication that they are equivalent is intellectually dishonest.

Recap. MRJARRELL did the usual MRJARRELL conflation thing. Okay. Fine. He does that. Steve explained why he didn't think it was the same thing. And then you disagreed and said it is the same thing, under a premise that seems to have now disappeared.

 

[Lowe0]

First of all, gays can form whatever contracts they want. Write a contract, see a lawyer, get it done. Nobody is denying them that right.

Marriage is a government construct, not a contract. It's a defined relationship that carries with it certain benefits that ought to have been provided by the private sector to begin with, but people believed that the husband/wife nuclear family provided better social structure and thus should be subsidized (in a sense) by the government. I don't agree with this subsidization, but it is what it is. And being a government construct and not a natural right (such as entering into a voluntary contract), it is going to be defined by the people who decide what provides the most social benefit.

Then why do we allow those who can't (or won't) procreate to marry? I'm certainly not hearing any calls from Huckabee or Cruz to have my child free marriage annulled.

If you really want to get down to it, I could probably assemble a lot of evidence demonstrating that gay marriage is not beneficial to society and should not be subsidized by the government. I could not do that for an interracial marriage. In order to do that for an interracial marriage you must begin with the premise that one race is inferior to another, and I do not subscribe to that philosophy. It is at least rationally and naturally possible to make the case that two men can not raise a child as well as a man and woman. The very premise of evolution operates under the assumption that nature selected that relationship as superior.

Same question: then why aren't we attacking child free couples for destroying traditional marriage?

So if I did believe that the government should 'subsidize' certain 'beneficial' facets of our society, and I believed that gays rearing children is not one of them, I could reach the conclusion that gays should not be given the same marital subsidization that straight people receive - without any type of prejudice or hatred inherent in the racism brought up in that Time article.

The subsidies come from having children, not from being married, as I'm reminded every April. (But I don't mind, because the taxes that pay for others' children to be educated keep them behind brick walls and therefore the hell away from me. If only we could have that year-round....)

 

[jamil]

Then why do we allow those who can't (or won't) procreate to marry? I'm certainly not hearing any calls from Huckabee or Cruz to have my child free marriage annulled.

Same question: then why aren't we attacking child free couples for destroying traditional marriage?

The subsidies come from having children, not from being married, as I'm reminded every April. (But I don't mind, because the taxes that pay for others' children to be educated keep them behind brick walls and therefore the hell away from me. If only we could have that year-round....)

Married filing jointly, which has different bracket rates, does not involve children.

 

[Lowe0]

Married filing jointly, which has different bracket rates, does not involve children.

They do have different brackets (and standard deductions), but on the other hand, every dollar of the spouse's income is taxed, at a minimum, at the rate of the highest dollar of the other spouse. Two earners, no kids, and if you live in a home that fits two instead of a 5-bedroom family home (and therefore don't have a huge mortgage deduction)? It's a wash at best.

 

[jamil]

They do have different brackets (and standard deductions), but on the other hand, every dollar of the spouse's income is taxed, at a minimum, at the rate of the highest dollar of the other spouse. Two earners, no kids, and if you live in a home that fits two instead of a 5-bedroom family home (and therefore don't have a huge mortgage deduction)? It's a wash at best.

I think if you're trying to argue that there are no tax benefits to marriage, narrowing the circumstances to get a wash doesn't prove your point.

 

[steveh_131]

Then why do we allow those who can't (or won't) procreate to marry? I'm certainly not hearing any calls from Huckabee or Cruz to have my child free marriage annulled.


Same question: then why aren't we attacking child free couples for destroying traditional marriage?

The point is not that child-free couples are destroying traditional marriage. The point is that many believe that a traditional marriage is the ideal circumstance for raising a child and that government subsidies of this marriage will encourage more people to raise their children as a married couple. I think that most of us probably agree that single-parent or broken families are not ideal.

Now the gay activists want to take this subsidy that is supposed to encourage a socially beneficial behavior and apply it to themselves when the tax-payers of Kentucky apparently feel that those marriages are not beneficial to society and should not qualify for those subsidies. And it is hard to argue, even from a secular standpoint, that there is any benefit for society for two men to marry each other.

This is the very reason that I do not support government social engineering. It doesn't work. It will always be abused. And someone's liberty will always be violated. No tax-payer should be forced to subsidize behavior that they find to be immoral, and yet that is what is happening.

Nevertheless, most of the reasoning behind the opposition to gay marriage is still not akin to racism. That has been my point all along.

 

[Lowe0]

The point is not that child-free couples are destroying traditional marriage. The point is that many believe that a traditional marriage is the ideal circumstance for raising a child and that government subsidies of this marriage will encourage more people to raise their children as a married couple. I think that most of us probably agree that single-parent or broken families are not ideal.

Now the gay activists want to take this subsidy that is supposed to encourage a socially beneficial behavior and apply it to themselves when the tax-payers of Kentucky apparently feel that those marriages are not beneficial to society and should not qualify for those subsidies. And it is hard to argue, even from a secular standpoint, that there is any benefit for society for two men to marry each other.

This is the very reason that I do not support government social engineering. It doesn't work. It will always be abused. And someone's liberty will always be violated. No tax-payer should be forced to subsidize behavior that they find to be immoral, and yet that is what is happening.

Nevertheless, most of the reasoning behind the opposition to gay marriage is still not akin to racism. That has been my point all along.

What subsidy? As I pointed out, the tax benefits are all eaten up by every dollar of your spouse's income being taxed in your highest bracket (or higher).

And people have been paying for things they find objectionable for centuries! Conscientious objectors, for instance, don't get to opt out of DoD funding.

Finally, what you said wasn't that opposition to gay marriage isn't akin to racism. What you said is that comparing them is irrational. Which is why I'm drawing the obvious parallel between the two: that the arguments against both lacked a solid reason why the government should ban them, with evidence to support. I'm not asserting what your motivation is - I'm asserting what it is not.

 

[steveh_131]

What subsidy? As I pointed out, the tax benefits are all eaten up by every dollar of your spouse's income being taxed in your highest bracket (or higher).

I'm not talking only about monetary subsidies, although spousal receipt of social security comes to mind. There are also various other things the gays are whining about. Government control of hospital visitation, health insurance, family and estate law, etc. etc. None of this should have been taken beyond basic contract law by the government, but they've turned it into an industry and now it's a big mess.

And people have been paying for things they find objectionable for centuries! Conscientious objectors, for instance, don't get to opt out of DoD funding.

Yep. I think this type of force is immoral.

Finally, what you said wasn't that opposition to gay marriage isn't akin to racism. What you said is that comparing them is irrational. Which is why I'm drawing the obvious parallel between the two: that the arguments against both lacked a solid reason why the government should ban them, with evidence to support. I'm not asserting what your motivation is - I'm asserting what it is not.

First of all, nobody is saying that anything should be banned. They are saying that these relationships should not be subsidized in the same way that heterosexual, child-producing marriages are subsidized. I think you need to take a moment and consider that distinction.

Now once we've established that this isn't a ban of these relationships, we can understand that the argument against the government subsidy of interracial marriage was based on racism while the argument against the government subsidy of gay marriage is not necessarily based on any such evil prejudice. Gay marriage simply doesn't provide any of the social benefits that were used to justify these marriage subsidies in the first place - and the people of Kentucky decided they didn't want to subsidize it.

Let's be honest about the Time article. It was a dog whistle, as the liberals like to call it. Pretending to study history, but the real purpose was to equate Christians to racists. I recognize and reject their propaganda.