Proposition 8 declared unconstitutional [Archive] - Page 2

PanzerJaeger

02-09-2012, 04:12

And I'm asking you - what makes it special then, and why? You've given hollow and vague answers so far.

I thought it was special for a number of reasons, in particular the psycho-phyisical gender union and it's ability to raise children as reflected it the cultural-religious values of most people on the planet earth. Now that those have changed and we have started throwing those things out as a society, I wonder why we keep marriage around, but numbers suggest that we are not, in fact. Of the few people who are still getting married, more and more of them have a meaningless and fluid understanding of it based on Disney movies and the TV shows that peddle it as a business.

Over time I've realized that this society no longer values the institution and, because I value the religious institution even more, I would like to get the government out of all but the most pertinent and objective of our mutual businesses. I believe that marriage is a metaphysical union and, as such, the government has no right to be involved. Marriage is religion and, like Religion, it will be strengthened if the government gets the hell out of the business.

And I'm asking you what gender has to do with anything you just described. I'm not sure what a psycho-physical gender union is, but I do not think our cultural values surrounding marriage would change by making it simply a psycho-physical same-gender union. The value society places on the stability of long term relationships and their benefits in raising children would remain. Our understanding of relationships can evolve without the destruction of the whole institution.

If you are concerned about the meaningless and fluid nature of many contemporary marriages, that is a conversation for another thread. Conflating that problem with gay marriage confuses the issue.

ICantSpellDawg

02-09-2012, 05:49

Conflating that problem with gay marriage confuses the issue.

That is not true. This issue is about why we should call a specific type of relationship special and then convey tax benefits onto it. A look at what the institution is - is important. It isn't a math equation of "equality" - it is an unequal institution itself, held above others. It reminds me of the fight over the crown being passed over to the eldest son -and everyone cawing about how "equal" it would be if it could also go to the eldest daughter... Why the eldest, and why the hell are people still wearing crowns and ruling other people in the first place? The fairness angle is nonsense.

I don't believe that a monogamous gay relationship is any more special than the aforementioned types of relationships and I think is opens up more questions about the failing institution of civil marriage than it solves. A grandparent aunt relationship is more special, a mother daughter relationship is more special, a best friendship is more special - to me and probably most of you. All relationships which can be and have been important in the rearing of children and the conveyance of affection. These are also usually lifelong commitments, unlike most marriages. What are we doing singling out gay couples? Why not open it up fully if we are opening it up at all. You guys have so far failed to distinguish why one relationship deserves benefits and the others don't. We've made good points that your closest loved ones should be allowed by your death bedside, why just the one you've been nailing? We all recognize that social security would be a benefit to your closest loved ones - why withhold that from the most important people in your life that you are not having sex with who could use it?

I know that you desperately want gay marriage to become legal, Panzer. I oppose it and am firm in my opposition - the arguments over the years have not convinced me because I view it as an undeserved social conveyance of benefit. I can see some agreeable point to eliminating the thing all together and keeping marriage a personal thing between 2 people, God and the society that they identify with. You get your equality and I don't have to keep calling these BS fair-weather shallow marriages, marriages - gay or straight. Win-win

a completely inoffensive name

02-09-2012, 06:19

That is not true. This issue is about why we should call a specific type of relationship special and then convey tax benefits onto it. A look at what the institution is - is important. It isn't a math equation of "equality" - it is an unequal institution itself, held above others. It reminds me of the fight over the crown being passed over to the eldest son -and everyone cawing about how "equal" it would be if it could also go to the eldest daughter... Why the eldest, and why the hell are people still wearing crowns and ruling other people in the first place? The fairness angle is nonsense.

I don't believe that a monogamous gay relationship is any more special than the aforementioned types of relationships and I think is opens up more questions about the failing institution of civil marriage than it solves. A grandparent aunt relationship is more special, a mother daughter relationship is more special, a best friendship is more special - to me and probably most of you. All relationships which can be and have been important in the rearing of children and the conveyance of affection. These are also usually lifelong commitments, unlike most marriages. What are we doing singling out gay couples? Why not open it up fully if we are opening it up at all. You guys have so far failed to distinguish why one relationship deserves benefits and the others don't. We've made good points that your closest loved ones should be allowed by your death bedside, why just the one you've been nailing? We all recognize that social security would be a benefit to your closest loved ones - why withhold that from the most important people in your life that you are not having sex with who could use it?

I know that you desperately want gay marriage to become legal, Panzer. I oppose it and am firm in my opposition - the arguments over the years have not convinced me because I view it as an undeserved social conveyance of benefit. I can see some agreeable point to eliminating the thing all together and keeping marriage a personal thing between 2 people, God and the society that they identify with. You get your equality and I don't have to keep calling these BS fair-weather shallow marriages, marriages - gay or straight. Win-win

Omg, this hurts my head so much. Why are monogamous, love based relationships special? Because the statistics show that children raised in foster homes do poorly compared to those in family units consisting two parents (gender does not matter here, hence why we want same sex marriages). Children of single parents statistically do worse off as well. It's better for the kids, and hence better for the country if we put incentives on strong family units.

You get people like me and PJ in complete agreement on a subject and you wonder what kind of arguments would be brought up against us. These kind of arguments.

ICantSpellDawg

02-09-2012, 06:23

What do the statistics of foster homes have to do with anything and why do they relate to monogamy?

a completely inoffensive name

02-09-2012, 06:32

What do the statistics of foster homes have to do with anything and why do they relate to monogamy?

You are the one asking what the point of marriage is if gays can marry. You slap together words that make you sound crazy ("physiological-phycho" whatever) and say that because gays can marry, now suddenly your eyes are open to the pointlessness of marriage and how utterly pointless it is. Then you rant about other types of relationships and why we don't pride them, when the fact is we do put pride in our aunts and uncles and grandparents and all the relationships between our relatives. What we do not put pride in are relationships between two gay people who are not of the same family. You will not be convinced of anything because you refuse to let in anyone else to your special club and all your rambling is just poor justification for asking that a huge pillar of social stability be taken out lest we let "the others" be supported by it as well.

a completely inoffensive name

02-09-2012, 07:01

More good news: Washington Legislature passed same-sex marriage, governor has pledged to sign bill. Only obstacle left is a possible public referendum if opponents get enough signatures.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/09/us/washington-state-set-to-legalize-same-sex-marriage.html?_r=1&hp

PanzerJaeger

02-09-2012, 09:45

That is not true. This issue is about why we should call a specific type of relationship special and then convey tax benefits onto it. A look at what the institution is - is important. It isn't a math equation of "equality" - it is an unequal institution itself, held above others. It reminds me of the fight over the crown being passed over to the eldest son -and everyone cawing about how "equal" it would be if it could also go to the eldest daughter... Why the eldest, and why the hell are people still wearing crowns and ruling other people in the first place? The fairness angle is nonsense.

I would submit that royal succession is not the best comparison to make to the debate over gay marriage. A more apt example would be the debate over interracial marriage, which revolved around many of the same (ultimately unfounded) criticisms. Why can't society again broaden the definition of a socially acceptable relationship without altering the definition of what a marriage entails?

I don't believe that a monogamous gay relationship is any more special than the aforementioned types of relationships and I think is opens up more questions about the failing institution of civil marriage than it solves. A grandparent aunt relationship is more special, a mother daughter relationship is more special, a best friendship is more special - to me and probably most of you. All relationships which can be and have been important in the rearing of children and the conveyance of affection. These are also usually lifelong commitments, unlike most marriages. What are we doing singling out gay couples? Why not open it up fully if we are opening it up at all. You guys have so far failed to distinguish why one relationship deserves benefits and the others don't. We've made good points that your closest loved ones should be allowed by your death bedside, why just the one you've been nailing? We all recognize that social security would be a benefit to your closest loved ones - why withhold that from the most important people in your life that you are not having sex with who could use it?

To be honest, I had a difficult time following that paragraph. I can only say that the whole argument seems so superficial. To me, what makes marriage special and socially desirable runs much deeper than things like skin color or genitalia.

I know that you desperately want gay marriage to become legal, Panzer. I oppose it and am firm in my opposition - the arguments over the years have not convinced me because I view it as an undeserved social conveyance of benefit. I can see some agreeable point to eliminating the thing all together and keeping marriage a personal thing between 2 people, God and the society that they identify with. You get your equality and I don't have to keep calling these BS fair-weather shallow marriages, marriages - gay or straight. Win-win

As I said earlier, removing the state from marriage entirely is a completely reasonable position in my book. It is regrettable that you reached that conclusion over an apparent disgust with the idea of gay people getting married, though.

Xiahou

02-09-2012, 13:42

Some/many/most homosexuals want state-recognized homosexual marriage so they can have the recognition and benefits associated with heterosexual marriage applied to their homosexual relationships. The way to achieve that is to convince enough people to support them to get marriage laws changed. Polling trends indicate that it's not going to be long before they get what they want. I'm fine with that- it's the democratic process.

What I'm not fine with is pushing the issue in the courts. There is no constitutional right to marry and it's not analogous to the civil rights movement.

rvg

02-09-2012, 14:02

Some/many/most homosexuals want state-recognized homosexual marriage so they can have the recognition and benefits associated with heterosexual marriage applied to their homosexual relationships...

If they were concerned about the practical benefits of marriage they would have pushed for the civil unions which would have generated pretty much zero amount of controversy. IMHO homosexuals are involved in a pissing contest with the general public.

Lemur

02-09-2012, 16:20

[C]ivil unions [..] would have generated pretty much zero amount of controversy.
I find this statement strange. In states that took steps to ban gay marriage, they also made sure to outlaw civil unions and same-sex contracts such as power of attorney. There was nothing subtle about it. If a lesbian wants to visit her long-term partner in the hospital, there is no way to do it in VA. So I'm curious to hear why you think civil unions would excite zero controversy; people who can't stomach gays don't appear to make such fine distinctions.

The rest of us mostly just shake our heads and wonder why Civil Unions haven't been instituted all-round
Every sane person I know supports this idea, but then, every sane person I know believes marijuana should be decriminalized and taxed. There are specific reasons elected officials won't touch these ideas, despite their self-evident sanity and prudence.

gaelic cowboy

02-09-2012, 17:42

If they were concerned about the practical benefits of marriage they would have pushed for the civil unions which would have generated pretty much zero amount of controversy. IMHO homosexuals are involved in a pissing contest with the general public.

Eh isnt a state recognised marraige a civil union in all cases regardless of gender or orientation.

PanzerJaeger

02-09-2012, 19:02

rvg

02-09-2012, 19:18

Separate but equal, right? :yes:

Precisely, but done right. Really separate and really equal.

a completely inoffensive name

02-09-2012, 20:19

Precisely, but done right. Really separate and really equal.Don't worry guys, we will get it right this time. Just need to make sure that the government will act in perfect harmony between the two groups for all time.Man, I love it when we institutionalize the idea that our fellow Americans are different and should be treated differently.

rvg

02-09-2012, 20:47

...Man, I love it when we institutionalize the idea that our fellow Americans are different and should be treated differently...

Well, they refuse to be treated the same. Any unmarried man (gay or straight) can marry any consenting unmarried woman (gay or straight) at any time. The law is exactly the same for everyone but it's not good enough for the homosexuals. They want the right to elope with their gender? Fine, but *I* don't want that right. So leave marriage alone and let them have civil unions.

Xiahou

02-09-2012, 20:56

Separate but equal, right? :yes:Then come the emotional appeals.... I'd love to see people argue homosexual marriage on the merits instead of resorting to racial comparisons. :yes:

a completely inoffensive name

02-09-2012, 20:57

Well, they refuse to be treated the same. Any unmarried man (gay or straight) can marry any consenting unmarried woman (gay or straight) at any time. The law is exactly the same for everyone but it's not good enough for the homosexuals. They want the right to elope with their gender? Fine, but *I* don't want that right. So leave marriage alone and let them have civil unions.Purpose of marriage is to fascilitate the creation of families between loving individuals and provide stable households for children. You are being very disengenuous imo and it's obvious what my counterpoint is to your statement.

a completely inoffensive name

02-09-2012, 20:59

Then come the emotional appeals.... I'd love to see people argue homosexual marriage on the merits instead of resorting to racial comparisons. :yes:Look at the statistics of children with 2, 1 and 0 parents. That's all the merit you need. Let them be properly married, so we can get these kids in proper families and improve their lives.

rvg

02-09-2012, 21:06

Purpose of marriage is to fascilitate the creation of families between loving individuals and provide stable households for children...

Nonsense. Marriage does not necessitate family and vice versa. It's an ages old tradition deeply intertwined with the world's major religions. The ceremonial part of the life partnership contract between a man and a woman. Civil unions would grant them all the practical aspects of family creation, but they instead seek to defile traditional marriage. This is no longer an issue of rights.

PanzerJaeger

02-09-2012, 21:31

Then come the emotional appeals.... I'd love to see people argue homosexual marriage on the merits instead of resorting to racial comparisons. :yes:

Read the thread. I've been more than willing to argue gay marriage on the merits. When someone claims gay people are 'in a pissing match with the general public', though, there really isn't any intellectual path forward. You just have to point out the idiocy and move on.

ICantSpellDawg

02-10-2012, 00:05

This debate is over. Marriage-like benefits for everyone, your choice of who you share your benefits with and why. Problem solved. Marriage is a religious institution and has no place in government, but we'd all like to be able to leave our house and social security to someone who we care about for one reason or another without it being taxed or void, so win win. I'm pretty sure that most of us can agree to this.

Marriage will be better for it

PanzerJaeger

02-10-2012, 01:12

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CbmbdWK6338&sns=fb

a completely inoffensive name

02-10-2012, 02:30

Nonsense. Marriage does not necessitate family and vice versa. It's an ages old tradition deeply intertwined with the world's major religions. The ceremonial part of the life partnership contract between a man and a woman. Civil unions would grant them all the practical aspects of family creation, but they instead seek to defile traditional marriage. This is no longer an issue of rights.

"Defile" ahhh now I am meeting the real rvg! :laugh:

Marriage stopped falling within the sphere of religion when the religious allowed government benefits to be conferred upon married couples. Now you and Dawg want it back solely in the religious sphere once you guys started becoming the losers in our democracy. Well guess what, deal with it. I spit on your sacred idea of marriage.

Sasaki Kojiro

02-10-2012, 02:43

Do you guys think we should rename Christmas too? The federal holiday I mean. Because it isn't being celebrated in the Christian way by many people who are still calling it Christmas.

rvg

02-10-2012, 03:13

... Now you and Dawg want it back solely in the religious sphere once you guys started becoming the losers in our democracy. Well guess what, deal with it. I spit on your sacred idea of marriage ...
This isn't over, you know. The SCOTUS hasn't expressed an opinion on this issue yet. So I might just yet get the last laugh.

Do you guys think we should rename Christmas too? The federal holiday I mean. Because it isn't being celebrated in the Christian way by many people who are still calling it Christmas.

Too late, it's already been done. It's Holiday Season, mkay? Happy Holidays, Season's Greetings and all that jazz. "Christmas" nowadays is just an empty word that can be safely replaced with "BUY! BUY! BUY!".

Sasaki Kojiro

02-10-2012, 03:30

Too late, it's already been done. It's Holiday Season, mkay? Happy Holidays, Season's Greetings and all that jazz. "Christmas" nowadays is just an empty word that can be safely replaced with "BUY! BUY! BUY!".

But do you want them to change the official name of it? Should it be officially X-mas? That would be the equivalent of changing "marriage" to "civil union". Or I guess Christians could call it Christmas but everyone else isn't allowed to.

rvg

02-10-2012, 03:54

But do you want them to change the official name of it? Should it be officially X-mas? That would be the equivalent of changing "marriage" to "civil union". Or I guess Christians could call it Christmas but everyone else isn't allowed to.

That's the thing. Once the idea behind it is hollowed out it no longer matters what it's called. It's a holiday, yes, but there's nothing 'holy' about it anymore.

ajaxfetish

02-10-2012, 06:42

But do you want them to change the official name of it? Should it be officially X-mas? That would be the equivalent of changing "marriage" to "civil union". Or I guess Christians could call it Christmas but everyone else isn't allowed to.

No good. X-mas (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Xmas) has Christian religious connections. You'd need a properly secular name, like Winter Shopping Season. Or maybe you could co-opt Yule, since Norse paganism isn't so much of a thing these days.

Ajax

Strike For The South

02-10-2012, 10:08

Precisely, but done right. Really separate and really equal.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uUq5L8sH_V4

Lemur

02-10-2012, 17:50

Do you guys think we should rename Christmas too?
When you can't win an argument, change the subject.

A nice summary of the logical barrenness (http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/jurisprudence/2012/02/why_the_proponents_of_a_gay_marriage_ban_will_soon_be_speechless.single.html) of gay marriage opponents:

[A]t every turn Judge Vaughn Walker, who presided over the trial, expressed frustration at the fact that the opponents of gay marriage either had no case or couldn’t be bothered to make one. Arguing for the gay marriage ban, seasoned attorney Charles Cooper called only two witnesses (the plaintiffs called 17), one of whom was not deemed qualified to testify as an expert. As Cooper finally explained in his closing argument, "Your honor, you don't have to have evidence for this. … You only need to go back to your chambers and pull down any dictionary or book that defines marriage," Cooper told the judge. "You won't find it had anything to do with homosexuality."

This defense satisfied almost no one. Ted Olson, the plaintiff’s attorney, was absolutely flummoxed by Cooper’s claim that he had no burden to do anything beside assert the immutability of traditional marriage. In his closing argument, a perplexed Olson replied, “You can't take away the rights of tens of thousands of persons and come in here and say 'I don't know' and 'I don't have to prove anything.' ” [...]

Perhaps, as many speculated at the time, it reflected the deeper reality that there was no factual or empirical case to be made: The evidence, the data, and the experts overwhelming agree that gay marriage does not harm children. And that leaves opponents of gay marriage to argue a tautology: Gay marriage is wrong because it’s wrong. [...]

At the podium, Cooper’s answer was more or less a Zen koan: “Your honor, you’re left with a word, but a word that essentially is the institution,” said Cooper. “If you redefine the word, you change the institution. You cannot separate the two.” [...]

That is not legal argument or empirical evidence. It is the death rattle of a movement that has no legal argument or empirical evidence. Nobody disputes the fact that Americans opposed to gay marriage believe passionately in their ideas and arguments. But that doesn’t necessarily mean those arguments should win in a court.

rvg

02-10-2012, 18:19

... At the podium, Cooper’s answer was more or less a Zen koan: “Your honor, you’re left with a word, but a word that essentially is the institution,” said Cooper. “If you redefine the word, you change the institution. You cannot separate the two.” [...]

He is right. If this struggle was about rights, we could have found the middle ground in civil unions and everyone would have gotten what they really wanted. It's not about rights, it's about symbolism. The insistence of the homosexual community on "marriage" as opposed to civil unions proves that there's something greater at the stakes here: they are trying to force through the notion that homosexual behavior is morally correct, something that civil unions would not do.
Look, if you're a homosexual who wants to register a relationship, adopt, file joined tax returns and all that, that's all find by me, it's a matter of justice and fairness. If you want all that and you want to call it "marriage", I will do all I can to stop it. That is something that you will not get without a fight. You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine, and I am willing to defend my opinion with the same fervor with which you defend yours.

Lemur

02-10-2012, 18:46

It's not about rights, it's about symbolism.
Which is not, as the court ruled, a compelling position, not when other people's access to things such as right of attorney, legal visitation, custody, inheritance and so on and so forth are impacted.

There's no one saying you have to like, accept or approve of gays. (At least, no one sane.) Your disapproval and dislike is fine. But denying them the ability to marry* carries real-world consequences which are not symbolic.

As for the institution of marriage, I would suggest that strip clubs, video chat and no-fault divorce are all bigger threats to the institution.

* And yes, we are all familiar with the canard that "they are free to marry someone of the opposite gender," so I don't feel compelled to address this every time I mention it.

PanzerJaeger

02-10-2012, 19:03

He is right. If this struggle was about rights, we could have found the middle ground in civil unions and everyone would have gotten what they really wanted. It's not about rights, it's about symbolism. The insistence of the homosexual community on "marriage" as opposed to civil unions proves that there's something greater at the stakes here: they are trying to force through the notion that homosexual behavior is morally correct, something that civil unions would not do.

Yes. That is exactly why civil unions are no substitute for marriage.

Noncommunist

02-10-2012, 19:18

As for the institution of marriage, I would suggest that strip clubs, video chat and no-fault divorce are all bigger threats to the institution.

I don't think anyone against gay marriage is advocating those. They just see gay marriage as just another blow to the institution of marriage.

I find this statement strange. In states that took steps to ban gay marriage, they also made sure to outlaw civil unions and same-sex contracts such as power of attorney. There was nothing subtle about it. If a lesbian wants to visit her long-term partner in the hospital, there is no way to do it in VA. So I'm curious to hear why you think civil unions would excite zero controversy; people who can't stomach gays don't appear to make such fine distinctions.

Why should those rights only apply in romantic relationships? What if I just have a best friend that I want to have those abilities?

Lemur

02-10-2012, 19:33

I don't think anyone against gay marriage is advocating those. They just see gay marriage as just another blow to the institution of marriage.
Demonstrate the harm to marriage, please. Nobody else has been able to without reaching for a tautology. The other things I mentioned do measurable, demonstrable harm to marriages. Gay people shacking up does not.

What if I just have a best friend that I want to have those abilities?
Non sequitur is non sequitur; it does not follow. Furthermore, what you describe was already kinda-sorta the law of the land in the middle ages, through a process called adelphopoiesis (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adelphopoiesis), which was probably (but not necessarily) an early and church-sanctioned form of gay marriage.

For a broader-ranging examination, a sociology prof writes (http://andrewsullivan.thedailybeast.com/2012/02/who-is-marriage-for.html):

[M]arriage throughout history has not been about children. It is a social institution for adults, one that organizes intimate relationships and distributes resources. Essentially, marriage is an institution because it is good for adults and for society; often it's good for children too, but that's not the reason the institution exists.

More importantly, it is an empirical fallacy to impose expectations on individual behavior based on the average outcomes of groups. This is the first thing I teach my students every semester. By definition, most families are not optimal, but society does not allow only optimal families to have children. If it did, only married, Asian, college educated, wealthy, church-attending (but not evangelical), blue-state-residing people would be allowed to procreate. (The fact that stepfathers are more likely to abuse children does not mean that we prohibit men from marrying women have children from prior relationships.)

I initially expected children of same-sex parents, on average, to fare worse than those of opposite-sex parents on some outcomes, if only due to social prejudice, and the likelihood that these children experienced the dissolution of their biological parents' relationship (most children of gay/lesbian parents are products of prior, heterosexual unions).

It has been a pleasant surprise to me, over the past 10 years or so, to find more and more credible research showing no disadvantage for children of same-sex parents (though more and better research is needed).

Strike For The South

02-10-2012, 20:53

A blow to the institution.

What. A. Joke.

ICantSpellDawg

02-12-2012, 21:27

a completely inoffensive name

02-12-2012, 22:11

This argument is about what kind of relationships Americans recognize as special and unique enough to receive benefits from government. We do not have consensus on this, but nearly all of us can agree to disagree and stop having the government view specific types of relationships as special. Equality.

I want to exorcise government from everything in America but the basics, creating a devolution of responsibility and power into the hands of the people. This approach does just that. Stop supporting gay marriage, start supporting civil benefits for anyone who wants them, irrespective of number, irrespective of relationship type.

To borrow Strike's words, what a joke bro. All the religious know that if they can get government out now, they can have their segregation allowed again.

I would be happy with government not getting involved anyway, since there are lots of churches that are more than welcome towards gay marriage. I drive by one such church everyday as I go to uni. But I am too young, and too full of spite to not admit that I would rather see the purity and holyness of your institution of marriage burn before your eyes.

It's a win-win for me.

ICantSpellDawg

02-13-2012, 03:17

Good, I was there at one point. Extremism on one end brings you, eventually, to extremism on the other - in most cases.

Tuuvi

02-13-2012, 03:26

To borrow Strike's words, what a joke bro. All the religious know that if they can get government out now, they can have their segregation allowed again.

I would be happy with government not getting involved anyway, since there are lots of churches that are more than welcome towards gay marriage. I drive by one such church everyday as I go to uni. But I am too young, and too full of spite to not admit that I would rather see the purity and holyness of your institution of marriage burn before your eyes.

It's a win-win for me.

Why?

ICantSpellDawg

02-13-2012, 04:09

Why not? I did to at one point. When you believe in nothing, it breeds a contemptible bloodlust. This can only be solved by believing in something good and being in sync with natural law.

a completely inoffensive name

02-13-2012, 04:12

Why?

Because religion in America has done nothing in the past 30 years except repress and cause suffering. Even in this thread, the religious want to declare gays as selfish for wanting to use a term, not for forcing their religion to practice gay marriage (which is not what gay marriage is about), but for using a word legally.

This same movement is currently arguing against Obama's attempt at making sure all women have access to contraceptives, because their moral outrage means more to them than the health of women.
This same movement is why people like Santorum are even talked about in American politics. Religion is a poison in american society.

a completely inoffensive name

02-13-2012, 04:13

Why not? I did to at one point. When you believe in nothing, it breeds a contemptible bloodlust. This can only be solved by believing in something good and being in sync with natural law.

You don't know what I believe in.

PanzerJaeger

02-13-2012, 04:45

This argument is about what kind of relationships Americans recognize as special and unique enough to receive benefits from government. We do not have consensus on this, but nearly all of us can agree to disagree and stop having the government view specific types of relationships as special. Equality.

I want to exorcise government from everything in America but the basics, creating a devolution of responsibility and power into the hands of the people. This approach does just that. Stop supporting gay marriage, start supporting civil benefits for anyone who wants them, irrespective of number, irrespective of relationship type.

The evolution of your opinion in this thread is kind of sad. The reason for governmental recognition of marriage is to promote family creation and social stability. Instead of looking rationally at the issue, including the ever-growing body of research on gay relationships, and slightly altering the institution to recognize contemporary social norms and our national inclination toward equity and inclusion as was done with interracial marriage, you want to burn the house down. It's a fair enough position, but the thought process behind it is... well, again... sad, as it is not based on libertarian principle but prejudice. Yay for consensus, though. :shrug:

ICantSpellDawg

02-13-2012, 04:52

The evolution of your opinion in this thread is kind of sad. The reason for governmental recognition of marriage is to promote family creation and social stability. Instead of looking rationally at the issue, including the ever-growing body of research on gay relationships, and slightly altering the institution to recognize contemporary social norms and our national inclination toward equity and inclusion as was done with interracial marriage, you want to burn the house down. It's a fair enough position, but the thought process behind it is... well, again... sad, as it is not based on libertarian principle but prejudice. Yay for consensus, though. :shrug:

Some of my friends were raised by grandparents. Social policy should evolve where it needs to evolve, not where one group would like it to evolve. The people who need support are single mothers who have close relationships with their mothers or siblings - lets strengthen that bond - their choice or misfortune. Or unmarried single people who take care of their parents and never really hit it off with someone romantically - we could strengthen them individually. There are people who really don't have sexual or romantic interests. These people could horse trade benefits for lasting, life long support. I don't want the government telling me what is best for my family. Marriage will sink or swim on its own. Whats sad is a relationship that requires Federal and State recognition to be truly legitimate.

Your position is a sad one, Panzer. Gay marriage? This is what you spend your time advocating for? Leave people be to live the lives that they'd like, but don't require society to specifically subsidize relationships which are held to be amoral by a questionable majority. You want equality? work towards it. Gay marriage isn't equality, it's a moral corruption of an already unfair system. Selective "equality" is farce.

I'm tired of governments enacting lobby interest studies which support BS idea this or that to tell people how to live their lives. Who needs them? You've bought into it hook, line and sinker.

PanzerJaeger

02-13-2012, 05:18

Your position is a sad one, Panzer. Gay marriage? This is what you spend your time advocating for? Leave people be to live the lives that they'd like, but don't require society to specifically subsidize relationships which are held to be amoral by a questionable majority. You want equality? work towards it. Gay marriage isn't equality, it's a moral corruption of an already unfair system. Selective "equality" is farce.

Interesting. Just two pages ago you could be found advocating a slightly different position.

This just doesn't make sense. Marriage is a civil institution singling out the monogamous relationship between 1 man and 1 woman as special. We, as a society, have agreed on this.

ICantSpellDawg

02-13-2012, 05:30

I meant we "had" agreed on that. Obviously we don't anymore. That is clear. I still believe that it is special, my argument has only changed with respect to government's role in that relationship.
Homosexual relationships are different from heterosexual relationships. What makes a heterosexual monogamous relationship unique historically, across religious, social, cultural and physiological grounds is not present in homosexual monogamous relationships, friend relationships, parent child, etc.

Marriage recognizes that relationship as special and was agreed for many years by most segments of society. If we can't agree on the special recognition anymore, that is self-evident - the answer is not to just recognize a gay relationship as special, that doesn't follow logically.

I advocate that individuals find a partner of the opposite gender, whom they are in love with - and then get married in the eyes of God and their chosen society - in a Church, preferably Catholic and have a workable number of children, when the time is right, and stay married, until they die, no matter how rough it gets - and to use compassion and understanding to troubleshoot the rough patches. I just don't believe that government has any moral authority beyond keeping us from killing or robbing one another and that no one has the right to enforce this lifestyle. Government cannot possibly have a clue or say in how I should live my life or what social actions that I should do that it believes are favorable on an illogical shifting political scale.

I can't state my position thoroughly enough - it has shifted somewhat over the course of the past 10 years, so has my hairline and income. You are part of the group spouting nonsense about how important a gay monogamous relationship is and how we are all bigots and want to bring back segregation if we think this is a stupid argument. It isn't important to me, I don't know why it is so important to you and there are many more important relationships out there that are arguably more deserving of special status. In the interests of sensible government I can understand the part about getting government out of your personal life, but that's it.

PanzerJaeger

02-13-2012, 05:44

What makes a heterosexual monogamous relationship unique historically, across religious, social, cultural and physiological grounds is not present in homosexual monogamous relationships, friend relationships, parent child, etc.

Yes, it is. Marriage isn't about superficialities, be they race, age, religion, or gender.

ICantSpellDawg

02-13-2012, 05:48

PanzerJaeger

02-13-2012, 06:30

Again, what is marriage "about" and why is it in need of special government recognition over other types of supportive relationships? Beyond politically correct rhetoric, please.

Government should not be making the decision over what relationships are special, that should be left up to the individuals involved in the relationship.

As I've said, I do not disagree. I simply think the thought process behind your reverse in position is intellectually bankrupt and rooted in bigotry. You knew what marriage was 'about' and saw a value in it just a few days ago. When you couldn't explain the difference between the 'psycho-sexual' interplay in a heterosexual relationship versus that in a homosexual relationship, your position devolved into small government libertarianism.

I'm perfectly fine supporting such a position, theoretically. Realistically, though, I know that state recognized marriage is not going to go away for a very long time, if ever. Until then, I do not believe a society that values equality and inclusion can tell gay couples that their relationships are any different than those of straight couples, just as the same society could not tell interracial couples that their relationships were substantively different than those of same race couples.

You cannot leave a group of people in social limbo. You cannot say, as a society, that homosexuality is normal and then at the same time disallow homosexuals to act normally. That kind of dissonance is harmful and fundamentally iniquitous. Now, reading between the lines of your posts in this thread, I don't doubt that you would prefer to ignore scientific reality and roll back social acceptance of homosexuality, but, thankfully, that battle has been all but won.

Rhyfelwyr

02-13-2012, 15:03

Yes, it is. Marriage isn't about superficialities, be they race, age, religion, or gender.

Well this just comes back to the fact that we all have different understandings of what marriage is. Because for the vast majority of people in the world, all the things you listed are major factors in any marriage.

Strike For The South

02-13-2012, 16:22

Because religion in America has done nothing in the past 30 years except repress and cause suffering. Even in this thread, the religious want to declare gays as selfish for wanting to use a term, not for forcing their religion to practice gay marriage (which is not what gay marriage is about), but for using a word legally.

This same movement is currently arguing against Obama's attempt at making sure all women have access to contraceptives, because their moral outrage means more to them than the health of women.
This same movement is why people like Santorum are even talked about in American politics. Religion is a poison in american society.

They see me trollin

lars573

02-13-2012, 19:18

Good, I was there at one point. Extremism on one end brings you, eventually, to extremism on the other - in most cases.
Not as much as you might think. I've never believed in god. Even when I was little and my mom was pushing Anglicanism on me. And church services were some boring ass meaningless drivel that took away 2 hours of my life every Sunday.

Why not? I did to at one point. When you believe in nothing, it breeds a contemptible bloodlust. This can only be solved by believing in something good and being in sync with natural law.
Bloodlust is natural law. Anything else is an artificial construct of man, much like god.

Ironside

02-13-2012, 20:04

Well this just comes back to the fact that we all have different understandings of what marriage is. Because for the vast majority of people in the world, all the things you listed are major factors in any marriage.

Like most of the western world, PJ is big on induvidualism instead of family/clan relations.

Lemur

02-13-2012, 23:42

Bloodlust is natural law. Anything else is an artificial construct of man, much like god.
When a Catholic refers to "natural law," they are reaching for a very specific line of theology (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm). It's a weird sort of attempt to fuse some science-like perspectives onto Catholic thinking to achieve some very un-science-like conclusions. Nobody outside of the Catholic world takes it seriously, so I wouldn't bother with it overmuch.

Rhyfelwyr

02-13-2012, 23:57

Like most of the western world, PJ is big on induvidualism instead of family/clan relations.

Everything on PJ's list will at least raise some eyebrows in this part of the developed world if they are seen as being out of the ordinary.

When a Catholic refers to "natural law," they are reaching for a very specific line of theology (http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/09076a.htm). It's a weird sort of attempt to fuse some science-like perspectives onto Catholic thinking to achieve some very un-science-like conclusions. Nobody outside of the Catholic world takes it seriously, so I wouldn't bother with it overmuch.

It's not just a Catholic thing to be fair, natural law is something seen throughout Western Christendom.

Kralizec

02-14-2012, 00:18

As Lemur's link notes, natural law has its roots in Roman philosphy. If only for reasons of veneration, I would hesitate to call it nonsense...everything churches say on the matter is wrong, of course :martass:

a completely inoffensive name

02-14-2012, 05:19

Another state is purged from the legal bigotry.

http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0212/72808.html

EDIT: Slowly, but surely, the public is coming about to reason. Prop 22 in California got 61.4% of the vote, Prop 8 only got 52.24%. A 9.16% drop in 8 years.

Lemur

02-19-2012, 20:15

Circling back to the "natural law" element, here's an essay with a bit of perspective (http://www.nybooks.com/blogs/nyrblog/2012/feb/15/contraception-con-men/).

The opposition to contraception has, as I said, no scriptural basis. Pope Pius XI once said that it did, citing in his encyclical Casti Connubii (1930) the condemnation of Onan for “spilling his seed” rather than impregnating a woman (Genesis 38.9). But later popes had to back off from this claim, since everyone agrees now that Onan’s sin was not carrying out his duty to give his brother an heir (Deuteronomy 25.5-6). Then the “natural law” was fallen back on, saying that the natural purpose of sex is procreation, and any use of it for other purposes is “unnatural.” But a primary natural purpose does not of necessity exclude ancillary advantages. The purpose of eating is to sustain life, but that does not make all eating that is not necessary to subsistence “unnatural.” One can eat, beyond the bare minimum to exist, to express fellowship, as one can have sex, beyond the begetting of a child with each act, to express love. [...]

When Paul reaffirmed the ban on birth control in Humanae Vitae (1968) there was massive rejection of it. Some left the church. Some just ignored it. Paradoxically, the document formed to convey the idea that papal teaching is inerrant just convinced most people that it can be loony. The priest-sociologist Andrew Greeley said that Humanae Vitae did more damage to the papacy than any of the so-called “liberal” movements in Catholicism. When Pius IX condemned democracy and modern science in his Syllabus of Errors (1864), the Catholic historian Lord Acton said that Catholics were too sensible to go crazy every time a pope does.

Papewaio

02-20-2012, 23:36

If it can be done it is natural. There is no thing that we can do that is outside the laws of the universe we reside in. Do as you please, please as you do. Just understand the difference between pleasure and happiness. Also put yourself in the others position.

As a straight male I would be grieved to be told I could not love my wife with the full support of the society that I participate in. I also try to think how I would feel about the backhanded ignoring of my humanity and my partners would feel. Am I not also an adult human endowed with the ability and responsibilty to make my own choices, is not the one I love likewise my equal. Why should we be singled out based on race or creed. Then I think about how we treat gay people and I know my society is not as encompassing and loving to all. Their rights denied are a stain on my rights, as it says that society can give and take on arbitrary reasons.

Whatever is possible is nature.