CingularDuality

Probably not the only one, but this isn't about morals. As Buckets already pointed out, this is about equality. If your morals included a hatred for people with darker skin, does that justify repressing everyone not white?

It is simply ignorance (I know nothing of your dental records.). Your parents (or whoever raised you) passed on to you certain preconceptions about the world and now you'll probably never get rid of them. We all suffer from this sort of ignorance, even if we don't notice it.

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

USN_Squid

It is most certainly a question of equality under California law. I also believe that someone can consider it a question of morality and shouldn't be called names for having that belief. I'm surprised you don't feel the same way.

__________________

War.mongeR1

Now, I'm not really against California's decision. That's the beauty of individual State rights. However, now that gay marriage is allowed, shouldn't consensual polygamy be allowed as well? I'm not talking about old geezers marrying 14 year olds either. I'm not FOR polygamy, but if we're gonna be equal here, we need to be equal. No where in the bible does it outlaw polygamy, nor is it technically immoral. Yet people who choose that path are persecuted pretty harshly. No, I'm not Mormon, and I'd never choose that way of life. I just think that if gay marriage is allowed, then so should plural marriage. Hope I'm not getting too off-topic here. Feel free to stop me if I am.

__________________
"Common sense is not so common." -Voltaire

Buckets

If you're talking about polygamy the way its practiced by groups like the FLDS (brainwashing and coercing minors to marry, often raping them to consummate the marriage), then no. If you're talking about a TRULY consensual relationship between adults, I don't see why it should really bother anyone. I think that as long as nobody's free will is being impeded, there shouldn't be a problem.

I do, however, think that there is a pretty serious distinction between polygamy (a choice) and homosexuality (a genetic predisposition).

__________________
The artist formerly known as "pecker"

CingularDuality

Then tell us: Is hatred towards blacks (or to be more specific and relevent, hatred of a black man marrying a white woman) also a question of morality that should not be called out?

I say hatred, but perhaps that's too strong of a word for this discussion. Let's say that someone is simply calmly stating that their morals don't allow them to condone interracial marriage and that they think it should be illegal. Is that really a question of morals? Or is it just ignorance?

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

FrankManik

woo. Go gay people.

I support Gay Marriage because Cake.

Kerostasis

It is not expected that you would agree with moral systems that disagree with your own. It is not even expected that you would give them equal weight in considerations -- after all, you consider your own moral system correct, and the other moral systems incorrect.

But what makes it so difficult to acknowledge that opposing systems are, none the less, moral systems? Unless we are going to define a "moral question" as "a question that Cing hasn't yet reached an ethical decision on", then you must admit the possibility of moral questions for which you have already selected one side as "right" and one side as "wrong". You will obviously be happier if people agree with your interpretation of the right side, but you can't dismiss the question as "not a question of morals" simply because you personally have decided the opposing position is wrong.

__________________

USN_Squid

That’s a false analogy. You’re asking me to go back in time before the civil rights act or the fourteenth amendment and compare the social norms of that day with today. Race and gay rights are different battle grounds at different times in our social time line. You may think they are the same, but our laws do not, at least not yet. Gay marriage isn’t even protected under the California constitution much less the US. The court says it is, but that’s likely to be challenged in November.

In a 4-3 decision, the justices said the state’s ban on same-sex marriage violates the “fundamental constitutional right to form a family relationship.” They start out by noting that California’s different from other states that have dealt with this insofar as it already has a robust domestic partnership law. All this is about, really, is whether gays should be allowed to “marry” the way straights do or whether they’re stuck with those partnership agreements that leave them married in effect but not in name.

The bottom line is that many people are convinced it’s a settled issue, and if you disagree you’re simply ignorant. Are the three judges that dissented on this opinion ignorant? Are Hillary and Obama ignorant? Given the fact this was just in the courts yesterday I think we can all agree it is not settled. Not even in California, much less on the Federal level.

I hope Federalism will prevail, but until then calling people that may disagree with you “toothless ignoramuses” won’t get people to listen.

__________________

Steeler

Marriage as recognized by the government is a social construct aimed at establishing certain norms of citizen relationships. People couple off into families, and are, through tax law and economic structures, encouraged to produce more citizens. Making the jump from traditional marriages to same-sex marriages doesn't greatly disturb this basic social construct on a mechanical level, save for how exactly you would get children out of the deal - and modern science and enterprise make this a small hurdle to clear. Except for the friction you find on a cultural level, it's a simple transition for authorities to convert the letterhead from "Adam and Eve" to "Adam and Steve" (I love that line).

Polygamy, on the other hand, raises some tough questions about property ownership, tax law, and lines of family descent. Between consenting adults, I would agree that it doesn't pose a real moral problem (to me, anyway), but it does challenge the way western societies are currently structured. So integrating polygamy into a system that is fairly hostile to its precepts is not going to happen easily, especially when the abuses possible in polygamy are already well documented.

__________________

AMosely

Morals are flexible, and therefore can't be reliably used as any kind of legal or decisive factor in determining fairness or equality. The issues of gay rights and gay marriage do overlap, but only gay marriage can be looked at as detached from any kind of moral argument on its own. Gay rights, and to a large extent equal rights in general involve moral upbringing and religious beliefs. Gay marriage, or the 'sanctity of marriage' ultimately involves the legal definition of marriage.

To put it another way, someone who discriminates against homosexuals will also be against gay marriage, probably on a moral/religious level, or possibly simple bigotry as a result of upbringing or otherwise uninformed thinking. On the other hand, someone who is against gay marriage is not necessarily bigoted or even uninformed - they may simply object on the basis of the legal or social definition(s) of marriage.

It's a complicated issue for sure, but it's important to understand the differences between law, morals, and unfounded beliefs when discussing it.

My personal belief on the issue is that sexual preference as well as gender is often not a choice - it is a biological and chemical construct not wholly different from skin color or any other of the myriad of internal and external qualities that differentiate us as human beings. On that basis, I think any discrimination as a result of those factors is wrong and unjust.

El_Gringo_Grande

One of the things pointed out in a news story that I heard is that California already legally recognizes gay couples. They have laws that give certain rights. It is this, I think, that made the banning of "marriage" for gay couples unconstitutional.

__________________
I’m not racists, I have republican friends. Radio show host.
- "The essence of tyranny is the denial of complexity". -Jacob Burkhardt
- "A foolish consistency is the hobgoblin of little minds" - Emerson
- "People should not be afraid of it's government, government should be afraid of it's People." - Line from V for Vendetta
- If software were as unreliable as economic theory, there wouldn't be a plane made of anything other than paper that could get off the ground. Jim Fawcette

Ferris Bueller

Thats correct gringo. Before the law was overturned, gay couples were allowed civil unions, but not "marriage". They did, however, retain all the rights of married couples, including the right to file for custody of children. As we've had this discussion in the danbox before, I'll point out that it was simply the title that they were denied, which is a thing of some ridicule in itself. All this fuss over a word being denied to people because they were different. Sad.

__________________
|TG-6th|Ferris Bueller

leejo

From "Manhattan":

Yay gay people! I suppose SCOTUS will be unable to duck this one for much longer, since a federal law is on the books that contradicts this ruling. It'll be interesting to see their decision. In the meantime, let the consummations begin!

CingularDuality

You ain't from around heah, are you, boy?

I'm not asking you to go back in time. I'm asking you to answer some questions.

And although it's not settled, it's decided. It's not going to change. It's just a matter of time...
I'm not. I'm saying that this issue is about equality and not morals. Will you agree that adultery is considered immoral by most people? The courts have ruled that adultery isn't a criminal act. You can't say that an act is criminal for a married woman, but not for a single woman. It's a question of equality, not morals. You're not hearing me say that adultery is right or wrong, or that I disagree with the law or any other such nonsense. I'm just saying that it's about equality, not morals.

__________________

Become a supporting member!

Buy a Tactical Duck!
Take the world's smallest political quiz! "I was touched by His Noodly Appendage."
TacticalGamer TX LAN/BBQ Veteran:

ScratchMonkey

I favor separation of state and marriage. Enough with the state telling people the right way to cohabitate, to encourage the production of more little taxpayers. (You notice they don't ban marriage between sterile couples, like the elderly.)

Once we take away the state's power to declare what marriage is, the issue of whether polygamy is covered becomes moot.

The only remaining question is whether private contracts (eg. insurance coverage, inheritance) historically centered around marriage can still discriminate based on issues like possible fertility and number of participants. ISTM that the biggest objection here would be having to redo all the forms to accommodate more variations.

__________________