Sanctity of marriage was under attack 40 years ago

[_Jersey Girl]

Here are my very first comments on the thread, Scottie:

I have to be honest and say that I do have reservations regarding gay marriage but I don't quite know how to fully express it. On one hand, I do fully support the right for gay/lesbian couples to engage in the ceremony of their choice to honor their committment, to hold joint property, avail themselves of joint healthcare plans, raise children and such as that but I suppose on some level I balk at the use of the term "marriage" to define it. That has got to have something to do with my thinking being rooted in tradition. And yet again, I think that people can create new traditions. I'm not entirely certain where I stand on this.

Does it show?

I can't make people read what I write.

[_Scottie]

Thanks, Jersey Girl. I did read what you wrote, but then you started writing about incest and bestiality, which is where I think we got confused.

Now, you have said that you have a problem calling it "marriage" because of tradition.

So, if we go back to the OP, "traditional marriage" 40 years ago was that ONLY members of the same race could marry. Anything other than this was an affront to the tradition of marriage. Allowing interracial marriages was going to destroy the concept of traditional marriage as it was known then, was it not?

How was the thinking back then any different than now?

[_Jersey Girl]

Thanks, Jersey Girl. I did read what you wrote, but then you started writing about incest and bestiality, which is where I think we got confused.

Now, you have said that you have a problem calling it "marriage" because of tradition.

So, if we go back to the OP, "traditional marriage" 40 years ago was that ONLY members of the same race could marry. Anything other than this was an affront to the tradition of marriage. Allowing interracial marriages was going to destroy the concept of traditional marriage as it was known then, was it not?

How was the thinking back then any different than now?

It's wasn't.

[_Scottie]

Thanks, Jersey Girl. I did read what you wrote, but then you started writing about incest and bestiality, which is where I think we got confused.

Now, you have said that you have a problem calling it "marriage" because of tradition.

So, if we go back to the OP, "traditional marriage" 40 years ago was that ONLY members of the same race could marry. Anything other than this was an affront to the tradition of marriage. Allowing interracial marriages was going to destroy the concept of traditional marriage as it was known then, was it not?

How was the thinking back then any different than now?

It's wasn't.

Ok... Care to expand?

So why do you have a problem changing the definition of marriage now?

[_Jersey Girl]

Let me add on, Scottie because I know you're online and if I edit my post you might not see it right away.

The thinking back then wasn't different however, from a legal perspective the slippery slope lies in attempting to regulate and define sexuality. The laws that previously regulated sexual activity applied to both hetero's and gays. The laws have developed in such a way that certain sexual activity that was disallowed by both hetero's and gays were revised to only include gays.

Are polygamists not entitled to the same rights as gay persons in the US? Why not?

The gay rights issues aren't happening in a societal vaccuum.

[_Scottie]

Let me add on, Scottie because I know you're online and if I edit my post you might not see it right away.

The thinking back then wasn't different however, from a legal perspective the slippery slope lies in attempting to regulate and define sexuality. The laws that previously regulated sexual activity applied to both hetero's and gays. The laws have developed in such a way that certain sexual activity that was disallowed by both hetero's and gays were revised to only include gays.

I assume you're talking about sodomy here? So, are you saying that sodomy is legal for gays, but illegal for everyone else?

Are polygamists not entitled to the same rights as gay persons in the US? Why not?

Personally, I say yes. But lets tackle the issues one at a time. Since polygamy does not have a pressing need to be recognized, lets deal with that when the time comes.

The gay rights issues aren't happening in a societal vaccuum.

Of course they aren't. But we can't stifle change either.

[_Angus McAwesome]

I have to be honest and say that I do have reservations regarding gay marriage but I don't quite know how to fully express it. On one hand, I do fully support the right for gay/lesbian couples to engage in the ceremony of their choice to honor their committment, to hold joint property, avail themselves of joint healthcare plans, raise children and such as that but I suppose on some level I balk at the use of the term "marriage" to define it. That has got to have something to do with my thinking being rooted in tradition. And yet again, I think that people can create new traditions. I'm not entirely certain where I stand on this.

Does it show?

I can't make people read what I write.

There, bolded the bit that gave the confusion. When someone says "I'm not certain where I stand on this" I take it at face value. I'm AWESOME, not pyschic, Jersey.

Also I all ready pointed out your problem being mainly one of terms used, Jersey.

You've already stated that you're not quite sure on the issue and your main problem is one of terminology (calling a gay marriage "marriage").

See, Masssa Jersey? Toby can read! I's a good negro! ;) But yeah, now that we've got that cleared up, let's continue the discussion.

The thinking back then wasn't different however, from a legal perspective the slippery slope lies in attempting to regulate and define sexuality. The laws that previously regulated sexual activity applied to both hetero's and gays. The laws have developed in such a way that certain sexual activity that was disallowed by both hetero's and gays were revised to only include gays.

Depends on the state, really. Here in the Glorious People's Republic of Jesusland (Alabama), they made the exception to the sodomy laws for married heterosexual couples only. Some states didn't change their laws at all.

[_Jersey Girl]

One small piece at a time for clarity's sake:

I assume you're talking about sodomy here? So, are you saying that sodomy is legal for gays, but illegal for everyone else?

No, Scottie. I'm saying that the development of sodomy laws discriminated against gays.

In the Texas case, sodomy (and there was also disparity in how it was defined state-to-state) from 1973 and forward was allowable between heterosexuals (and bestiality was dropped from the definition as well) and only disallowed between same sex person until 2003 when the USSC ruled on Lawrence vs the State of Texas.

[_Scottie]

One small piece at a time for clarity's sake:

I assume you're talking about sodomy here? So, are you saying that sodomy is legal for gays, but illegal for everyone else?

No, Scottie. I'm saying that the development of sodomy laws discriminated against gays.

In the Texas case, sodomy (and there was also disparity in how it was defined state-to-state) from 1973 and forward was allowable between heterosexuals (and bestiality was dropped from the definition as well) and only disallowed between same sex person until 2003 when the USSC ruled on Lawrence vs the State of Texas.

I see. Thanks for clarifying.

[_Jersey Girl]

See, Masssa Jersey? Toby can read! I's a good negro!

Please don't do that again in your posts to me, Angus.