View Full Version : Proposition 8 declared unconstitutional
a completely inoffensive name
08-04-2010, 23:24
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2010/08/judge_vaughn_walker_hands_vict.html
Sorry hetero couples, now that the gays can marry, obviously your love means nothing anymore. Just take your marriage certificate and burn it since it's now just a piece of paper in the eyes of god now.
I'm betting the 9th will uphold this ruling on the appeal, and it will go to the Supremes. Which should be hilarious.
Do people really care that much whether homosexuals can marry?
Megas Methuselah
08-05-2010, 00:23
Do people really care that much whether homosexuals can marry?
I guess? I only care because the gays have been hitch-hiking up to Canada for their marriage. For the past few years, I had to hold my tongue when a couple guys would emerge from a church, with one partner suddenly lustily eyeing me up and the more testosterone-induced partner getting angry.
It sucks where I live, but this is how it is. Plus it's really hard gettin' ahead in life when you have dark skin.
Rhyfelwyr
08-05-2010, 00:45
If only having marriages for heterosexual couples is unconstitutional, I don't see how allowing marriages for homosexuals as well can suddenly make marriage constitutional.
OK so homosexuals were denied the right to marry in the past, but what about asexuals* or people who can't get married for various reasons? How are they being discriminated against any less than homosexuals were?
* Yes, people will point out that asexuals can marry, but that is akin to the old argument that heterosexual-only marriage laws didn't discriminate against homosexual men, since they could still marry a woman like any other man!
Crazed Rabbit
08-05-2010, 00:46
What a crock of BS.
Who needs legislatures or constitutions anymore? We can just have judges declare what's a right and what isn't.
It's ridiculous that this judge could declare a part of the California Constitution unconstitutional.
This isn't justice. It's a judge deciding based on what he believes the law should be, not what it is.
CR
a completely inoffensive name
08-05-2010, 00:58
What a crock of BS.
Who needs legislatures or constitutions anymore? We can just have judges declare what's a right and what isn't.
It's ridiculous that this judge could declare a part of the California Constitution unconstitutional.
This isn't justice. It's a judge deciding based on what he believes the law should be, not what it is.
CR
Yes, it is ridiculous that a Federal judge can declare part of a state constitution, unconstitutional to the Federal constitution as if it is subservient to it. Which it is, which is also why America has been going downhill for the past 145 years.
Homophobes can exit on the left, or come out of the closet.
I guess? I only care because the gays have been hitch-hiking up to Canada for their marriage. For the past few years, I had to hold my tongue when a couple guys would emerge from a church, with one partner suddenly lustily eyeing me up and the more testosterone-induced partner getting angry.
It sucks where I live, but this is how it is. Plus it's really hard gettin' ahead in life when you have dark skin.
Wow, you managed to mention your incredible sexiness and being discriminated against in one and the same post...
I don't know why people mind that much as long as you don't force priests to marry them.
Megas Methuselah
08-05-2010, 01:23
Wow, you managed to mention your incredible sexiness and being discriminated against in one and the same post...
Dat's how I roll.
I don't know why people mind that much as long as you don't force priests to marry them.
Yeah, I know. Who cares, provided it doesn't interfere in one's own personal life? Ok, yeah sure, it's akward when a gay guy hits on you, but life isn't perfect.
Do people really care that much whether homosexuals can marry?
Thread.
PanzerJaeger
08-05-2010, 04:16
I'm torn on this. While I agree with their sentiments, I share CR's concerns about their method. Prop 8 meant something - that a slight majority of Californians, buoyed specifically by blacks, are as ignorant as they are intolerant. Regardless, the people's will and the process should be respected.
Activists should be focused on changing hearts and minds, not winning court battles. Although I don't really blame them for using the courts as every other pressure group in America does, including the NRA.
I guess? I only care because the gays have been hitch-hiking up to Canada for their marriage. For the past few years, I had to hold my tongue when a couple guys would emerge from a church, with one partner suddenly lustily eyeing me up and the more testosterone-induced partner getting angry.
I didn't know you hung around church entrances so much. In any event, if you're that dead sexy to lure a newlywed away from his partner, you wouldn't think your skin color would be much of a problem. :shrug:
a completely inoffensive name
08-05-2010, 04:30
What a crock of BS.
Who needs legislatures or constitutions anymore? We can just have judges declare what's a right and what isn't.
It's ridiculous that this judge could declare a part of the California Constitution unconstitutional.
This isn't justice. It's a judge deciding based on what he believes the law should be, not what it is.
CR
I'm torn on this. While I agree with their sentiments, I share CR's concerns about their method. Prop 8 meant something - that a slight majority of Californians, buoyed specifically by blacks, are as ignorant as they are intolerant. Regardless, the people's will and the process should be respected.
Well if you two so strongly believe in the majority's right to determine and interpret the laws, promote a Constitutional amendment to dismantle the courts and our republic form of government and have every single issue and challenge be handled by a pure democratic vote.
When a single person decides that blacks can't eat in his restaurant because they are "physically inferior due to their breed" he is discriminating and it is wrong.
When the majority of a couple million voters decides that gays can't marry in their state because they are "morally inferior due to their defiance of 'my' God's laws", it is Democracy and it is right.
I'm torn on this. While I agree with their sentiments, I share CR's concerns about their method. Prop 8 meant something - that a slight majority of Californians, buoyed specifically by blacks, are as ignorant as they are intolerant. Regardless, the people's will and the process should be respected.
One of the many purposes of law is also to protect minorities from majorities, specifically the ignorant and intolerant ones.
One of the many purposes of law is also to protect minorities from majorities, specifically the ignorant and intolerant ones.
Indeed.
Best way is to drop a goodwin. If they wanted to bring back the holocaust via a vote majority, does it make it right?
Because that is basically the issue.
PanzerJaeger
08-05-2010, 05:05
Well if you two so strongly believe in the majority's right to determine and interpret the laws, promote a Constitutional amendment to dismantle the courts and our republic form of government and have every single issue and challenge be handled by a pure democratic vote.
What will you say if the 9th deems it constitutional, or more likely, the Supreme Court?
When a single person decides that blacks can't eat in his restaurant because they are "physically inferior due to their breed" he is discriminating and it is wrong.
It may be wrong but it shouldn't be illegal.
When the majority of a couple million voters decides that gays can't marry in their state because they are "morally inferior due to their defiance of 'my' God's laws", it is Democracy and it is right.
Discrimination is a wholly subjective concept. That is why sexual orientation didn't make it into the civil rights of the '60s. I believe that changing people's minds about the nature of homosexuality is important. That's really all I was saying.
Best way is to drop a goodwin. If they wanted to bring back the holocaust via a vote majority, does it make it right?
Because that is basically the issue.
No. It isn't. The issue is a legal delineation that grants people certain tax and hospital benefits.
Do people really care that much whether homosexuals can marry?
Changed my mind on it, but the people who care have arguments that can't be just dismissed.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-05-2010, 05:27
I think the threshold for constitutional ammedments in California is simply too low (50% +1). Requiring a 2/3s or even a 60% would make a clearer statement about the will of the people on a given constitutional issue. Constitutions address issues of personal rights and governance -- they should not be subject to the whims of a paper-thin majority. That too can be a form of tyranny.
Marriage, for me, is more than a civil union. It is a sacrament of my faith. As such, the term holds religious and spiritual connotations as well as denoting all of the civil rights and responsibilities. Though my church opposes same-sex marriage, I have stated before in these threads that I would have little or no objection to ALL persons declaring "civil union" status via the civil authorities and letting my church handle the sacrament of matrimony as it sees fit among its own.
I doubt that will be allowed to happen, however, since it appears clear that the purpose of the same-sex marriage movement is not just to establish unions that have all the normal rights and privileges thereunto appertaining, but to specifically co-opt the term "marriage." Should the churches change it to "matrimony," the same-sex marriage movement will become the "same-sex matrimony" movement. The goal is to FORCE acceptance of their lifestyle as normal, equal, and worthy -- reserving no terms, appelations, or concepts of any kind to same-sex unions and lifestyles.
I'd like to think that, were I gay, I would be more concerned over establishing equal treatment under the law and less concerned about trying to re-section the entire culture at a pace that it never accepts. On the other hand, it's easy to see how -- already part of a relatively rare minority -- I might become particularly adamant about attempting to force such change.
All in all, I wish we'd get some unquestionable research as to being gay being a "nature" issue and not "nurture." This would force some re-thinking that would probably be useful.
Constitutionally, the Constitution of the U.S. contains provisions noting that state costitutions cannot contravene the U.S. Constitution and that states should extend full faith and credit to those decisions made by another state pursuant to its Constitution. However, the power to issue licenses (including marriage) as well as to establish constitutional provisions regarding voter age etc. are reserved to the states. There are arguments to be made from either perspective.
PanzerJaeger
08-05-2010, 05:34
All in all, I wish we'd get some unquestionable research as to being gay being a "nature" issue and not "nurture." This would force some re-thinking that would probably be useful.
It really doesn't matter. What matters is that it is not a conscious choice, and if you've ever known a gay person you know that is the truth.
It really doesn't matter. What matters is that it is not a conscious choice, and if you've ever known a gay person you know that is the truth.
Not totally... it is more that "homosexual" feelings are natural in all of us. Deciding to follow through with our desires are our choice, having those desires exactly aren't.
You have male role-models and idols. There is 'Guy Love (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sxbROMQTjKg)'. There are males in the media and other places which you can sit there and go "They look attractive". Perhaps you are fond of a male posters posts on this forum, perhaps a giggly feeling of joy when Lemur, Strike for the South, etc decide to post? Even on the basic level, loving your father is loving a man, and having strong emotions towards a male.
Having such feelings doesn't mean you want to grab the nearest pot of vasaline. It is just natural feelings that we all have.
It doesn't actually need to be directed towards members of a sex. There are pets, objections and random things. Even for those who actually have sexual behaviours in the forms of paraphillia, such as sexual attractions to objects. Does this mean that having a foot fetish means you have a sexual attraction to feet gene?
Ultimately, we all have preferences, they are shaped through our life based on experiences and emotions, and situation. Why do some people prefer chocolate to coffee, and others prefer coffee to chocolate? Why can some people not stand them at all? These are all things which shape our preferences and end up resulting in who we are. Are we Republican or Democrat based on genes? Is the strong distaste for the other because of genetic factors?
If anything, the churches strict code for male and female, and on top of that, only one male with one female, for life, is a very adnormal and unnatural system. It is far more natural to be sexually curious and interest in multiple partners, then never to have intercourse untill you courted this one person for a long period of time, till you decide to 'tie the knot'.
If you want to be really blunt and honest about this entire issue, you can simply get rid of 'Marriage' all together. All it is, is glorified social enginneering in a form of a tax cut. If you keep 'marriage' to the churches, and it is up to the church itself if two people are now marriaged before the lord, it is their choices. It doesn't have to have any relationship to the law of the land itself. For issues such as Wills and Children, you simply do what we do anyway, with birth certificates and wills, which are themselves a contract stating wishes or having responsibility of a child.
tl;dr, only thing unnatural in this thread is the act of marriage itself, and especially the legal enforcement of social enginneering, while it should be left alone to the churches themselves, if the two people before them are 'marriage before the lord' or not.
( "homosexual" in the quotes means attraction to a male member of society [or female if you are female], it doesn't mean it is a sexual one. )
I think the threshold for constitutional ammedments in California is simply too low (50% +1). Requiring a 2/3s or even a 60% would make a clearer statement about the will of the people on a given constitutional issue. Constitutions address issues of personal rights and governance -- they should not be subject to the whims of a paper-thin majority. That too can be a form of tyranny.
Marriage, for me, is more than a civil union. It is a sacrament of my faith. As such, the term holds religious and spiritual connotations as well as denoting all of the civil rights and responsibilities. Though my church opposes same-sex marriage, I have stated before in these threads that I would have little or no objection to ALL persons declaring "civil union" status via the civil authorities and letting my church handle the sacrament of matrimony as it sees fit among its own.
I doubt that will be allowed to happen, however, since it appears clear that the purpose of the same-sex marriage movement is not just to establish unions that have all the normal rights and privileges thereunto appertaining, but to specifically co-opt the term "marriage." Should the churches change it to "matrimony," the same-sex marriage movement will become the "same-sex matrimony" movement. The goal is to FORCE acceptance of their lifestyle as normal, equal, and worthy -- reserving no terms, appelations, or concepts of any kind to same-sex unions and lifestyles.
I'd like to think that, were I gay, I would be more concerned over establishing equal treatment under the law and less concerned about trying to re-section the entire culture at a pace that it never accepts. On the other hand, it's easy to see how -- already part of a relatively rare minority -- I might become particularly adamant about attempting to force such change.
All in all, I wish we'd get some unquestionable research as to being gay being a "nature" issue and not "nurture." This would force some re-thinking that would probably be useful.
Constitutionally, the Constitution of the U.S. contains provisions noting that state costitutions cannot contravene the U.S. Constitution and that states should extend full faith and credit to those decisions made by another state pursuant to its Constitution. However, the power to issue licenses (including marriage) as well as to establish constitutional provisions regarding voter age etc. are reserved to the states. There are arguments to be made from either perspective.
I most respectfully do not agree. I do not see this as part of a "homosexual agenda" to have other's lifestyle's socially accepted. Perhaps it is a case of a few ruining it for the many, but my overall perceptions and in talking to my gay and lesbian friends gets me the same response, every time. It's about being able to have the same rights and privileges under the law for things such as inheritance, family matters, healthcare, and the myriad other things that we all take for granted. And no, these are not things that can be easily fixed with available legal instruments, nor should they in my opinion when the law should treat all equally.
As for the religious aspects, I could give less than a crap. There's a reason for separation of church and state. Withholding the same right to a "civil union" is wrong. How the churches deal with this, I don't give a hoot, nor is that a legal or civil matter at all and the religious institutions should be free to view it however they please.
Megas Methuselah
08-05-2010, 06:50
Is Beskar tryna hit on me?
Is Beskar tryna hit on me?
Depends on if you are secretly Pocahontas, or not.
Megas Methuselah
08-05-2010, 06:58
Big Sav has a song called "Pocahontas."
Crazed Rabbit
08-05-2010, 07:41
One part of the judge's ruling was that gender is no longer a defining part of marriage.
What makes him better able to decide that then the millions of voters who voted to pass prop 8?
CR
a completely inoffensive name
08-05-2010, 07:54
I think the threshold for constitutional ammedments in California is simply too low (50% +1). Requiring a 2/3s or even a 60% would make a clearer statement about the will of the people on a given constitutional issue. Constitutions address issues of personal rights and governance -- they should not be subject to the whims of a paper-thin majority. That too can be a form of tyranny.
Marriage, for me, is more than a civil union. It is a sacrament of my faith. As such, the term holds religious and spiritual connotations as well as denoting all of the civil rights and responsibilities. Though my church opposes same-sex marriage, I have stated before in these threads that I would have little or no objection to ALL persons declaring "civil union" status via the civil authorities and letting my church handle the sacrament of matrimony as it sees fit among its own.
I doubt that will be allowed to happen, however, since it appears clear that the purpose of the same-sex marriage movement is not just to establish unions that have all the normal rights and privileges thereunto appertaining, but to specifically co-opt the term "marriage." Should the churches change it to "matrimony," the same-sex marriage movement will become the "same-sex matrimony" movement. The goal is to FORCE acceptance of their lifestyle as normal, equal, and worthy -- reserving no terms, appelations, or concepts of any kind to same-sex unions and lifestyles.
I'd like to think that, were I gay, I would be more concerned over establishing equal treatment under the law and less concerned about trying to re-section the entire culture at a pace that it never accepts. On the other hand, it's easy to see how -- already part of a relatively rare minority -- I might become particularly adamant about attempting to force such change.
All in all, I wish we'd get some unquestionable research as to being gay being a "nature" issue and not "nurture." This would force some re-thinking that would probably be useful.
Constitutionally, the Constitution of the U.S. contains provisions noting that state costitutions cannot contravene the U.S. Constitution and that states should extend full faith and credit to those decisions made by another state pursuant to its Constitution. However, the power to issue licenses (including marriage) as well as to establish constitutional provisions regarding voter age etc. are reserved to the states. There are arguments to be made from either perspective.
You are absolutely 100% correct on your first paragraph. I have nothing else to say about that.
You second paragraph though bothers me. Just because you want a particular service to not be serviced to a particular group, no matter what significance such service has to you doesn't mean it is allowed. Treat marriage as we do with businesses and other services, if it's something you can't help, don't discriminate if it is, then change your attitude or GTFO. Homosexuality is not something you can change any more then skin color. Also by having their own "separate but equal" civil union while you have your marriage, you are repeating history all over again.
The purpose of the same-sex marriage movement has been to be treated the same as heterosexuals in America, including having access to the same services under the same name. Again, having "hetero marriages" and "homo civil unions" is not different then "white drinking fountains" and "black garden hoses" you can say that both the fountain and garden hose provide the same water but you can't say that this is how a society based upon equality and unlimited opportunity is structured.
Your third paragraph puzzles me. The point of repealing Prop 8 is to establish equal treatment under the law, that was the main point brought by the judge, that the proposition violated the "Equal Protection" clause. They are not attempting to force society accept them, they are forcing government to accept them under the law as equals and the bigots who think differently are attempting to force the government to not accept them.
Gay is a nature thing, not a nurture thing. I know this, every gay knows this.
The power/ability to reject marriage licenses from other states is a violation of the Full Faith Clause and it would certainly be struck down by the Supreme Court or any Federal judge if it were ever challenged. The Constitution makes no clause giving marriage licenses an exception to the rule.
It really doesn't matter. What matters is that it is not a conscious choice, and if you've ever known a gay person you know that is the truth.
PJ is absolutely right here. Wait, did I just say that?
a completely inoffensive name
08-05-2010, 08:00
One part of the judge's ruling was that gender is no longer a defining part of marriage.
What makes him better able to decide that then the millions of voters who voted to pass prop 8?
CR
Probably being qualified as an impartial Judge and having access to/utilizing during his deliberations sociology texts/doctorates detailing the changes in American society since the 1960s makes him a better shall we say...judge on the role of genders in America then 7 million Christians (not even close a majority of Californians who number around 37 million) shouting "JESUS SAYS MAN AND WOMAN, THAT'S HOW IT IS!"
I'd like to think that, were I gay, I would be more concerned over establishing equal treatment under the law and less concerned about trying to re-section the entire culture at a pace that it never accepts.
Agreed, they shouldn't want it in the first place. I still feel that way, it's intrusive. But society does keep up so I am no longer against it.
rory_20_uk
08-05-2010, 10:35
I think the threshold for constitutional ammedments in California is simply too low (50% +1). Requiring a 2/3s or even a 60% would make a clearer statement about the will of the people on a given constitutional issue. Constitutions address issues of personal rights and governance -- they should not be subject to the whims of a paper-thin majority. That too can be a form of tyranny.
Marriage, for me, is more than a civil union. It is a sacrament of my faith. As such, the term holds religious and spiritual connotations as well as denoting all of the civil rights and responsibilities. Though my church opposes same-sex marriage, I have stated before in these threads that I would have little or no objection to ALL persons declaring "civil union" status via the civil authorities and letting my church handle the sacrament of matrimony as it sees fit among its own.
I doubt that will be allowed to happen, however, since it appears clear that the purpose of the same-sex marriage movement is not just to establish unions that have all the normal rights and privileges thereunto appertaining, but to specifically co-opt the term "marriage." Should the churches change it to "matrimony," the same-sex marriage movement will become the "same-sex matrimony" movement. The goal is to FORCE acceptance of their lifestyle as normal, equal, and worthy -- reserving no terms, appelations, or concepts of any kind to same-sex unions and lifestyles.
I'd like to think that, were I gay, I would be more concerned over establishing equal treatment under the law and less concerned about trying to re-section the entire culture at a pace that it never accepts. On the other hand, it's easy to see how -- already part of a relatively rare minority -- I might become particularly adamant about attempting to force such change.
All in all, I wish we'd get some unquestionable research as to being gay being a "nature" issue and not "nurture." This would force some re-thinking that would probably be useful.
One church should not be there to enforce its narrow views on everyone else. most churches probably don't see other marriages as binding - so what? I hope we're above letting such nonsense rule our societies.
Society never accepts any change to start with. If we did change as slow as society could deal with South USA would be either owning slaves or certainly having secregation. Being against change always is fine for those with what they want already.
I can't cite, but I'm sure I've read research that shows animals of many different types act "gay" - male animals trying to mount others etc. BUT I'm sure it'd be argued that this eas down to Nurture - unnatural stresses in the group or somesuch.
I agree with the sentiment that monogamy and marriage is probably a more unnatural state than being gay, and has been enforced over the years to the detriment of millions of women, children and men who have put up with unfulfilling, loveless and often violent relationships as the alternative was either religiously sanctioned exile or even death.
~:smoking:
I think this is a government decision, if the government wants to allow them to get tax benefits and use the same family name, then it can tell its servants to act accordingly, and give them legal marriage status.
If they do however want to get a church marriage from a priest who, according to his religious beliefs, thinks that homosexuality is a sin and does not want to marry them, then it becomes ridiculous(I think we discussed such a case here a few years ago).
Rhyfelwyr
08-05-2010, 12:00
If you want to be really blunt and honest about this entire issue, you can simply get rid of 'Marriage' all together. All it is, is glorified social enginneering in a form of a tax cut. If you keep 'marriage' to the churches, and it is up to the church itself if two people are now marriaged before the lord, it is their choices. It doesn't have to have any relationship to the law of the land itself. For issues such as Wills and Children, you simply do what we do anyway, with birth certificates and wills, which are themselves a contract stating wishes or having responsibility of a child.
This would be the perfect solution, I don't know why they won't go through with it already. The liberal folk will have their equal treatment, and the religious right-wingers will have less government involvement in people's private lives. I've noticed on some evangelical boards recently that a lot of people have been questioning whether they should even get a government recognised marriage, as opposed to just having one through their church, because they are opposed to the idea of the government playing any sort of role in social engineering.
I doubt that will be allowed to happen, however, since it appears clear that the purpose of the same-sex marriage movement is not just to establish unions that have all the normal rights and privileges thereunto appertaining, but to specifically co-opt the term "marriage." Should the churches change it to "matrimony," the same-sex marriage movement will become the "same-sex matrimony" movement. The goal is to FORCE acceptance of their lifestyle as normal, equal, and worthy -- reserving no terms, appelations, or concepts of any kind to same-sex unions and lifestyles.
Exactly. Although I do not think this moralistic crusade being led by the liberal left is really the fault of homosexuals themselves. When I've read about things like churches beginning to allow gay marriage, the homosexual rights groups might say they are happy about it, but they never drive the change themselves.
The people who are really working an agenda are the liberal left. It's like Fragony says with the Muslims, its not the Muslims themselves that drive all the pc nonsense and try to ban Christmas (or things to that effect, I don't want to debate that one again!), it's always the liberal left. Well it's the same with homosexauls. The leftists need a cause, and gay rights will do nicely, and then they will poke their nose into everyone's business until they achieve their righteous cause. The sort of people that do this are the same sort that think skin-whitening creams in India are racist.
The difference between these leftists-with-a-cause, and actual gay people campaigning for rights, is that while the latter just want legal equality, the leftists have to make sure everyone agrees with them, because being morally opposed to something that other people do is INTOLERANT and not acceptable these days apparently. These people won't rest until every church is legally bound to allow gay marriage, and every school teaches kids that not liking homosexuality is morally wrong.
And yes you will all say I am paranoid, but this will happen. Starting with the established churches here in the UK. They will hit the Anglican Church first, especially if the Anglo-Catholics split, followed by the Church of Scotland. Should probably happen within the next decade.
You do understand that we will have to get married now
The Celtic Viking
08-05-2010, 13:39
Yes, Rhyfelwyr. It isn't that I care about equality. It isn't that I can actually care about righting wrongs even when I'm not the wronged party. It's not that I honestly think that discrimination based on sexual preferences is just as wrong as discrimination based on skin colour... it's that I have a liberal agenda. (Cue spooky music.) :rolleyes:
If you ask me, the ones who are "poking their noses into other people's business" are the bigots who support prop 8. They are the ones who look into what other people do in their own bedrooms, and think that they can decide that if they don't like what they see, they have the right to strip them of their equal rights.
I'm sorry, but... no. That plane has stalled, and it's just a matter of time before it completely crashes too. In time homosexuality in general and homosexual marriage in particular will be completely accepted, and then christians will start claiming they were the ones fighting for it. Just like they now claim they were the ones for the emancipation, or how they were the ones for equal rights for black people, or how they were the ones for women's rights, and any other such social issue, when in reality they were always the chief enemy of all of them.
Who is kicking in who's door, don't have to make a point out of marriage, leave that to the people who value these traditions.
This would be the perfect solution, I don't know why they won't go through with it already. The liberal folk will have their equal treatment, and the religious right-wingers will have less government involvement in people's private lives. I've noticed on some evangelical boards recently that a lot of people have been questioning whether they should even get a government recognised marriage, as opposed to just having one through their church, because they are opposed to the idea of the government playing any sort of role in social engineering.
Indeed. Whatever the church, may it be Mormons, Hindu, Muslim, Fundamentalist, they decide who marries what. So if a church doesn't recognise another churches marriage of homosexuals, then that is up to them, however, if Christian Homosexuals wanted to get and married and they did, allow a christian group who are homosexual friendly to do it.
I really dislike this enforced social enginneering, David Cameron is doing it too, by wanting to give married couples a bigger 'tax break' so they 'stay together'. Kind of depressing when couples stay together in a loveless marriage, simply because they get a tax break. No one benefits from it.
Who is kicking in who's door, don't have to make a point out of marriage, leave that to the people who value these traditions.
Not really, since there are many establishments which don't stop gay marriage. This isn't about forcing a church who doesn't allow gay marriage, to do gay marriages, this is about allowing a church who believes in gay marriage to do gay marriages.
As I said, remove the legal status of marriages and the 'government social enginneering' and just allow the churches to decide for themselves. Seperate that State from those Churches.
The Celtic Viking
08-05-2010, 14:16
Who is kicking in who's door, don't have to make a point out of marriage, leave that to the people who value these traditions.
Is this in response to my post? Because... I have no idea what you're talking about.
rory_20_uk
08-05-2010, 14:50
Seperate that State from those Churches.
Oh, the irony...
~:smoking:
Oh, the irony...
~:smoking:
I thought some people might like that. :wink:
a completely inoffensive name
08-05-2010, 22:42
I was going to make a reply, but TCV beat me to it, saying it better then I could anyway.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-05-2010, 23:20
I find the current fashion for "accepting" homosexuality somewhat amusing, it's been 40 odd years now and the wheels are starting to come off the movement a bit. Mainstream Christianity has shown it isn't willing to budge beyond a certain point (In America Anglicanism isn't mainstream, it splits between right and left) and increasingly there is an awareness that homosexual relationships simply do not obey the same rules as heterosexual ones.
In view of that, I expect the movement for homosexual "marriage" to stall in ten years, and it will never be accepted by the majority of religious people now opposed to it.
Crucially, being in a homosexual relationship is something you do, not something you are, like "being" Black is. On the other hand, "being" homosexual as a nature is something you are.
Dean Jeffrey Johns has written a book on how homosexual and heterosexual relationships are often not of the same value, and how he feels they should be. He is somewhat of a lone voice at the moment though.
Rhyfelwyr
08-05-2010, 23:21
Yes, Rhyfelwyr. It isn't that I care about equality. It isn't that I can actually care about righting wrongs even when I'm not the wronged party. It's not that I honestly think that discrimination based on sexual preferences is just as wrong as discrimination based on skin colour... it's that I have a liberal agenda. (Cue spooky music.) :rolleyes:
Maybe you don't personally, but a lot of people do. There are people who seriously argue for forcing churches to perform gay marriages (usually more in the UK than US, since due to the fact we have established churches, it could be said to be a form of state-sanctioned discrimination).
If you ask me, the ones who are "poking their noses into other people's business" are the bigots who support prop 8. They are the ones who look into what other people do in their own bedrooms, and think that they can decide that if they don't like what they see, they have the right to strip them of their equal rights.
Getting a tax-break for marriage is a priviledge, or a little bonus, not a right. As I said earlier, if you want to go the route of arguing that getting this a state-recognised marriage is a basic right (and I don't see how it is), even if you extend it to homosexuals, what about asexuals or other people that won't/can't get married? They are in the exact same situation homosexuals have been in in California until recently.
I'm sorry, but... no. That plane has stalled, and it's just a matter of time before it completely crashes too. In time homosexuality in general and homosexual marriage in particular will be completely accepted, and then christians will start claiming they were the ones fighting for it. Just like they now claim they were the ones for the emancipation, or how they were the ones for equal rights for black people, or how they were the ones for women's rights, and any other such social issue, when in reality they were always the chief enemy of all of them.
It is hard to tell how exactly social values progress, the opposition I see to homosexuality here is usually not even on religious grounds.
Although I agree with what you say about Christians claiming all these breakthrought like the abolition of slavery for themselves, it is ridiculous. I wouldn't say they were their chief enemy either though, tbh religious views tend to express the views of the society they find themselves in, regardless of what the religion itself teaches. That is what Dawkins says in his God Delusion anyway, and I'm inclined to agree with him.
But yes, I imagine liberal Christians will in the future take credit for the progress of the gay rights movement, saying they fought for it to spread the loving example of Jesus or something like that. But I'm not one of them, I'm not going to bs you. I am secular though, and I don't like people to be discriminated against - so ban marriage outright, it's the only solution.
PanzerJaeger
08-06-2010, 00:04
I find the current fashion for "accepting" homosexuality somewhat amusing, it's been 40 odd years now and the wheels are starting to come off the movement a bit. Mainstream Christianity has shown it isn't willing to budge beyond a certain point (In America Anglicanism isn't mainstream, it splits between right and left) and increasingly there is an awareness that homosexual relationships simply do not obey the same rules as heterosexual ones.
In view of that, I expect the movement for homosexual "marriage" to stall in ten years, and it will never be accepted by the majority of religious people now opposed to it.
Interesting. I percieve things completely differently. Acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual marriage seems to be ascendent while religious influence - not just pertaining to this issue but all aspects of life - is declining rapidly.
Just out of curiousity, can you explain the differences you described between the rules in hetero and homo relationships?
The Celtic Viking
08-06-2010, 00:25
Getting a tax-break for marriage is a priviledge, or a little bonus, not a right. As I said earlier, if you want to go the route of arguing that getting this a state-recognised marriage is a basic right (and I don't see how it is), what about asexuals or other people that won't/can't get married? They are in the exact same situation homosexuals have been in in California until recently.
Let me quote the US Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, 1967:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.
Emphasis added.
what about asexuals or other people that won't/can't get married?
If they won't get married, that implies that they have chosen not to. I don't think you can interpret anything I've ever said to mean that I want to force people to get married...
As for asexuals not being able to, why? I've never heard of any law forbidding them from doing it - if so, I would be against that too for the very same reason. I don't see your point.
It is hard to tell how exactly social values progress, the opposition I see to homosexuality here is usually not even on religious grounds.
Perhaps not here on this forum (I wouldn't know since I hardly spend any time here anyway), but outside I must say it is almost exclusively on religious grounds.
The reason why I'm so sure that this will change too is that, well, take a look at the polls. I don't have them at hand, but the percentage of people among the younger generations who accept homosexuality is higher than that of the gen pop. It's been like that for a long, long time now. It's just how society rolls.
Although I agree with what you say about Christians claiming all these breakthrought like the abolition of slavery for themselves, it is ridiculous. (...) But yes, I imagine liberal Christians will in the future take credit for the progress of the gay rights movement, saying they fought for it to spread the loving example of Jesus or something like that. But I'm not one of them, I'm not going to bs you.
I appreciate that. ~:)
tbh religious views tend to express the views of the society they find themselves in, regardless of what the religion itself teaches. That is what Dawkins says in his God Delusion anyway, and I'm inclined to agree with him.
Yes, but it is exactly this that usually puts religion as the opponent to change. When the change starts to happen, the previously held views are challenged - but those are supposed to be the views of god... and believing that god agrees with you has in my experience never been a sign of a willingness to change your mind.
I am secular though, and I don't like people to be discriminated against - so ban marriage outright, it's the only solution.
That is a solution, though allowing everyone to marry is probably a better one. ~;)
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-06-2010, 00:31
Interesting. I percieve things completely differently. Acceptance of homosexuality and homosexual marriage seems to be ascendent while religious influence - not just pertaining to this issue but all aspects of life - is declining rapidly.
Just out of curiousity, can you explain the differences you described between the rules in hetero and homo relationships?
Britian has had a severely depressed religious conciousness since WWII, but the current 20-somethings are much more likely to be Christian, devout, confident, and Evangelical. This is not so much a question of American importation or indiginous evangelism and the young themselves rejecting the current secular moral-relativistic view in increasing numbers.
The homosexual "rights" movement is based on the claim that there is no substantive difference between different sexual relationships, and it has flourished under a cultural-relativistic outlook promoted by university-educated teachers (who are often also very left wing). Society itself is not at all convinced and recent research has started to suggest that a male/male relationship in particular is different to a male/female one. There was a recent study in Australia that showed the most sucessful "Gay" relationshps were "open", that is to say sexually unfaithful in the traditional sense.
Personally, I don't find this at all surprising. I suspect that the monogomy in heterosexual relationships is driven by the female impulse to conserve resources more than the male desire to raise only his own offspring.
The point is, though, marriage was an institution created for a man and a woman and their subsequent children. It has nothing to do with your sexuality, just how you manage your sexual arrangements.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-06-2010, 00:35
As for asexuals not being able to, why? I've never heard of any law forbidding them from doing it - if so, I would be against that too for the very same reason. I don't see your point..
What about two co-dependant asexuals who want their non-sexual, mutually supportive, relationship to have the same legal protection as a sexual one? Should they be forced to have sex in order to consumate their "marriage"?
That seems just as much an infringement, and a potentially more crual one, than only having "Civil Partnerships" for homosexuals.
The Celtic Viking
08-06-2010, 00:41
What about two co-dependant asexuals who want their non-sexual, mutually supportive, relationship to have the same legal protection as a sexual one? Should they be forced to have sex in order to consumate their "marriage"?
Err... no? Why would you think I'd want that? :inquisitive:
Britian has had a severely depressed religious conciousness since WWII, but the current 20-somethings are much more likely to be Christian, devout, confident, and Evangelical. This is not so much a question of American importation or indiginous evangelism and the young themselves rejecting the current secular moral-relativistic view in increasing numbers.
Sorry to burst your bubble, it might be in your Christian circles, but I know many churches who lack any "youth" and over the last decade or though, simply disappeared.
There was a church near us which had a massive youth segment, and we are talking about at least a 100 under-18s. A decade or so later, it has been reduced to 20-30ish, and it isn't because they are aging and going up in the church either, they have all left.
When I was at my Nephews baptism the other day, the priest spoke about how no one even does baptisms anymore, and said about a decade ago, 8 in 10 children were baptised, now it is 1 in 10.
Most of this isn't the raise of atheism and agnosticism though. It is the raise of apathy and "cannot be bothered".
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-06-2010, 00:51
Sorry to burst your bubble, it might be in your Christian circles, but I know many churches who lack any "youth" and over the last decade or though, simply disappeared.
There was a church near us which had a massive youth segment, and we are talking about at least a 100 under-18s. A decade or so later, it has been reduced to 20-30ish, and it isn't because they are aging and going up in the church either, they have all left.
When I was at my Nephews baptism the other day, the priest spoke about how no one even does baptisms anymore, and said about a decade ago, 8 in 10 children were baptised, now it is 1 in 10.
Most of this isn't the raise of atheism and agnosticism though. It is the raise of apathy and "cannot be bothered".
That's the established Church (like me), you'll find that the independant evangelical churches are growing quite fast now. However, this growth is from a low base, and it is unlikely that Christianity will become "dominant" again in the near future.
Of course, you also have the latently Christian who turn to the Church in times of stress or bereavement - there are still a very large number of them.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-06-2010, 00:52
Err... no? Why would you think I'd want that? :inquisitive:
So what do they get, then?
"Marriage" or something else?
Rhyfelwyr
08-06-2010, 00:58
Let me quote the US Supreme Court in Loving v. Virginia, 1967:
I have to disagree with that ruling then. While I appreciate it is very relevant to the OP, I have been talking about the idea of homosexual marriage more in general, not specifically for California.
If they won't get married, that implies that they have chosen not to. I don't think you can interpret anything I've ever said to mean that I want to force people to get married...
As for asexuals not being able to, why? I've never heard of any law forbidding them from doing it - if so, I would be against that too for the very same reason. I don't see your point..
I never took you as saying people should be forced to marry, my point is a minority will be denied what is being termed a 'right' for the majority.
Asexuals probably won't want to marry because of their natural condition, and so saying they can still marry like anyone else is akin to saying that heterosexual-only marriages don't discriminate against homosexual men, since they can still marry women.
Perhaps not here on this forum (I wouldn't know since I hardly spend any time here anyway), but outside I must say it is almost exclusively on religious grounds. The reason why I'm so sure is that, well, take a look at the polls. I don't have them at hand, but the percentage of people among the younger generations who accept homosexuality is higher than that of the gen pop. It's just how society rolls.
I realise it may be different in the USA and Sweden, but here the homophobia I have seen has been almost exclusively from non religious, working class people. I've said in the past there is a class element to it, middle-class people tend to be much more liberal. Working class people are also much more likely to be sectarian, racist etc.
Also, I would say young people tend to be more polarised on these things. Older people tend to be maybe conservative and traditionalist, but the young people are either very liberal or pretty radical/extreme in their 'bigotry'. For homophobia, I know some Evangelicals my age that make me look like a beacon of tolerance for understanding. For racism, a lot of BNP supporters are young working-class people. For sectarianism, look at the rise in Scotland in recent years of the Orange Order or groups like Republican Sinn Fein, it's all young people.
We seem to be living in an increasingly polarised world.
Yes, but it is exactly this that usually puts religion as the opponent to change. When the change starts to happen, the previously held views are challenged - but those are supposed to be the views of god... and believing that god agrees with you has in my experience never been a sign of a willingness to change your mind.
This assumes that the more committed religious folk have been happy with the status quo, and the fact is they rarely have been throughout history. Almost all religious uprisings have been radical in their political outlook as opposed to conservative. If you think about it, there's nothing conservative about the religious nuts in the USA, it's not like the country has ever been a theocracy.
That is a solution, though allowing everyone to marry is probably a better one. ~;)
This presumes everyone would want to marry another individual, and yet those that don't will always be denied the state-granted privileges of the majority. Asexuals probably won't want to marry because of their inherent nature, so to offer privileges for marriage is surely to discriminate against these people?
The Celtic Viking
08-06-2010, 01:12
So what do they get, then?
"Marriage" or something else?
They get marriage. I don't really see what you're getting at. Having sex is not a requirement for it.
Rhyfelwyr
08-06-2010, 01:13
Sorry to burst your bubble, it might be in your Christian circles, but I know many churches who lack any "youth" and over the last decade or though, simply disappeared.
There was a church near us which had a massive youth segment, and we are talking about at least a 100 under-18s. A decade or so later, it has been reduced to 20-30ish, and it isn't because they are aging and going up in the church either, they have all left.
When I was at my Nephews baptism the other day, the priest spoke about how no one even does baptisms anymore, and said about a decade ago, 8 in 10 children were baptised, now it is 1 in 10.
Most of this isn't the raise of atheism and agnosticism though. It is the raise of apathy and "cannot be bothered".
I don't mean to re-hash what PVC said in reply to this, but he is right in saying that while established churches have declined, there has been significant growth in smaller, more fundamentalist, and I dare say extreme churches. A lot of local Baptist/Brethren churches near me are full of young people, in my moments of disdain with the Church of Scotland I often feel like joining them.
I think the failure of the established churches to offer anything is what has caused this polarisation, with people either turning agnostic, or turning to more fundemantalist churches. People don't grow up from a young age with the spiritual leadership of the church anymore. We don't have that 'innoculation' against religion anymore which Dawkins talked of, with the quaint old country vicar etc. Young people aren't exposed to their influence anymore by the old traditional upbringing of trailing along to church every Sunday followed by Sunday school after the service.
But people do seem to have some inherent affinity for religion, so when people look for it, they often end up with less appeasing/liberal/whatever sources than the old eccentric country vicar. When I converted, the first sources I turned to were the Protestant Reformers, eventually settling with Calvinism and reading many Puritan theologians. My other 'influences' come from my relatives in Northern Ireland, who send religious tracks entitled 'No Surrender' that would get me arrested if I tried to hand them out on the streets of Glasgow.
The same has happened in the Muslim community. I remember a documentary recently where second generation immigrants lack the strong religious network their parents had, so they turn to the more extreme forms of Islam like Wahhabism, because they never had a moderating influence when they converted. There's a phenomenon where people in their late teens do it but then their fanaticism wears off, they called it 'Salafist burnout' IIRC.
Megas Methuselah
08-06-2010, 01:33
There's a phenomenon where people in their late teens do it but then their fanaticism wears off, they called it 'Salafist burnout' IIRC.
Yeah, I noticed a lot of people who go gospel often burn out. This usually happens to be people who weren't raised with religion but, as you said, converted of their own accord as young adults.
The Celtic Viking
08-06-2010, 01:34
I have to disagree with that ruling then. While I appreciate it is very relevant to the OP, I have been talking about the idea of homosexual marriage more in general, not specifically for California.
Fair enough, but you still have to justify why homosexuals shouldn't be treated as equal under the law as heterosexuals, though.
I never took you as saying people should be forced to marry, my point is a minority will be denied what is being termed a 'right' for the majority.
If you choose not to marry as an asexual you are not being denied a right anymore than a heterosexual who chooses not to marry is (I myself am one of the latter, FWIW). It's like saying someone doesn't have the right to have sex because he chooses to be abstinent. The right is there, they're just choosing not to use it.
Asexuals probably won't want to marry because of their natural condition, and so saying they can still marry like anyone else is akin to saying that heterosexual-only marriages don't discriminate against homosexual men, since they can still marry women.
No, it's not the same thing, or even like it. I am saying that asexuals have the right (or at the very least, should have the right) to marry anyone they want (provided the other party/ies agrees, of course ~;p). That is not the same thing as saying that homosexuals can marry, but only with someone we approve of.
This presumes everyone would want to marry another individual, and yet those that don't will always be denied the state-granted privileges of the majority. Asexuals probably won't want to marry because of their inherent nature, so to offer privileges for marriage is surely to discriminate against these people?
No. If the only reason you don't get married is because you choose not to, then you are not being discriminated against if someone else does. They can get married with whoever they want and then not have sex if they want. Choosing not to use your right, for whatever reason, doesn't mean that you're being discriminated against if someone else does.
--------
I don't want to go into this any further since it's a little off topic (my fault), but:
it's not like the country has ever been a theocracy.
Cue the "Americuh is a christian nation!!!" nutjobs. ~;)
They get marriage. I don't really see what you're getting at. Having sex is not a requirement for it.
Some people care about marriage, a union between a man and a woman, why do gays demand something they don't really care about in the first place? Marriage is also a promise of bloodline, ah well just adopt a child it's almost real! I am not against it but I do question their motivations, they want what they can't have and demand we all act as if they do. Nothing was ever born out of an anus.
The Celtic Viking
08-06-2010, 01:56
Some people care about marriage, a union between a man and a woman, why do gays demand something they don't really care about in the first place?
Oh, I don't know... perhaps because they obviously do care about it? Perhaps because marriage gives heterosexual couples rights that are blocked to homosexuals? It couldn't be anything like that? :inquisitive:
Why would you say a marriage is "between a man and a woman", anyway? It might be that it's the typical marriage, but that doesn't mean that it should be the only sort of marriage. Allowing homosexuals to marry doesn't devalue heterosexual marriages in any way.
Marriage is also a promise of bloodline, ah well just adopt a child it's almost real! I am not against it but I do question their motivations, they want what they can't have and demand we all act as if they do. Nothing was ever born out of an anus.
So if a heterosexual couple is sterile, or for whatever other reason can't make babies, they shouldn't be allowed to marry? If a heterosexual couple doesn't want to have kids, they shouldn't be allowed to marry?
So if a heterosexual couple is sterile, or for whatever other reason can't make babies, they shouldn't be allowed to marry? If a heterosexual couple doesn't want to have kids, they shouldn't be allowed to marry?
What does it matter? You can demand others to say that a tomatoe is really blue but it remains red. Gay marriage is demanding from others to pretend, and I don't like that. Couldn't care less about gay marriage itself it's all fine with me, but why they want it is beyond me.
Rhyfelwyr
08-06-2010, 02:27
Fair enough, but you still have to justify why homosexuals shouldn't be treated as equal under the law as heterosexuals, though.
As I said I think they should be equal, by scrapping marriage. If you just expand marriage, I think it leaves the problems with asexuals etc as below...
Stuff about asexuals
I know you are saying asexuals can technically marry, but my point is that they are far less likely to want to marry because of a condition they are probably born with. And their reluctance to marry will mean they miss out on all these state-granted privileges being given to heterosexual/homosexual couples. That's discrimination.
Yes legally speaking they can marry, just as homosexual men could marry women in the past... the point is they won't want to.
Yeah, I noticed a lot of people who go gospel often burn out. This usually happens to be people who weren't raised with religion but, as you said, converted of their own accord as young adults.
Haha yeah I noticed the parallel with myself, but I've never heard of a Calvinist burnout.
I don't see what the church has to do with getting married. If any two people want to get married in the eyes of the law then let them, if the church doesn't want to let a specific couple marry then who cares what they do. A priest doesn't have to marry a specific heterosexual couple if he doesn't want to, but that couple could still get a legal marriage. Why should any other couple be any different?
a completely inoffensive name
08-06-2010, 05:19
In case none of you anti-Prop 8/anti-gay marriage have done so here (link) (http://www.sfgate.com/chronicle/acrobat/2010/08/04/Prop-8-Ruling-FINAL.pdf) is a pdf of the actual decision, including the judges written opinions on the matter.
Here are few portions from the PDF that will serve as sufficient to show the point of why Prop 8 is wrong:
"19. Marriage in the United States has always been a civil matter.
Civil authorities may permit religious leaders to solemnize
marriages but not to determine who may enter or leave a civil
marriage. Religious leaders may determine independently
whether to recognize a civil marriage or divorce but that
recognition or lack thereof has no effect on the relationship
under state law." pg 62
"California, like every other state, has never required that
individuals entering a marriage be willing or able to
procreate." pg 62
"Eliminating gender and race restrictions in marriage has not
deprived the institution of marriage of its vitality." pg 68
"d. PX0707 at RFA No 13: Proponents admit that eliminating
racial restrictions on marriage has not deprived marriage
of its vitality and importance as a social institution;" pg 69
"Marriage is the state recognition and approval of a couple’s
choice to live with each other, to remain committed to one
another and to form a household based on their own feelings
about one another and to join in an economic partnership and
support one another and any dependents. Tr 187:11-16; 188:16-
189:2; 201:9-14 (Cott)." pg 69
"42. Same-sex love and intimacy are well-documented in human
history. The concept of an identity based on object desire;
that is, whether an individual desires a relationship with
someone of the opposite sex (heterosexual), same sex
(homosexual) or either sex (bisexual), developed in the late
nineteenth century.
a. Tr 531:25-533:24 (Chauncey: The categories of
heterosexual and homosexual emerged in the late
nineteenth century, although there were people at all
time periods in American history whose primary erotic and
emotional attractions were to people of the same sex.);
b. Tr 2078:10-12 (Herek: “[H]eterosexual and homosexual
behaviors alike have been common throughout human
history[.]”);
c. Tr 2064:22-23 (Herek: In practice, we generally refer to
three groups: homosexuals, heterosexuals and bisexuals.);
d. Tr 2027:4-9 (Herek: “[S]exual orientation is at its heart
a relational construct, because it is all about a
relationship of some sort between one individual and
another, and a relationship that is defined by the sex of
the two persons involved[.]”)." pg 73
"44. Sexual orientation is commonly discussed as a characteristic
of the individual. Sexual orientation is fundamental to a
person’s identity and is a distinguishing characteristic that
defines gays and lesbians as a discrete group. Proponents’
assertion that sexual orientation cannot be defined is
contrary to the weight of the evidence." pg 74
"Individuals do not generally choose their sexual orientation.
No credible evidence supports a finding that an individual
may, through conscious decision, therapeutic intervention or
any other method, change his or her sexual orientation." pg 76
"48. Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in the
characteristics relevant to the ability to form successful
marital unions. Like opposite-sex couples, same-sex couples
have happy, satisfying relationships and form deep emotional
bonds and strong commitments to their partners. Standardized
measures of relationship satisfaction, relationship adjustment
and love do not differ depending on whether a couple is samesex
or opposite-sex." pg 79
"52. Domestic partnerships lack the social meaning associated with
marriage, and marriage is widely regarded as the definitive
expression of love and commitment in the United States." pg 82
"53. Domestic partners are not married under California law.
California domestic partnerships may not be recognized in
other states and are not recognized by the federal government." pg 83
"54. The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays
and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the
cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are
intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic
partnerships." pg 84
"55. Permitting same-sex couples to marry will not affect the
number of opposite-sex couples who marry, divorce, cohabit,
have children outside of marriage or otherwise affect the
stability of opposite-sex marriages." pg 85
"58. Proposition 8 places the force of law behind stigmas against
gays and lesbians, including: gays and lesbians do not have
intimate relationships similar to heterosexual couples; gays
and lesbians are not as good as heterosexuals; and gay and
lesbian relationships do not deserve the full recognition of
society." pg 87
"67. Proposition 8 singles out gays and lesbians and legitimates
their unequal treatment. Proposition 8 perpetuates the
stereotype that gays and lesbians are incapable of forming
long-term loving relationships and that gays and lesbians are
not good parents." pg 95
"68. Proposition 8 results in frequent reminders for gays and
lesbians in committed long-term relationships that their
relationships are not as highly valued as opposite-sex
relationships." pg 96
"76. Well-known stereotypes about gay men and lesbians include a
belief that gays and lesbians are affluent, self-absorbed and
incapable of forming long-term intimate relationships. Other
stereotypes imagine gay men and lesbians as disease vectors or
as child molesters who recruit young children into
homosexuality. No evidence supports these stereotypes." pg 100 Bolded because there are people perpetuating these stereotypes as fact.
"Tradition alone, however, cannot form a rational basis for a law." pg 126
"The evidence shows conclusively
that moral and religious views form the only basis for a belief
that same-sex couples are different from opposite-sex couples." pg 132
"Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to
deny rights to gay men and lesbians." pg 137
"Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in
singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license." pg 137
Go ahead and read the PDF, for every quote I posted here, are 5 subsections proving each such quote, it's the reason why the PDF is 138 pages. Keep perpetuating bigotry under false victimization and stereotypes, it's all wrong and has been proven to be.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-06-2010, 10:30
They get marriage. I don't really see what you're getting at. Having sex is not a requirement for it.
Yes it is, the marriage can be annulled if it is not consumated, so a man and a woman who are asexual but emotionally co-dependant do not have the same legal protection/bond as a sexually active couple.
Yeah, I noticed a lot of people who go gospel often burn out. This usually happens to be people who weren't raised with religion but, as you said, converted of their own accord as young adults.
Haha yeah I noticed the parallel with myself, but I've never heard of a Calvinist burnout.
"Evangelical Burnout" is a result of poor preaching and shallow emotional support, the theology breaks down as soon as it comes up against something difficult because it's more about having a communal experience than anything truly spiritual. Idaho knows about the sort of people we get here in Exeter. Often they are young students, vulnerable without parental support, and they are taken in by the "community" of the Church which teaches them it's poorly thought out theology.
Rhy is suffering from something else though, likely he is coming to terms with his religion and beginning to integrate it into his life, rather than suffering huge amounts of angst.
I don't see what the church has to do with getting married. If any two people want to get married in the eyes of the law then let them, if the church doesn't want to let a specific couple marry then who cares what they do. A priest doesn't have to marry a specific heterosexual couple if he doesn't want to, but that couple could still get a legal marriage. Why should any other couple be any different?
Well, see there's the rub, isn't it? The first extension of marriage rights was the right to marry outside Church and have it legally recognised. In Britain we have "equality legislation" that would allow a priest to be prosecuted or sued if he refused to "marry" a homosexual couple should homosexual "marriage" be legal in the UK.
The Celtic Viking
08-06-2010, 10:53
What does it matter? You can demand others to say that a tomatoe is really blue but it remains red. Gay marriage is demanding from others to pretend, and I don't like that. Couldn't care less about gay marriage itself it's all fine with me, but why they want it is beyond me.
What does it matter? You were making the argument that gay marriage is "a promise of bloodline", that marriage is about conceiving babies. From that it only follows that you should take the same kind of aversion to heterosexuals who can't or won't make babies getting married. But you don't care about that, so your objection is obviously not about the ability to conceive children.
As for why they want it... no, now you're just trolling.
As I said I think they should be equal, by scrapping marriage. If you just expand marriage, I think it leaves the problems with asexuals etc as below...
Then you seem to be agreeing with me that they have the right to be treated the same way as everyone else. Good.
I know you are saying asexuals can technically marry, but my point is that they are far less likely to want to marry because of a condition they are probably born with. And their reluctance to marry will mean they miss out on all these state-granted privileges being given to heterosexual/homosexual couples. That's discrimination.
No, it isn't. They can marry whoever they want, just like everyone else. They are being treated the same as the rest by the law - ergo, no discrimination. Choosing not to get married, even if it is because of your nature, doesn't mean that you're discriminated against when others choose to do it.
Yes legally speaking they can marry, just as homosexual men could marry women in the past... the point is they won't want to.
Again, that is not the same thing. Heterosexuals could marry the person they love. Homosexuals could not. The law clearly made a distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality and treated them differently. That is discrimination. By giving everyone the right to marry whoever they want, with the same benefits, name and all, regardless of whether you're homosexual, heterosexual, asexual, bisexual or Swedish, you are not making a distinction between sexual preferences. Thus, you are not discriminating.
I ask you: since I have chosen not to get married because of my nature, am I being discriminated against right now?
Nope what makes you think I'm trolling. Point is simple, they want everyone to pretend they are something they are not. Again, I have no objections, but I can understand our more conservative members. These gays only care about marriage because normal people hold it dearly. If it would be cartracing they would demand gay cartracing.
Rhyfelwyr
08-06-2010, 12:54
No, it isn't. They can marry whoever they want, just like everyone else. They are being treated the same as the rest by the law - ergo, no discrimination. Choosing not to get married, even if it is because of your nature, doesn't mean that you're discriminated against when others choose to do it.
As I said, that argument is the same as "homosexual men are treated the same as other men by law, since they can still marry women - ergo, no discrimination. Choosing not to get married, even if it is because of your nature, doesn't mean that you're discriminated against when others choose to do it."
Removing one level of discrimination within the insitution of marriage doesn't end the discrimination for those who will, for whatever reason, always be without it. Telling an asexual they can marry is meaningless to them. They are going to be denied all the nice tax-breaks etc unless they enter into a relationship which they, by nature, would find unnatural for themselves.
Again, that is not the same thing. Heterosexuals could marry the person they love. Homosexuals could not. The law clearly made a distinction between homosexuality and heterosexuality and treated them differently. That is discrimination. By giving everyone the right to marry whoever they want, with the same benefits, name and all, regardless of whether you're homosexual, heterosexual, asexual, bisexual or Swedish, you are not making a distinction between sexual preferences. Thus, you are not discriminating.
I ask you: since I have chosen not to get married because of my nature, am I being discriminated against right now?
First off, for the bolded bit, I agree. It is discrimination to allow only heterosexual, and not homosexual marriage.
While that is discrimination within the institution of marriage, asexuals will be victims of discrimination because of the fact that they are excluded from marriage altogether.
As to whether you are being discriminated against... well surely you are? Even if not getting married is for you a conscious preference, why should another person who is in other respects the same as you, go on to get a big tax-break and all the other benefits from the government, purely because they are going to live with someone else? It's discrimination based on a life-style choice.
All the tax-breaks etc exist purely to promote social engineering, of the conservative kind, with keeping the traditional nuclear family etc. Maybe in the past marriage was taken for granted as a good thing, but now society has moved past that, is there really any justification for not scrapping the government's role in marriage?
"54. The availability of domestic partnership does not provide gays
and lesbians with a status equivalent to marriage because the
cultural meaning of marriage and its associated benefits are
intentionally withheld from same-sex couples in domestic
partnerships." pg 84
Why on earth is the government concerning itself with the cultural meaning of things?
The government should grant legal equality, not try to engineer cultural equality.
And the fact that it is doing the latter is what is annoying the conservatives.
Why on earth is the government concerning itself with the cultural meaning of things?
The government should grant legal equality, not try to engineer cultural equality.
Exactly! The government shouldn't say who people can or can't marry, they should just allow any two people who wish to do so to marry.
Rhyfelwyr
08-06-2010, 13:16
Exactly! The government shouldn't say who people can or can't marry, they should just allow any two people who wish to do so to marry.
Why should two people get legal priviledges for living together? If you think about it it's a pretty strange, arbitrary thing to do for a government not seeking to promote social engineering. And unfair on single people, especially if they will always be single due to a natural condition.
PanzerJaeger
08-06-2010, 13:39
Britian has had a severely depressed religious conciousness since WWII, but the current 20-somethings are much more likely to be Christian, devout, confident, and Evangelical.
I had no idea young people in Britain were so religious. I have gotten the exact opposite impression when I've been there, but of course anecdotal evidence is often misleading. Thanks for the information.
The homosexual "rights" movement is based on the claim that there is no substantive difference between different sexual relationships, and it has flourished under a cultural-relativistic outlook promoted by university-educated teachers (who are often also very left wing). Society itself is not at all convinced and recent research has started to suggest that a male/male relationship in particular is different to a male/female one. There was a recent study in Australia that showed the most sucessful "Gay" relationshps were "open", that is to say sexually unfaithful in the traditional sense.
I hardly think infidelity is unique to male/male relationships. Is that the big difference that you were referring to, that homosexuals are somehow incapable of monogamy? Studies have also shown this to be patently false.
The point is, though, marriage was an institution created for a man and a woman and their subsequent children. It has nothing to do with your sexuality, just how you manage your sexual arrangements.
I just don't see much evidence that homosexuals are incapable of managing their sexual relationships in the same way as heterosexuals.
ICantSpellDawg
08-06-2010, 14:13
The gay movement is the single dumbest movement in the history of mankind. You can stick your willies wherever you want already. Besides, "gay" is a made-up animal anyway. We're all just heterosexual people, a small few of us stick our willies in other places, as well.
BTW 52% for Prop 8 doesn't mean that 48% are in favor of gay marriage in that state. That merely means that 48% don't want a constitutional amendment. We all know people who use the arguement "I am against gay marriage, but I am also against a constitutional amendment agaisnt gay marriage". Throw people a straightforward poll - yes or no to gay marriage - and I suspect that you will see a much bigger divide.
The mere fact that they got 52% of the vote to constitutionally solidify traditional marriage says quite a bit more than the opponents wish it did.
al Roumi
08-06-2010, 14:14
I had no idea young people in Britain were so religious. I have gotten the exact opposite impression when I've been there, but of course anecdotal evidence is often misleading. Thanks for the information.
Speaking from my experience of these fair isles, your earlier impression was more correct. I have absolutely no idea how PVC gets that idea... but then maybe our views dictate our social crowds?
PanzerJaeger
08-06-2010, 14:22
The gay movement is the single dumbest movement in the history of mankind. You can stick your willies wherever you want already. Besides, "gay" is a made-up animal anyway. We're all just heterosexual people, a small few of us stick our willies in other places, as well.
I can't tell if you're serious or not. :beam:
The gay movement is the single dumbest movement in the history of mankind. You can stick your willies wherever you want already. Besides, "gay" is a made-up animal anyway. We're all just heterosexual people, a small few of us stick our willies in other places, as well.
Wrong. My post on the first page is the correct version.
The Celtic Viking
08-06-2010, 15:55
@Rhyfelwyr: Your arguments seem to me to be against the benefits of marriage, not marriage itself. I think that was the disconnect between us; yeah, I can agree that some of the benefits of marriage (such as tax breaks) shouldn't be there, as I disagree with the justification for them. I don't think I would agree with removing them all, but that's a different discussion though, isn't it?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-06-2010, 16:11
Speaking from my experience of these fair isles, your earlier impression was more correct. I have absolutely no idea how PVC gets that idea... but then maybe our views dictate our social crowds?
I said more likely, and that the increase was from a very low starting base.
Rhyfelwyr
08-06-2010, 16:29
@Rhyfelwyr: Your arguments seem to me to be against the benefits of marriage, not marriage itself. I think that was the disconnect between us; yeah, I can agree that some of the benefits of marriage (such as tax breaks) shouldn't be there, as I disagree with the justification for them. I don't think I would agree with removing them all, but that's a different discussion though, isn't it?
But surely the point in state-recognised marriages is that they give these benefits, that's the only point in having them.
Speaking from my experience of these fair isles, your earlier impression was more correct. I have absolutely no idea how PVC gets that idea... but then maybe our views dictate our social crowds?
This is probably true to an extent, most people I know are what are termed 'Huns' (http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=hun) (<---everything beyond no. 1 on that list, no. 4 made me lol), they are into the whole loyalist culture etc.
But even then I know people in the Evangelical circles (another sub-culture surrounding Christianity) and those churches are growing at an impressive rate.
But yeah, the rank and file of the established churches now don't bother to attend every Sunday. Although there is still a surprisingly high belief in God with these types of people, they would be very liberal in their theology.
gaelic cowboy
08-06-2010, 17:56
I have to agree with Rhyfelwyr state-recognised marriages should have as much recognition as putting Cthulhu down on the census form as your religion
But yeah, the rank and file of the established churches now don't bother to attend every Sunday. Although there is still a surprisingly high belief in God with these types of people, they would be very liberal in their theology.
This is off topic but I would say the "The Belief in the Belief in God" is high
This video with Dan Dennet explains it better
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BvJZQwy9dvE
The Celtic Viking
08-06-2010, 18:05
But surely the point in state-recognised marriages is that they give these benefits, that's the only point in having them.
I did say I don't disagree with all of them, didn't I? Meh. It doesn't really matter to me if they removed them all. Things would have to change, but that's not a reason not to do it, and I positively want most of the changes anyway.
Centurion1
08-06-2010, 18:11
Your irish cowboy, your belief is in guilt.
gaelic cowboy
08-06-2010, 18:17
To paraphrase Dara O'Briain even if I went into mass and smashed up the altar in front of everyone while flanked by two strippers I would still just be called a "Bad Catholic".
There is no way out for an Irishman were just like Patrick McGoohan on the island being chased by giant inflatabe beachballs
Rhyfelwyr
08-06-2010, 18:43
To paraphrase Dara O'Briain even if I went into mass and smashed up the altar in front of everyone while flanked by two strippers I would still just be called a "Bad Catholic".
Take away the strippers and they'll call you a "Good Protestant". Iconoclasm ftw. :clown:
Here are few portions from the PDF that will serve as sufficient to show the point of why Prop 8 is wrong:Honestly, I don't see the relevance of most of those points. :shrug:
a completely inoffensive name
08-06-2010, 19:31
Honestly, I don't see the relevance of most of those points. :shrug:
The point of all those quotes, is that the judge ultimately ruled that every single argument put forward by the proponents of prop 8 had no rational basis. Let me repeat that, they were all illogical. All the stereotypes such as gays are promiscuous are false and simply fodder for the bigots to justify why gays should not have marriage. EVERY argument was rejected and at no point in the document did the judge say that the prop 8 proponents had any facts on their side but repeatedly declared that the facts were not on their side. If you don't see the relevence of the quotes then you are not knowledgable enough to even enter the discussion. If you want you can ask me what each quote means. :shrug:
All the stereotypes such as gays are promiscuous are falseSee, I don't care if they're true or not- it's irrelevant. Nor do I care if homosexual couples are capable of falling in love the same way as heterosexual couples. None of that should matter when determining how people can enter into a government recognized contractual relationship.
The question is whether the government can extend recognition to certain people based on their behavior. I didn't see that addressed anywhere- which is why I think this will probably be reversed when it gets to the SCOTUS.
Goofball
08-06-2010, 20:27
I'm torn on this. While I agree with their sentiments, I share CR's concerns about their method. Prop 8 meant something - that a slight majority of Californians, buoyed specifically by blacks, are as ignorant as they are intolerant. Regardless, the people's will and the process should be respected.
Activists should be focused on changing hearts and minds, not winning court battles. Although I don't really blame them for using the courts as every other pressure group in America does, including the NRA.
Well said PJ. Good to see you're still here. You're right. This fight will never be completely won by the courts having to overturn hateful legislation time after time. The haters will still keep hating, no matter how many judges tell them they're idiots. Having said that, sometimes activists have no choice but to use the courts to protect against bigotry in the short-term. When a patient has a heart attack, the doctor tells them to change their lifestyle, eat healthier, and quit smoking. But he also performs surgery to make sure the patient lives to benefit from this healthier new lifestyle.
Centurion1
08-06-2010, 22:59
The fight against gay marriage is a losing one. All you need to do is look around. Look at PJ an ardently conservative member or myself. We are both young and more importantly highly conservative. My generation feels radically differently regarding gay marriage compared to previous generations. However chruches should not be forced to marry gay couples.
Megas Methuselah
08-06-2010, 23:18
If you guys are ardent conservatives, then the world is moving forward to a better place.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-06-2010, 23:28
The gay movement is the single dumbest movement in the history of mankind. You can stick your willies wherever you want already. Besides, "gay" is a made-up animal anyway. We're all just heterosexual people, a small few of us stick our willies in other places, as well....
Scientific research has not proved this interpretation any more than it has proved that being "gay" is a state into which one is born genetically. I would be THRILLED if definitive research would establish this one way or the other.
Sexuality is not an on/off switch, but more of a continuum. Some blokes will look at the male star of an adult feature as he waves his six-standard deviations above the mean appendage about and think -- gee I wish I had a mutton dagger like that -- while others would think about having at that mutton dagger. Still others might be turned on by the same depending on mood but unaffected most other times.
A person's propensity for a same-sex primary focus in sexuality is, I believe, either genetically determined or genetically pre-dispositioned. It defies logic that as many persons who are gay would choose this status (were it optional) and all of the attendent abuse etc. I look forward to the researchers someday being able to provide demonstrable proof that this is so.
At that point, I think many of the "holdouts" would have to re-evaluate their views, and reclassifying "gay" as something that is comparatively rare, but naturally occurring -- and hence NOT a worthy basis for discrimination.
Hosakawa Tito
08-06-2010, 23:38
Here are some pertinent questions we were kicking around the office today:
Is discrimination permissable if a majority of voters approve it?
Can fundamental rights be submitted to a vote?
Do domestic partnerships confer second-class status?
Is the discrimination inherent in that second-class status harmful to gay men & women?
Is there a compelling state interest in banning same-sex marriage?
My conclusion: Prop 8 is just a moral view that there is "something wrong with same-sex couples." I don't believe that alone should be a permissable reason to legislate against same-sex marriage. Same-sex couples are identical to opposite-sex couples in their ability to form successful marital unions and provide a stable environment for raising children.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-07-2010, 00:32
I dissagree, even when homosexuality was not frowned upon (say, Ancient Greece) marriage was ever reserved for man and woman, so that the rearing of children would have a legal basis and protection. Given that we acknowledge even today that (all things being equal) having both your naturlparents, together, is best the basic rational appears still to be valid.
Homosexual couples need to involve a third person (and a doctor) to create children, such children have three "parents". This has reached a point now where two Lesbians in the UK are now allowed to omit the biological father from the Birth Certificate and put down both their own names. If you want to talk about a lack logic, there is an abundence in the increasingly complex and sometimes cruel and absurd arrangementsd used to accomodate the desire of modern homosexual couples to ape heterosexual ones.
To summarise, marriage is about the children and their biological parents, ergo it cannot be extended to same-sex couples or any other irregular relationships. Even in polygamy there are multiple marriage contracts, not a group arrangement.
PanzerJaeger
08-07-2010, 00:42
To summarise, marriage is about the children and their biological parents, ergo it cannot be extended to same-sex couples or any other irregular relationships. Even in polygamy there are multiple marriage contracts, not a group arrangement.
Should barren heterosexual couples be allowed to marry?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-07-2010, 00:49
Should barren heterosexual couples be allowed to marry?
Yes, because many people who are declared "barren" subsequently concieve. Including the wife of our much-missed Tribesman.
Also, there is a difference between a medical disability and a sexual preference; some homosexuals choose to marry in order to have children in a regularised environment. There is a Roman Catholic who did just that, he writes for the Daily Telegraph I believe.
Hosakawa Tito
08-07-2010, 00:51
So you're saying that procreation is a necessary goal of marriage and the traditional notions of marriage justify discrimination against same-sex marriages?
I don't agree.
Gender roles in opposite-sex marriages have changed dramatically over the last few decades. All marriages are now unions of equals. Are you saying that equality should be restricted to straight couples only?
The 14th Admendment guarantees rights to equal protection and due process of law. Prop 8 violates those rights.
PanzerJaeger
08-07-2010, 00:52
Yes, because many people who are declared "barren" subsequently concieve. Including the wife of our much-missed Tribesman.
Also, there is a difference between a medical disability and a sexual preference; some homosexuals choose to marry in order to have children in a regularised environment. There is a Roman Catholic who did just that, he writes for the Daily Telegraph I believe.
And what about couples who choose not to have children? Should they be allowed to marry?
Edit: Or women who have had hysterectomies? No chance for kids there.
Rhyfelwyr
08-07-2010, 00:54
Yes, because many people who are declared "barren" subsequently concieve. Including the wife of our much-missed Tribesman.
I think I know where he is hiding out. Have you seen the Hotel Inspector show on Channel 5 recently?
My youtube searches haven't provided anything, but there was one old eccentric hotel owner who kept saying "bollox" like Gordon Ramsay with his f-word...
Rhyfelwyr
08-07-2010, 00:55
The 14th Admendment guarantees rights to equal protection and due process of law. Prop 8 violates those rights.
State-recognised marriage violates those rights.
Once again, what of the asexuals?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-07-2010, 01:06
And what about couples who choose not to have children? Should they be allowed to marry?
They might choose differently later, and allowing them to marry seems to encourage that.
Edit: Or women who have had hysterectomies? No chance for kids there.
Physical disability might be a mitigation, but I'm inclined to say "no" actually.
Of course, none of this prevents you from getting a Civil Partnership.
PanzerJaeger
08-07-2010, 01:14
Physical disability might be a mitigation, but I'm inclined to say "no" actually.
So the logical hopscotch that has to be played in order to justify keeping gays from marrying leads us to an outcome where women who have had hysterectomies are disallowed from marriage?
It all seems a bit convoluted to me and I'm having a hard time seeing how any of it helps children (as opposed to gay adoption which has been a Godsend, pardon the pun, for children abandoned by their straight parents), but I respect your commitment.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-07-2010, 01:20
So the logical hopscotch that has to be played in order to justify keeping gays from marrying leads us to an outcome where women who have had hysterectomies are disallowed from marriage?
It all seems a bit convoluted to me and I'm having a hard time seeing how any of it helps children, but I respect your commitment.
I have to say that the cultural and logical hopscotch that ries to make homosexual relationships exactly the same as heterosexual ones is worse.
It's simple: Marriage is about creating a legal bond between the parents of a child (preferably before they are born), that is why marriage was for so long considered dissoluable, because the couple are blood-bound by their children.
What the "gay-marriage" movement wants to do is fundamentally redefine an institutions whose basic purpose and composition has been the same for all of recorded history.
PanzerJaeger
08-07-2010, 01:32
I have to say that the cultural and logical hopscotch that ries to make homosexual relationships exactly the same as heterosexual ones is worse.
I'm sorry to keep pushing the issue, but how? How is it worse? How does gay marriage hurt children?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-07-2010, 01:41
I'm sorry to keep pushing the issue, but how? How is it worse? How does gay marriage hurt children?
I didn't say gay marriage hurt children, I said that the cultural and logical hopscotch was worse. I.e., the case for change is not very strong, at all. It essentially boils down to "not every heterosexual couple that marries has children, so homosexual couples should be allowed to marry too."
Highlighting the problems in heterosexual marriages doesn't equate to an argument for extending the institution.
Askthepizzaguy
08-07-2010, 01:46
Do people really care that much whether homosexuals can marry?
Homosexuals care, because it's really obscene that other people are allowed to vote on whether or not they have a right to marry. Kind of like when some people said black people couldn't marry whites.... or each other. Some heterosexuals care, because they can't imagine why it would possibly harm society, or why treating gay people as inferior is warranted. Or popular, for that matter. Some people care because they don't like to picture gay people together. Some people care because they are worried their god will spank them if they don't object to it. And of course, there's macho peer pressure to hate on those in the minority and unlike themselves.
And if you'll permit me, I'm about to describe my thoughts (rant) on this issue to no one in particular.
I note that some people seem to get all indignant and object, saying that comparing "what those gays do" to traditional marriage is insulting. Which I have to ask; what is it that they do that is so different? Do they kiss each other? Spend time together? Raise a family together? Worry about stress at work together? Care for their community together? Grow old together? Sounds pretty normal to me. I actually am kind of offended at some of the definitions of marriage proposed now, for the specific purpose of preventing gay rights and "protecting" something that wouldn't be protected, but rather banned, by Prop 8.
For example, I note that some people describe the purpose of marriage as to have children; which seems rather strange to me. Some people get married and are still undecided as to whether they want to have children or not. My father recently got re-married, to his long time sweetheart. They are too old to have children. Is their marriage a sham? What about those who can't have kids or choose not to? Is their marriage a sham? I also note that people often have children out of wedlock. Especially in the case of another "traditional values" favorite, keeping the child a rapist forcibly implants in your body. Seems to me that child was born out of wedlock, and for good reason. But I suppose since there was no marriage there, that child doesn't exist? When parents divorce, do they saw the child in half? I don't think so. When gay people have children, and many, many of them do (and no one seems to dispute that they have a right to do so... which makes it awfully suspect when they object to their right to get married) those children wish to grow up in stable homes. Why would marriage between their parents harm these children? So it's utterly baffling how having children should affect the rights of gays in negative fashion. In fact, under this metric, it would seem to be anti-family to deny the right of gay parents with children, or who want to have children, to wed each other.
If the implication is that gay people can't/shouldn't have children, I would like people with such an opinion to go up to a child with gay parents and tell them that their parents are different and inferior to you and your spouse, and that your children are better off than the child of a gay couple, and that there is something totally wrong with that family, and they should be broken up and not allowed to raise their kids and not allowed to have more. I guarantee you, even the most hardened anti-gay person out there will have difficulty with that. And if you could actually go through with it, I'd like to reverse that challenge, because I'd really rather not subject that child to more bigotry than they will already be exposed to in their life. Especially coming from an adult that supposedly is looking out for their best interest. How is a child supposed to view a world that hates them before they even meet them? Or hates their parents before they even meet them? Or believes that their parents have no right to raise them? Or believes that their parents might love each other, but it isn't the real, true love that other people have, it's a different, inferior kind of love, that should be opposed and shunned.
I can't imagine how pro-family a person has to be, before they are that anti-family.
So if we divorce ourselves from the silly notion that marriage is necessarily about children (where you automatically lose, because gays have a right to have children and raise them together, and straight couples don't necessarily have children) then you have to focus on the other aspects of marriage.
Love: It's amazing that in a nation with drive-through wedding chapels and divorce lawyers in every town and television shows based entirely on how much married couples cheat on one another, that one thinks they have the moral authority to question how "in love" other people are, and must be, before they get married. This sacred institution, as some have called it, has been made less sacred not by the gays, but by irresponsible and disingenuous people of all orientations, mostly straight in this case, obviously. I challenge someone to go up to a gay couple that has spent 10 years together and suggest that they know, for a fact, that this couple doesn't really love each other. It's just a phase that they will grow out of. Their feelings aren't real; it's all a charade. The purpose of which, of course, is to be a big drama queen and rub in the faces of the establishment how rebellious they are. Surely that must be the reason. I would apologize for using a straw man argument, if only that were the case. I truly wish that were the case. Sadly, this absurd notion is actually considered to be why gay people stay together, by some "traditional" people. Not all believe it, maybe not a majority, but this sad excuse for a rational reason is believed by far too many people.
"It's not real, it's just a phase. They don't really love each other." It is remarkable that one can say that without even meeting said couples.
Religion: Another reason given for why gays cannot get married. It's insulting to the religions who do not accept homosexuality.
Well, that assumes that all religions denounce homosexuality, or that you have to be religious to get married. Aren't I, a non-religious person, allowed to be wed? Well if I am, doesn't that mean I don't have to accept the tenets of some popular religion to get married? That I am allowed to have a secular service and still call it marriage? If that is the case, then why is religion being touted as a reason gays can't get married? Last I checked, there was a separation of church and state. The state recognizing marriage between same-sex partners is not the same as your church recognizing it. Though, if you live in this state, you have to recognize that the state considers it marriage. What a shame. Don't worry, you can still harbor your dislike and prejudice in your heart; the state can't stop you from doing that.
Legal rights: Very few people are arguing that gays shouldn't be able to see each other in the hospital, or be afforded other rights that married people have. They simply object to calling it "marriage". I don't care if you call it banana creme pie in your own household, but if your only sticking point with marriage between gays is that it is called marriage, then you have your priorities backward.
If you agree that:
Gay people aren't sick and don't need to be cured of "the gay", they are ordinary people like you and me, allowed to live and be gay (not like they have a choice)
Gay people have a right to be with one another in a relationship, and that what they do in the bedroom is none of your business (emphatically so, it seems)
Gay people have children, and this is just a fact you can't really argue with (and they have these kids with or without your approval, as if they needed it)
Gay people are allowed to raise their own children (Who else is going to raise them, the TV machine?)
Gay people don't have to be religious to get married (Seems kinda obvious...)
Gay people should otherwise be treated equally in every respect (sure, you can see your partner in the hospital... just don't call it marriage, call it a civil union)
Then it seems as though you approve of (or do not wish to oppose) EVERY.... SINGLE.... ASPECT..... of homosexual pair bonding. The only hang-up you have is the word marriage.
Sure, being gay, living in a gay relationship, having relations, having legal rights that pertain to their partner, having and raising children, that's all okay. But the word marriage is just wrong to apply to gays, you say? What else do you want to call it? You don't care as long as it isn't the word 'marriage'?
Fine, they will call it "marriage", using the traditional gay spelling with the silent and invisible letter T. It's a different kind of marriage with a different definition, just spelled exactly the same (if you overlook the invisible letter T) and treated exactly the same by society and the state. Problem solved.
I would admire the principled stance against gay marriage, if only there were some principles involved.
Askthepizzaguy
08-07-2010, 02:20
One part of the judge's ruling was that gender is no longer a defining part of marriage.
A relief, considering that some people are born intersexed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intersexuality) and have genetic aspects of one gender (or both, or even other combinations) while having the physiological aspects of another. If a person found out his wife was sterile because she was born with a genetic difference that made her that way, and is in all other respects female, but her genetics are atypical and not technically female, I would object to someone suggesting that their marriage should be made null and void.
Clearly if gender shouldn't be a defining part of marriage, then... it shouldn't be a defining part of marriage.
Some with ambiguous genders ask for or are given gender assignment surgery. Gender is clearly not binary concept, nor is it always a clear concept. Of course, these concepts are usually uncomfortable for people to talk about, and the people affected are a very small minority. In my view, the numbers don't matter, and democracy isn't always correct. Popular opinion does not always make right. To be consistent, we cannot suggest that gender is an absolute, defining aspect of marriage. Nor should genetics be.
What makes him better able to decide that then the millions of voters who voted to pass prop 8?
If he had made a ruling more in line with your viewpoint, I doubt you'd be suggesting he had no authority here. The role of a judge is not to rule in favor of whatever is popular.
What might make him better to decide Constitutional matters than the voting public, is that certain Constitutional rights CANNOT be infringed by the vote. It says so right in the Constitution itself. That means that certain unalienable rights cannot be taken away by the vote, and can be protected by those whose training and qualifications and held offices qualify them to rule on matters of constitutionality. If a voting majority passed a proposition stating that women didn't have a right to own cars, a judge could overturn that by ruling it unconstitutional, because of this matter of settled Constitutional law:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourteenth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution
Specifically:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause
All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.
So when people make law by the vote which abridges the privileges of citizens of the United States, depriving them of due process, and equal protection and treatment under the law, that means they've made a bad, unconstitutional law. The judge in this case was upholding a key principle of the Constitution, that all men are created equal, and they deserve equal treatment, even if the majority does not agree.
Like I said, if the judge ruled in a different manner, favoring the other side, I would not be hearing one peep about whether or not he had the right and duty to rule on this matter.
Rhyfelwyr
08-07-2010, 02:22
ATPG, nobody here even used most of those arguments.
Can you give me one good reason why the government should grant legal/tax privileges to two men for living together in a sexual relationship?
At least with heterosexual couples, there were reasons to encourage the development of nuclear families, with the men going to work, the woman taking care of the home/children etc. The family was the basic social unit, not the individual. Of course not every couple would produce children, but there was a general social advantage in promoting the old nuclear family.
But this is history, move on, there's no need to start pretending that homosexual couples ever had such a value. And don't discriminate against single people, the consequences of this discrimination are very real (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-10892142).
PanzerJaeger
08-07-2010, 02:22
I didn't say gay marriage hurt children, I said that the cultural and logical hopscotch was worse. I.e., the case for change is not very strong, at all. It essentially boils down to "not every heterosexual couple that marries has children, so homosexual couples should be allowed to marry too."
That isn't the case for change. That was me pushing your logical framework to its extremes.
My argument for gay marriage essentially boils down to 'why not'? A statistically relevant proportion of the population wants it, and its implementation hurts no one. That is natural, healthy social progress. I'm a strong believer in tradition, but that tradition has to have some value. There is no value preserved in keeping gay people from marrying; and not doing so causes a great number of them to feel like second class citizens.
Highlighting the problems in heterosexual marriages doesn't equate to an argument for extending the institution.
Can anyone highlight any problems caused by homosexual marriage? The inability to do so would seem to be an argument in itself.
Scientific research has not proved this interpretation any more than it has proved that being "gay" is a state into which one is born genetically. I would be THRILLED if definitive research would establish this one way or the other.You keep saying this... but what would it solve, really? Homosexuality's defining characteristic is a certain behavior. Whether it's something innate or acquired, what changes?
--------
Here are some pertinent questions we were kicking around the office today:
Is discrimination permissable if a majority of voters approve it?
Can fundamental rights be submitted to a vote?
Do domestic partnerships confer second-class status?
Is the discrimination inherent in that second-class status harmful to gay men & women?
Is there a compelling state interest in banning same-sex marriage?
1) Of course it is- that's what laws do. We discriminate against people who speed. We descriminate against people in certain income brackets, ect. Almost all law is about treating people who meet certain conditions differently. Certain basic rights are supposed to be beyond the reach of government, but even these are not without limit.
2) Here I would say no.
3) Does being single confer a second-class status? Does being married confer a first-class status? On all of these, I would say no.
4)N/A. See #3.
5) You're asking the wrong question. I think you should ask instead 'What is the state's purpose in granting special recognition to married couples?'. The state shouldn't be in the business of granting bennies to people because they're in love- that's pointless. Streamlining legal processes to make for a stable environment to rear children, simplify inheritance, ect could be valid reasons.
My conclusion: Considering government recognition of marriage as a fundamental right is a flawed premise. People are free to fall in love with whoever they want, have sex and children with whoever they want- government recognition neither allows or prevents that. This is where the debate so often goes wrong. We're talking about extending government recognition and certain benefits to couples that match set criteria. People can make the argument that it's to the benefit of society for same-sex couples for get such recognition and if they can convince enough people, they'll get it. Personally, I don't see the need for it, and am therefore not agitating for same-sex marriage. However, if it comes to pass it's not going to be the end of the world either. I do admit that I get a little annoyed in the aggressive manner that proponents choose to shove it down our throats. :yes:
Rhyfelwyr
08-07-2010, 02:25
Considering government recognition of marriage as a fundamental right is a flawed premise.
Just thought I would highlight this, since it is at the heart of what I am saying.
Sasaki Kojiro
08-07-2010, 02:43
So the logical hopscotch that has to be played in order to justify keeping gays from marrying leads us to an outcome where women who have had hysterectomies are disallowed from marriage?
Great phrasing :balloon2:
Considering government recognition of marriage as a fundamental right is a flawed premise.
If it was called civil unions in the law, I don't think there would be a movement to make it legally called gay marriage. The issue is that it shouldn't be called one thing for straight people and another thing for gay people.
Askthepizzaguy
08-07-2010, 02:48
ATPG, nobody here even used most of those arguments.
No, some of them used far less rational ones, I'm afraid.
Some people care about marriage, a union between a man and a woman, why do gays demand something they don't really care about in the first place? Marriage is also a promise of bloodline, ah well just adopt a child it's almost real! I am not against it but I do question their motivations, they want what they can't have and demand we all act as if they do. Nothing was ever born out of an anus.
Can you give me one good reason why the government should grant legal/tax privileges to two men for living together in a sexual relationship?
Why should they give such privileges to two people of opposite gender? Same reasons apply, in every case.
At least with heterosexual couples, there were reasons to encourage the development of nuclear families, with the men going to work, the woman taking care of the home/children etc.
Oh. Well, that's archaic, outdated, and irrelevant. I think you'll agree that standard doesn't apply to heterosexuals, and isn't an argument against gay marriage either.
The family was the basic social unit, not the individual. Of course not every couple would produce children, but there was a general social advantage in promoting the old nuclear family.
Good, so you agree that when gay people raise children, it is advantageous that they are married and more closely resemble a nuclear family.
Thank you for supporting gay equality.
But this is history, move on, there's no need to start pretending that homosexual couples ever had such a value.
Well, sounds like you've met every homosexual couple and successfully concluded they don't have such values. I bet that took a long time, you must be exhausted.
I have to say that the cultural and logical hopscotch that ries to make homosexual relationships exactly the same as heterosexual ones is worse.
And yet, other than appeals to how it's been done in the past, I hear no reasons. Appeal to tradition isn't technically a reason. Appeal to change isn't the reason being put forward by gay marriage proponents, so opposing advocates can surely do better.
It's simple: Marriage is about creating a legal bond between the parents of a child (preferably before they are born), that is why marriage was for so long considered dissoluable, because the couple are blood-bound by their children.
I guess adoptive parents aren't really parents then?
Surely not even close to an argument against gay marriage.
What the "gay-marriage" movement wants to do is fundamentally redefine an institutions whose basic purpose and composition has been the same for all of recorded history.
Recorded history is full of intolerance, ignorance and injustice. Some aim to record some history that is slightly less intolerant, and more just.
Appeal to tradition is not only bad logic, it's a bad thing to hold up as virtuous. Thank goodness some people suggested that the traditional role of women could be changed from a non-voting non-citizen with very few rights to full equals, no matter how it had been done in the past.
Change isn't wrong because it is change, you have to demonstrate why the change is wrong. That has some very shaky ground in this instance, particularly given the ABSURD arguments proposed by those supporting Prop 8 in a courtroom. These are supposed to be the professionals who know what they are talking about. What they argued in court was beyond laughable, it was shameful.
I truly believe that someone here could argue their case better, but so far the only thing I've seen that's close to reasonable is that supporting traditional marriage via tax breaks is unjust in and of itself. Which I may or may not agree with, but at least that's a reason.... for something. And yet, it still has nothing to do with why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married.
The gay movement is the single dumbest movement in the history of mankind. You can stick your willies wherever you want already. Besides, "gay" is a made-up animal anyway. We're all just heterosexual people, a small few of us stick our willies in other places, as well.
This is not too far off what they argued in court, and it's no wonder why it didn't cut any mustard with the judge. It doesn't really explain any reason why gays are different and not entitled to the right to marry. It also isn't backed up by anything, it is just a stated opinion, not to mention that it seems obviously wrong.
BTW 52% for Prop 8 doesn't mean that 48% are in favor of gay marriage in that state. That merely means that 48% don't want a constitutional amendment. We all know people who use the arguement "I am against gay marriage, but I am also against a constitutional amendment agaisnt gay marriage". Throw people a straightforward poll - yes or no to gay marriage - and I suspect that you will see a much bigger divide.
And it would be as relevant as a poll that asked people whether they preferred Coke or Pepsi.
Reason why gays shouldn't get married: poll says people don't like the idea!
That's not a reason why gays shouldn't get married.
The mere fact that they got 52% of the vote to constitutionally solidify traditional marriage says quite a bit more than the opponents wish it did.
It says so much, that people still struggle to explain why they voted that way, or why they hold such beliefs.
It says so much, that lies, stereotypes, and rumor are the most substantive arguments put forward against it.
It also says that you don't need to know what is constitutional to vote on what laws there should be.
It also says that the constitution is really the last, best defense against the irrational views of the majority, whose sole arguments against it are that it hasn't been done that way before, and lots of people agree that it hasn't been done that way before.
Hosakawa Tito
08-07-2010, 04:47
State-recognised marriage violates those rights.
I don't follow your logic that state recognized marriage violates 14th Admendment rights. Care to explain?
You keep saying this... but what would it solve, really? Homosexuality's defining characteristic is a certain behavior. Whether it's something innate or acquired, what changes?
--------
1) Of course it is- that's what laws do. We discriminate against people who speed. We descriminate against people in certain income brackets, ect. Almost all law is about treating people who meet certain conditions differently. Certain basic rights are supposed to be beyond the reach of government, but even these are not without limit.
2) Here I would say no.
3) Does being single confer a second-class status? Does being married confer a first-class status? On all of these, I would say no.
4)N/A. See #3.
5) You're asking the wrong question. I think you should ask instead 'What is the state's purpose in granting special recognition to married couples?'. The state shouldn't be in the business of granting bennies to people because they're in love- that's pointless. Streamlining legal processes to make for a stable environment to rear children, simplify inheritance, ect could be valid reasons.
My conclusion: Considering government recognition of marriage as a fundamental right is a flawed premise. People are free to fall in love with whoever they want, have sex and children with whoever they want- government recognition neither allows or prevents that. This is where the debate so often goes wrong. We're talking about extending government recognition and certain benefits to couples that match set criteria. People can make the argument that it's to the benefit of society for same-sex couples for get such recognition and if they can convince enough people, they'll get it. Personally, I don't see the need for it, and am therefore not agitating for same-sex marriage. However, if it comes to pass it's not going to be the end of the world either. I do admit that I get a little annoyed in the aggressive manner that proponents choose to shove it down our throats. :yes:
1) Discriminating against people who speed, progressive taxation on higher income, etc... have been deemed to be a benefit to society. The arguements against gay marriage being detrimental to society have no validity.
Giving same sex couples the same legal rights/benefits/recognition as opposite sex couples has no detrimental effects upon my marriage, your marriage, anyone elses marriage. Gay marriage doesn't cheapen the institution, though the 50 percent heterosexual divorce rate sure does.
I'm sorry to keep pushing the issue, but how? How is it worse? How does gay marriage hurt children?
PJ I don't know you as someone deliberately missing the point, not that I disagree with you, but it isn't about the specifics but the institution itself. If you have a certain outlook on it, the centuries old one, then how is it not a perversion of that institution. It's an empty word for me, but can those who care keep it real? Why can't they have that? How much value will a gay marriage have for the gays once I can marry my cat anyway, really love my cat.
a completely inoffensive name
08-07-2010, 07:25
See, I don't care if they're true or not- it's irrelevant. Nor do I care if homosexual couples are capable of falling in love the same way as heterosexual couples. None of that should matter when determining how people can enter into a government recognized contractual relationship.
The question is whether the government can extend recognition to certain people based on their behavior. I didn't see that addressed anywhere- which is why I think this will probably be reversed when it gets to the SCOTUS.
You don't even understand the question. The question is whether the government can deny recognition to certain people based upon their behavior. This judge says no, under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Maybe that's why you are lost and don't understand what the 138 page document is about.
a completely inoffensive name
08-07-2010, 07:41
5) You're asking the wrong question. I think you should ask instead 'What is the state's purpose in granting special recognition to married couples?'. The state shouldn't be in the business of granting bennies to people because they're in love- that's pointless. Streamlining legal processes to make for a stable environment to rear children, simplify inheritance, ect could be valid reasons.
My conclusion: Considering government recognition of marriage as a fundamental right is a flawed premise. People are free to fall in love with whoever they want, have sex and children with whoever they want- government recognition neither allows or prevents that. This is where the debate so often goes wrong. We're talking about extending government recognition and certain benefits to couples that match set criteria. People can make the argument that it's to the benefit of society for same-sex couples for get such recognition and if they can convince enough people, they'll get it. Personally, I don't see the need for it, and am therefore not agitating for same-sex marriage. However, if it comes to pass it's not going to be the end of the world either. I do admit that I get a little annoyed in the aggressive manner that proponents choose to shove it down our throats. :yes:
It is not a flawed premise. Without government involvement in the declaration of unity and love between multiple individuals, the responsibility is snatched by the Churches who discriminate and declares that the love between people of differing lifestyles is invalid and immoral. This why the government recognition of marriage must be universal and spread to homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals and heterosexuals and anything else I'm missing. Because only by having the right to be recognized as married officially by the government for everyone, will all love be equal. I can't think of anything more evil then declaring and thinking that one group's love is in anyway better or superior to another group's love. This is why every single person who is in favor of Prop 8 instantly loses my respect and is a bigot in my eyes.
The set criteria as shown in the 138 page document I posted, shows that government's only requirement for marriage is love. That is less requirements then any church or religion out there.
EDIT: Also, everything ATPG said.
Cool, so can I marry my cat now, and please don't say that's something different, for me he's really a person.
This why the government recognition of marriage must be universal and spread to homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals and heterosexuals and anything else I'm missing.
I think that's the wrong way of looking at it, it should just be any two people, homosexual, asexual, heterosexual or any other -sexual shouldn't even be considered.
Cool, so can I marry my cat now, and please don't say that's something different, for me he's really a person.
1) An animal is not considered equal to a human, whereas any two humans are considered equal and 2) how will the cat say "I do"?
I1) An animal is not considered equal to a human, whereas any two humans are considered equal and 2) how will the cat say "I do"?
me ow.
What's it to you anyway. I really want this.
a completely inoffensive name
08-07-2010, 08:13
I think that's the wrong way of looking at it, it should just be any two people, homosexual, asexual, heterosexual or any other -sexual shouldn't even be considered
Well, yeah that was kind of my point. I tried to list off all the different categories you could think of so that it listed that anybody could marry anyone they want. Like one of the quotes from the 138 page court document I posted said, the "-sexual" based terms didn't come about until the 18th-19th century, but we all use them for whatever reason. I meant what you said when I said "universal".
Well, yeah that was kind of my point. I tried to list off all the different categories you could think of so that it listed that anybody could marry anyone they want. Like one of the quotes from the 138 page court document I posted said, the "-sexual" based terms didn't come about until the 18th-19th century, but we all use them for whatever reason. I meant what you said when I said "universal".
Scrap sexual and replace with reproduction, that is what marriage traditionally is about, bloodline. Times change of course, kindly let it.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-07-2010, 10:45
I'm going to vulgarise at this point:
If it ain't broke don't fix it.
The burden of proof lies with those whishing to change the law, otherwise the status quo can stand.
ATPG's basic argument is that traditional marriage is broken and no longer matters, so we should extend the institution.
Heaven forfend we try to fix out systemic social problems; rather than waste to time on this pointless exercise.
It is the most simple of actions to allow same sex marriages and remove discrimination. In Australia for example all it would require is to change the passage in the marriage act from '...the union of a man and a woman...' to something like '...the union of two people...'
It is the most simple of actions to allow same sex marriages and remove discrimination. In Australia for example all it would require is to change the passage in the marriage act from '...the union of a man and a woman...' to something like '...the union of two people...'
What discrimination, a civil union grants the same rights. No matter how hard they pump butt or rub fleshwounds nature simply thinks otherwise. Can't help it, it's not possible. Gays are a flaw of nature, they are human beings and should be treated likewise, but they can't have eveything and shouldn't want it.
Rhyfelwyr
08-07-2010, 12:57
I swear my opponenets in this thread are deliberately ignoring what I am saying.
I said I want to abolish state-recognised marriage. You can do whatever loopholes you like to convince yourself that two men living together, or (in case you object to consent from animals) a man marrying an object, are somehow the same as what a marriage has always been taken to mean. But you can't make it so.
For the purposes of this thread, just pretend that the nuclear family of a man/woman/children never historically had any value as the basic social unit. Now, can someone tell me why the government should give any two people, be they man/man or man/woman, various legal and tax privileges on the grounds of their relationship status?
Is there any reason at all to have government-recognised marriage in this day and age? As I've said, it causes real discrimination against single people as seen in the BBC article I linked to, which is especially unfair if their singleness is due to a condition such as asexuality.
It is not a flawed premise. Without government involvement in the declaration of unity and love between multiple individuals, the responsibility is snatched by the Churches who discriminate and declares that the love between people of differing lifestyles is invalid and immoral. This why the government recognition of marriage must be universal and spread to homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals and heterosexuals and anything else I'm missing. Because only by having the right to be recognized as married officially by the government for everyone, will all love be equal. I can't think of anything more evil then declaring and thinking that one group's love is in anyway better or superior to another group's love. This is why every single person who is in favor of Prop 8 instantly loses my respect and is a bigot in my eyes.
The set criteria as shown in the 138 page document I posted, shows that government's only requirement for marriage is love. That is less requirements then any church or religion out there.
Why on earth is the government concerning itself with the values of society? If churches don't want to marry gay people then that is entirely their own business. Are gays like the left out kids in the playground, they have to go any cry to the teacher because the big kids won't let them play?
This is the free world, people don't have to like gays or approve of what they do. By all means, they deserve legal equality (which all people will only have by abolishing state-recognised marriages). But that's not enough for some people, they have to bring in the government to enforce cultural equality, social engineering at its finest. I thought the US Constitution was about protecting the lives and property of individuals, while allowing the morals of society to be free from government control. If society doesn't like gay people, it's not the job of the government to try to change that.
I don't understand the logic, to quote the bit ACIN bolded for emphasis: "only by having the right to be recognized as married officially by the government for everyone, will all love be equal". So the government feels the need to mimick a religious institution in order to make people feel equal. What next, government-approved baptisms and communion for whoever the church leaves out? :dizzy2:
Marriage isn't a religious institution, it's an institution that the church adopted. If you want to argue about abolishing marriage then that is a separate issue altogether but as long as marriage is around, then it is discrimination to say that no one but hetero's can have it.
Marriage isn't a religious institution, it's an institution that the church adopted.
How does that change anything? It's nature itself that says no, pretend all you want but I will not.
How does that change anything? It's nature itself that says no, pretend all you want but I will not.
When did nature itself say no, and even if it did since when have humans followed what's natural? I was responding to this by the way.
So the government feels the need to mimick a religious institution in order to make people feel equal. What next, government-approved baptisms and communion for whoever the church leaves out? :dizzy2:
Marriage isn't a religious institution, it's an institution that the church adopted.
Rhyfelwyr
08-07-2010, 14:11
Marriage isn't a religious institution, it's an institution that the church adopted.
Yes, x thousand years ago. What is relevant for us is that in western society, marriage has always been a specifically religious institution. ACIN appealed to the religious nature of marriage in saying that since the churches won't marry gay people, the government must do it to make them equal.
If you want to argue about abolishing marriage then that is a separate issue altogether but as long as marriage is around, then it is discrimination to say that no one but hetero's can have it.
And it is also discrimination to say I can't marry my TV. And don't tell me to call it something other than marriage. I demand a tax cut for my love for my TV.
Or will homosexual couples now have to burn their marriage certificates because my love for my TV 'weakens' their marriage? :rolleyes:
When did nature itself say no, and even if it did since when have humans followed what's natural? I was responding to this by the way.
If nature said yes people would be born from butts.
Why on earth is the government concerning itself with the values of society?
Because that's what laws and governance do? We decide that some things are better than other things, that some acts are unaceptable, and we enforce them through coercion and controlled violence in the form of a state? But surely you know all of this, so I'm probably misunderstanding your point.
If nature said yes people would be born from butts.
If that isn't a jump the shark moment, I don't know what is.
Why should two people get legal priviledges for living together? If you think about it it's a pretty strange, arbitrary thing to do for a government not seeking to promote social engineering. And unfair on single people, especially if they will always be single due to a natural condition.
I think the major reason for the government to give married people tax cuts etc. is to promote family building and children, in that sense giving married gay people tax cuts is pretty useless as they won't make kids anytime soon, but the country needs kids!!!
Giving tax cuts to gay couples will cause America to die out slowly. Maybe non-gay singles should also get tax cuts to encourage them to invite someone for dinner?
Giving tax cuts to gay couples will cause America to die out slowly.
... could you, um, substantiate that one? Just a little bit?
Rhyfelwyr
08-07-2010, 16:29
Because that's what laws and governance do? We decide that some things are better than other things, that some acts are unaceptable, and we enforce them through coercion and controlled violence in the form of a state? But surely you know all of this, so I'm probably misunderstanding your point.
Surely our laws are based on consent? C'mon, things are the wrong way round here. I'm supposed to say we get our laws from the Ten Commandments, before someone more sensible points out our laws are derived from the idea of consent.
Gay people have every right to their life and their property, and to do what they want in their bedroom. But why would you give them legal privileges for it?
It is not the business of the state to be granting legal contracts to people in order to encourage a certain sort of lifestyle, be it a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman, or two men.
Sasaki Kojiro
08-07-2010, 16:35
Yes, x thousand years ago. What is relevant for us is that in western society, marriage has always been a specifically religious institution.
Marriage has been a business arrangement in western society. Is it wrong to call our current conception "marriage" because it is no longer arranged by the parents?
Business arrangements involve the government, and with marriage we have things like visiting rights and alimony and inheritance.
Yes, x thousand years ago. What is relevant for us is that in western society, marriage has always been a specifically religious institution.
Actually marriage as we know it is a fairly recent invention, until a few hundred years ago, a marriage was an entirely private affair. No recognition was required from the state or church, a marriage simply involved two people saying they would marry each other. I can see where you are coming from that returning to this state of affairs would be better, perhaps having the only government involvement being a simple acknowledgment that the two people are now kin.
Of course my knowledge is only limited to a "western" viewpoint, I have no idea how the rest of the world went about things.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-07-2010, 20:53
Actually marriage as we know it is a fairly recent invention, until a few hundred years ago, a marriage was an entirely private affair. No recognition was required from the state or church, a marriage simply involved two people saying they would marry each other. I can see where you are coming from that returning to this state of affairs would be better, perhaps having the only government involvement being a simple acknowledgment that the two people are now kin.
Of course my knowledge is only limited to a "western" viewpoint, I have no idea how the rest of the world went about things.
That institution was based on the principle that two Christians will be bound by their word - there is a whole body of canon Law about it. Prior to the advent of Christianity the various pagan City-State religions sanctified marriage. So it has been, from inception, bound up with religion.
I think I made the best post earlier in the thread, which I have seen no one comment on, except for Rory, who referenced part of it, when I said about 'marriage' being unnatural.
That institution was based on the principle that two Christians will be bound by their word - there is a whole body of canon Law about it. Prior to the advent of Christianity the various pagan City-State religions sanctified marriage. So it has been, from inception, bound up with religion.
I presume the christian institution had something to do with the belief that God is everywhere so he would always be witness to any marriage. Practically however it was still a private affair, and prior to Christianity marriage was a simple contract between two people and had nothing to do with religion.
I think I made the best post earlier in the thread, which I have seen no one comment on, except for Rory, who referenced part of it, when I said about 'marriage' being unnatural.
It's only in recent years that this has become the case, in the past two people making a contract for life made perfect sense because by the time they had some kids together and raised them to adulthood they would be about ready to drop dead anyway. Nowadays we live a hell of a lot longer, and no one get married anymore to "continue their line" so spending all of that long life with one person is somewhat unnatural.
a completely inoffensive name
08-08-2010, 09:08
Surely our laws are based on consent? C'mon, things are the wrong way round here. I'm supposed to say we get our laws from the Ten Commandments, before someone more sensible points out our laws are derived from the idea of consent.
Gay people have every right to their life and their property, and to do what they want in their bedroom. But why would you give them legal privileges for it?
It is not the business of the state to be granting legal contracts to people in order to encourage a certain sort of lifestyle, be it a monogamous relationship between a man and a woman, or two men.
Our government is based upon consent, not our laws. Listen you are being ignored because you repeated the same broken idea over and over again "It's not the government's business.". It's the government's business to protect Americans, and gays and lesbians believe it or not count as Americans. They didn't have the same ability to have their love declared offical as heteros do, so that's discrimination, so the government came in and protected them. If you want to spout about financial incentives toward couples being discrimination against single people go ahead, but that statement is so backwards I'm going to continue ignoring it. It's the same as shouting that welfare for poor is discriminating against the rich and successful since they don't qualify for it and never will. Couples who fall in love get financial benefits because gee what usually happens when people fall in love, they have children, whether it be through procreation or adoption and they need help financially supporting those kids. If you seriously think that people are going to get married and start having kids because they want lower taxes and not because they love each other then I'm just going to ignore you the rest of the thread.
I'm not even going to touch upon the fact that I think your whole argument for the abolition of marriage is simply a response to the fact that your exclusive holy club is no longer exclusive or limited to Christians so you want to scrap the entire thing so nobody gets it. That's even laughable though because if marriage was completely disregarded by the state, you would still have a (similar) service popping up that is purely religious discriminating against others and you would still be in this situation anyway. If we have determined that your "property rights" as a business owner do not trump anti-discrimination laws against blacks, jews and anyone else hated in this world then your religious freedom doesn't seem to a proper defense against those laws either.
So why can't they keep it exclusive, a civil union grants the same rights, so it isn't about equal rights. So it's about what.
a completely inoffensive name
08-08-2010, 09:45
So why can't they keep it exclusive, a civil union grants the same rights, so it isn't about equal rights. So it's about what.
You can't have two institutions for the same service based upon race, gender or sexuality period. It's called "separate but equal" and it was officially struck down by the Supreme Court in the 1950s under Brown vs. Board of Education. Saying that gays have civil unions is like saying that blacks had their own water fountains to go to, which provided water just like the white fountains did. So what do they really want when those blacks said they wanted to drink from the white water fountains?
You can't have two institutions for the same service based upon race, gender or sexuality period. It's called "separate but equal" and it was officially struck down by the Supreme Court in the 1950s under Brown vs. Board of Education. Saying that gays have civil unions is like saying that blacks had their own water fountains to go to, which provided water just like the white fountains did. So what do they really want when those blacks said they wanted to drink from the white water fountains?
Nah, no two different institutions for the same thing as it's not the same thing. There is the paperwork and the deeper meaning for some. They can have the paperworks but it's deeper meaning is simply beyond their reach, they can demand it all they want, they are equal for the law but gay marriage will never be more. If conservatives feel there is tresspassing into their spiritual property I agree with them. Hands of, why want it, is a little respect so much to ask?
Ironside
08-08-2010, 09:59
So why can't they keep it exclusive, a civil union grants the same rights, so it isn't about equal rights. So it's about what.
So you want to have a separate but equal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal) policy and then wondering what the fuzz is about?
What is the common term for a non-religious state marriage? Both official and non-official.
And evidence is pretty clear that the natural human state is mostly monogomous, but with room for changing partners and cheating.
a completely inoffensive name
08-08-2010, 10:04
Nah, no two different institutions for the same thing as it's not the same thing. There is the paperwork and the deeper meaning for some. They can have the paperworks but it's deeper meaning is simply beyond their reach, they can demand it all they want, they are equal for the law but gay marriage will never be more. If conservatives feel there is tresspassing into their spiritual property I agree with them. Hands of, why want it, is a little respect so much to ask?
Ahh, I see. Love and commitment and understanding what marriage truly is, is simply beyond the reach of gays and lesbians. Well, your bigotry certainly is compelling and completely logically sound. Let's just say I agree with you so you don't feel compelled to type another one of those posts.
So you want to have a separate but equal (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Separate_but_equal) policy and then wondering what the fuzz is about?
What is the common term for a non-religious state marriage? Both official and non-official.
And evidence is pretty clear that the natural human state is mostly monogomous, but with room for changing partners and cheating.
We get by with freedom of thought, conservatives have that right as well, as if everything should be swept away in the wave of progression. Can they keep something for themselves?
Ahh, I see. Love and commitment and understanding what marriage truly is, is simply beyond the reach of gays and lesbians.
The essence of marriage is beyond their reach, there is no promise of a future. Can't have that, isn't it enough that they love eachother, apperently not. They want to pretend it is and so should we, but it will never be the same thing. For some marriage has a meaning, and mocking that I can see no other than an act of agression.
I object to 'my bigotry' by the way as I'm not with the conservatives here, but I am not going to just dismiss them. You don't have to agree with an argument to defend it. IMHO it's perfectly fine as the institute was reduced to love and commitment anyway, but not everybody sees it like that, and that is also fine chez frag. Live and let live.
... could you, um, substantiate that one? Just a little bit?
No, it's not easy to substantiate sarcastic comments. ~;)
No, it's not easy to substantiate sarcastic comments. ~;)
awwwwwwwww just grab them at the necks, force them down, and relentlesly pound, nobody ever died from a sour butt anyway. Screw sarcasm.
hmmmmm can I, never had anything starting with an s
Tellos Athenaios
08-08-2010, 15:46
The essence of marriage is
Marriage is first a ceremony that celebrates the union, only then a formal legal status. You are right that to (most, if not) all intents and purposes “Civil Union” and “Marriage” are idempotent but you are wrong that this is so in the mind of people who do get married.
If you were right, there would be no reason why heterosexual couples would want to get married; there would be no such ceremony anymore at all: you'd file a form and collect your certificate. But that is not the way it is, because the people who do get married want it to be something more -- more ceremony, more meta-physical value. At that point both “Civil Union” and “Marriage” are not equivalent and it is perfectly understandable that homosexual couples might want to enjoy the same privileges as a heterosexual couple for that reason.
Then if you hold by the idea that “marriage” is performed under the “auspices” of the state (which it is in California, the Netherlands, and other countries where a religious service does not at the moment count in any way as getting married); and you hold by the idea that the “state” may not discriminate against people based on sexual preferences, then it follows that marriage should be as open to homosexual couples as it is to heterosexual couples.
So if the USA constitution mandates that the state must not discriminate against people based on sexual preferences, it follows that California must allow both homosexual and heterosexual couples to be married if it allows either, because in the USA federal laws trump state laws. Since California allows heterosexual couples to be married, it then follows that it must allow homosexual couples as well: ergo proposition 8 is unconstitutional.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-08-2010, 16:11
I presume the christian institution had something to do with the belief that God is everywhere so he would always be witness to any marriage. Practically however it was still a private affair, and prior to Christianity marriage was a simple contract between two people and had nothing to do with religion.
It had to be witnessed, and preferably sanctified by a priest, it was never a "private" affair - quite the opposite. A marriage was something recognised by the whole community. Prior to Christianity in Europe you had Roman-Pagan marriage, Jewish marriage, Greek-Pagan marriage, etc... the Gods (or God) were always invoked both as witness and sanctification. The difference with the coming of Christianity was that divorce went into terminal decline (until the collapse of Christian moral supremacy in the West).
Note, by "moral supremacy" I mean the dominace of the Christian moral outlook.
It's only in recent years that this has become the case, in the past two people making a contract for life made perfect sense because by the time they had some kids together and raised them to adulthood they would be about ready to drop dead anyway. Nowadays we live a hell of a lot longer, and no one get married anymore to "continue their line" so spending all of that long life with one person is somewhat unnatural.
Has it occurred to you that maybe the problem is with our modern society and not with traditional marriage?
You are talking to the wrong person, it's not my point I am merely defending iit as it IS a valid point. If you check all boxes on how we should respectfully get along, than how could you even begin to defend such a mockery of what people truly care about. If you change it's meaning that also means your parents and their parents, and in the end it doesn't mean anything anymore, it's theatre. As society has changed so should we, but it shouldn't be a mandatory celebration..
Rhyfelwyr
08-08-2010, 16:36
Our government is based upon consent, not our laws.
The sole duty of the government should be to protect those laws, it's just natural rights philosophy, you have the right to life (ie you can't be killed without consenting), the right to property (nobody can take it without consenting, etc etc...
Listen you are being ignored because you repeated the same broken idea over and over again "It's not the government's business.". It's the government's business to protect Americans, and gays and lesbians believe it or not count as Americans. They didn't have the same ability to have their love declared offical as heteros do, so that's discrimination, so the government came in and protected them.
No, the government didn't protect homosexuals, they just shouldn't have gave heterosexual couples privileges in the first place. In what way is not having state-recognised marriages a "broken idea", in fact, several liberals and conservatives have already stated in this thread that they see it as the best solution.
BTW I still can't have my love for my TV declared, when will the government come in and protect me from this discrimination? This is actually a serious argument, people sometimes fall in love with objects, I remember one woman fell in love with the Berlin wall. How dare the state not recognised their love!
If you want to spout about financial incentives toward couples being discrimination against single people go ahead, but that statement is so backwards I'm going to continue ignoring it. It's the same as shouting that welfare for poor is discriminating against the rich and successful since they don't qualify for it and never will.
Your analogy doesn't work, since welfare is necessary to maintain basic rights, most obviously the right to life, for those who would otherwise starve without it. As I said, it is the duty of the state to maintain the rights of its citizens.
Now for once could someone actually explain to me why getting various legal privileges for living in a sexual relationship with someone ought to be a basic right? Anyone???
Couples who fall in love get financial benefits because gee what usually happens when people fall in love, they have children, whether it be through procreation or adoption and they need help financially supporting those kids. If you seriously think that people are going to get married and start having kids because they want lower taxes and not because they love each other then I'm just going to ignore you the rest of the thread.
Erm.. when did I say anything like what you wrote in the last sentence?
And if you are saying the reason they get tax breaks is to help them when they have children, why don't they just get them when they raise/adopt a child?
I'm not even going to touch upon the fact that I think your whole argument for the abolition of marriage is simply a response to the fact that your exclusive holy club is no longer exclusive or limited to Christians so you want to scrap the entire thing so nobody gets it. That's even laughable though because if marriage was completely disregarded by the state, you would still have a (similar) service popping up that is purely religious discriminating against others and you would still be in this situation anyway.
If it is purely religious (and presumably therefore not related to the state), why the :daisy: would gay people have a problem with that?
There should never be any discrimination institutionalised into the laws of the land, never. But it churches don't want to marry people that's their business. The state has no need to concern itself with what society thinks of gays, so long as it doesn't threaten their rights.
I wouldn't have even known what point you were making there, if you hadn't said earlier that the state makes things 'even' for homosexuals by recognising their 'love', when churches refused to do it. That's not granting legal equality, that's a half-arsed attempt to engineer cultural equality. As I said then, I think this is a bizarre argument, will we be having state run baptisms and communion next when the churches don't accept people?
If we have determined that your "property rights" as a business owner do not trump anti-discrimination laws against blacks, jews and anyone else hated in this world then your religious freedom doesn't seem to a proper defense against those laws either.
Actually I don't see "property rights" and "anti-discrimination laws" as things that should come into conflict. The state has no right to discriminate, the average citizen should IMO. Property rights are a fundamental right, having people like you and letting you into their property isn't.
If a business owner doesn't want blacks in his shop, I fully support his right to bar them, the same way he could bar them from his own house. I wouldn't agree with what he was doing, I might even boycott him, but I don't want to live in a world where human rights come second to social engineering. Of course, state runs school should never be segregated, but there's no reason why private schools should be.
Tellos Athenaios
08-08-2010, 16:58
If you change it's meaning that also means your parents and their parents, and in the end it doesn't mean anything anymore, it's theatre. As society has changed so should we, but it shouldn't be a mandatory celebration..
No you don't. The one great thing about tradition is how quickly it is established and how quickly it can, and does, change depending on circumstances. A somewhat telling example would be the practice of execution which was only formally abolished on 11 April 1982. Count the number of people who seriously make a point of it being reinstated. Does it change anything related to any parent or ancestor of yours being executed? Likewise: levée en masse is now suspended. Does that mean anything to any parent or ancestor of you who served or evaded service in the Dutch army? Does it make their contribution/sacrifices or lack thereof any more or less relevant? And let's not forget that our ancestors had few qualms about what their ancestors might have thought either: now, we no longer go to a great Oak thousands of years old to debate matters pertaining to our tribe or clan either, and we have dispensed with the practice of hijacking every English vessel that comes within our reach too. We no longer plot to attack the French and we even accept Catholic clergy again. ~;)
There is a definite problem with your (in general, not just yours in particular) reasoning somewhere if you cannot make the distinction between yourself and others, between yourself and your parents, close relatives, ancestors etc. etc. Saying that you “change” your parents or ancestors merely by changing something which may not even affect you directly (getting married is a bit of a big if nowadays) is rather absurd. To let what your ancestors hypothetically might feel have a direct impact on the lives of others when you do not even (actively) support their (now outdated) ideas on marriage is even more so.
Rather than focusing on an argument without substance (my dead ancestors from 2000 years ago couldn't care less either); I prefer to look at the group of people who have a very valid point when they protest that if their state does not deal in discrimination by its own admission, then how come it does marry some people but not them? It is either the one or the other, but not both. The issue arises only, of course, if you posit that marriage is before the state rather than any other institution (which any group might found) or a private affair or that the legal status is still a relevant distinction.
Society changes never said it doesn't. Leave things be there is no need to kick in that door.
Meneldil
08-09-2010, 17:59
And let's not forget that our ancestors had few qualms about what their ancestors might have thought either: now, we no longer go to a great Oak thousands of years old to debate matters pertaining to our tribe or clan either, and we have dispensed with the practice of hijacking every English vessel that comes within our reach too. We no longer plot to attack the French and we even accept Catholic clergy again. ~;)
That is a mistake.
Skullheadhq
08-09-2010, 18:53
That is a mistake.
It is true, we Dutch are now focusing on the soon to be anschlusch of Flanders by destabilising Belgian cabinets and funding seperatists like De Weever. The best part is that the Belgians themselfves have absolutely no clue, but soon Flanders will be ours muhahaha
Seamus Fermanagh
08-09-2010, 18:56
You keep saying this... but what would it solve, really? Homosexuality's defining characteristic is a certain behavior. Whether it's something innate or acquired, what changes?
A reasonable question.
For me, it seems that most of the reasonable opposition to same-sex marriage in the USA objects for reasons that boil down to either moral traditionalism or religious convictions. It is my belief that, were it proven that being "gay" is an innate quality, that a goodly portion of the religious opposition and traditional opposition would have to re-think their whole attitude towards sexuality. Discriminating against a chosen behavior which you define as abhorent is more defensible -- in logical terms -- than is discrminating against an innate characteristic (not that humans haven't done that anyway throughout history). My hope would be that we'd address the whole issue more reasonably.
In truth, on a practical level, your implied criticism of my point is spot on. Regardless of the research, most folks would not change their viewpoint and would continue to revel in their own ill-informed opinions. So the research results would accomplish little at all and we'd still be stuck in this same dynamic.
It really boils down to the fact that many heteros have a visceral negative response to seeing same-sex behavior and want it closeted off and screened away by any means in order to further their own psychological comfort (no, they're not all closet homosexuals themselves, though a number are and are arguing against admitting such to themselves). That dynamic won't change, so neither will this debate.
ajaxfetish
08-09-2010, 19:57
I think I made the best post earlier in the thread, which I have seen no one comment on, except for Rory, who referenced part of it, when I said about 'marriage' being unnatural.
I'd say it was only the third best post.
Ajax
Rhyfelwyr
08-10-2010, 00:34
Don't forget, gay marriage will lead to the niece of Martin Luther King Jr. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09W5p2hZPa4&feature=player_embedded) becoming extinct, why would someone support this genocide?
In truth, on a practical level, your implied criticism of my point is spot on. Regardless of the research, most folks would not change their viewpoint and would continue to revel in their own ill-informed opinions. So the research results would accomplish little at all and we'd still be stuck in this same dynamic.It's not even that. Having a genetic predisposition to something still doesn't force others to approve of your behavior. What if arsonists were found to be born with that tendency? Would anyone think less of their behavior?
Furthermore, an innate instead of acquired trait would raise further questions- can it be screened for? Can it be cured? I really don't see how it would settle any part of the debate.
------
On the subject of the ruling- the more of it I read, the dumber I feel like it's making me. The opinion reads like it was written by the plaintiff. The judge ticks off an entire laundry list of "facts" that have no bearing on the decision and tries to use them to find in favor. Homosexuals can lover each other, they can raise children... who cares? The issue he was supposed to decide is whether or not Prop8 violates the US Constitution. Much of the ruling reads like it's more about justifying gay marriage than ruling on the constitutionality. It'd make more sense if he was trying to decide a case where the plaintiff was challenging a ruling allowing gay marriage, but that's not the case before him. Considering that he'd originally wanted to air the whole proceeding on YouTube, it really sounds like he was more interested in a show trial than a fair hearing of both sides. :shrug:
PanzerJaeger
08-10-2010, 04:41
PJ I don't know you as someone deliberately missing the point, not that I disagree with you, but it isn't about the specifics but the institution itself. If you have a certain outlook on it, the centuries old one, then how is it not a perversion of that institution. It's an empty word for me, but can those who care keep it real? Why can't they have that? How much value will a gay marriage have for the gays once I can marry my cat anyway, really love my cat.
In order to see it as a perversion of the institution, I would have to view homosexuals, and their relationships, as somehow worth less than heterosexual relationships. I just don't. :shrug:
On the other hand, as mentioned, the heterosexual divorce rate that hovers around 50% in the Western World has made marriage essentially nothing more than one level up from boyfriend/girlfriend. Yet somehow it's the gays that are going to render marriage meaningless? That happened a long time ago.
It's not even that. Having a genetic predisposition to something still doesn't force others to approve of your behavior. What if arsonists were found to be born with that tendency? Would anyone think less of their behavior?
Would it not depend on the behavior? Arson is destructive. There are victims and damages involved.
It takes a much more advanced form of mental gymnastics to justify a negative attitude toward a naturally occurring, non-chosen behavior that affects no one.
Don't forget, gay marriage will lead to the niece of Martin Luther King Jr. (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=09W5p2hZPa4&feature=player_embedded) becoming extinct, why would someone support this genocide?
As worthless as her uncle.
Considering that he'd originally wanted to air the whole proceeding on YouTube, it really sounds like he was more interested in a show trial than a fair hearing of both sides. :shrug:
From what little I've read, it looks as though the defendants didn't really show up, hence the one-sided ruling. They promised something like twenty-two specific harms that same-sex marriage caused; they provided none. They promised expert testimony; they provided none. In judicial terms it was a no-show shut-out.
We have an adversarial system of justice. What to do when one team throws the game?
We have an adversarial system of justice. What to do when one team throws the game?Write a sensible ruling. :nice:
a completely inoffensive name
08-11-2010, 07:19
Write a sensible ruling. :nice:
How can you write a sensible ruling for both sides when there is only one side? Make up valid points for the Proposition 8 legal team? That's not his job. His job is to rule in favor of the side with the most convincing argument, whether we like it or not Prop 8 failed to have a better argument (or in this case an argument going by the judge's 138 page report).
How can you write a sensible ruling for both sides when there is only one side?He could explain in detail how Prop.8 violated the US Constitution instead of prattling on about how gay marriage will be beneficial to society and how all the haters have bad arguments. It's like the judge had it 180 degrees backwards and thought it was the defense that had the burden of proof and not the plaintiff. Here's where the plaintiff said how great gay marriage will be and you didn't disprove any of them, so you lose.:dizzy:
That's not what the case was about.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-11-2010, 19:42
How can you write a sensible ruling for both sides when there is only one side? Make up valid points for the Proposition 8 legal team? That's not his job.
Actually, in appelate law at the constitutional level, judges are expected to ask critical and probing questions of the advocates and to more or less cross-examine their assertions. Effectively, the judge should have "argued the other side" as part of her/his query into the complaint's constitutional implications. I have not read the transcript, so I acknowledge that the judge may have done just that.
Sasaki Kojiro
08-11-2010, 20:10
He could explain in detail how Prop.8 violated the US Constitution instead of prattling on about how gay marriage will be beneficial to society and how all the haters have bad arguments. It's like the judge had it 180 degrees backwards and thought it was the defense that had the burden of proof and not the plaintiff. Here's where the plaintiff said how great gay marriage will be and you didn't disprove any of them, so you lose.:dizzy:
That's not what the case was about.
Don't they always comment on more than just the constitutional part?
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-12-2010, 00:16
A reasonable question.
For me, it seems that most of the reasonable opposition to same-sex marriage in the USA objects for reasons that boil down to either moral traditionalism or religious convictions. It is my belief that, were it proven that being "gay" is an innate quality, that a goodly portion of the religious opposition and traditional opposition would have to re-think their whole attitude towards sexuality. Discriminating against a chosen behavior which you define as abhorent is more defensible -- in logical terms -- than is discrminating against an innate characteristic (not that humans haven't done that anyway throughout history). My hope would be that we'd address the whole issue more reasonably.
In truth, on a practical level, your implied criticism of my point is spot on. Regardless of the research, most folks would not change their viewpoint and would continue to revel in their own ill-informed opinions. So the research results would accomplish little at all and we'd still be stuck in this same dynamic.
It really boils down to the fact that many heteros have a visceral negative response to seeing same-sex behavior and want it closeted off and screened away by any means in order to further their own psychological comfort (no, they're not all closet homosexuals themselves, though a number are and are arguing against admitting such to themselves). That dynamic won't change, so neither will this debate.
While I think that youy might, theoretically, have a point - I don't think it matters theologically for most religions. The "big three" all view the world and humanity as inherrently fallen and corrupted; ergo homosexuality is just another form of corruption.
Oh, and before all you "Liberals" jump down my throat, this is not my personal opinion, but my theological opinion with regard to others' opinions, ok?
The "big three" all view the world and humanity as inherrently fallen and corrupted; ergo homosexuality is just another form of corruption.
Oh, and before all you "Liberals" jump down my throat, this is not my personal opinion, but my theological opinion with regard to others' opinions, ok?
Well, not every branch of Christianity believes in original sin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Original_sin), and I know not every Judaic tradition does so. Does Islam? I don't know. So no, on the face of it your statement is false, demonstrably false. Liberals, in quotes or out of them, have nothing to do with it. Not all of the big three believe that man is fallen.
Crazed Rabbit
08-14-2010, 03:05
From Orin Kerr, a blogger at the Volokh Conspiracy (http://volokh.com/2010/08/09/a-question-for-readers-who-think-the-constitution-required-states-to-recognize-same-sex-marriage-before-1900/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+volokh%2Fmainfeed+%28The+Volokh+Conspiracy%29), comes the following question. The basis is that the right to gay marriage declared by the judge comes from 14th amendment, passed in the 1800s.
This is a follow-up to my post below on the reader polls about attitudes toward same-sex marriage. In the fourth of the four polls, I asked readers who think that the Constitution requires states to recognize same-sex marriage to say when the Constitution began to require it. Slightly more than half the readers who answered that poll answered that the requirement began before the year 1900.
Here’s a follow-up question, specifically address to readers who did or would answer the poll that way. Here’s the question: What conduct or statuses have not yet been recognized as protected by the Constitution; are in fact presently protected by the Constitution; and would trigger widespread shock among a wide range of the public today if they knew the Constitution protected it?
Here’s why I ask. One of the interesting aspects of saying that the Constitution required states to protect same-sex marriage before 1900 is the implication that the requirement existed back when the idea of same-sex marriage would have seemed utterly shocking. I gather the folks who believe that the same-sex marriage right existed back when it was shocking also believe that there are other rights that presently exist in the Constitution, currently unrecognized, that are as shocking to us today as same-sex marriage would have seemed in the 1700s or 1800s. My question is, what specifically are those other rights? Alternatively, are there no more presently-unrecognized rights in the Constitution — is the Constitution all tapped out rights-wise? Or perhaps those other rights are there, but we can’t see them yet — and if so, why can’t we see them?
Well?
CR
Sasaki Kojiro
08-14-2010, 03:11
I gather the folks who believe that the same-sex marriage right existed back when it was shocking also believe that there are other rights that presently exist in the Constitution, currently unrecognized, that are as shocking to us today as same-sex marriage would have seemed in the 1700s or 1800s.
Where on earth does he gather that from? :dizzy2: It doesn't follow.
Does he believe that womens voting and slavery being immoral would have been "shocking" back in the day? If so then he has the same "problem" he's babbling about here.
Tellos Athenaios
08-14-2010, 03:16
Indeed it does not follow. However his ultimate concluding thought for the day if you will is that “are there any rights encoded in the [USA] constitution which we currently do not recognize”.
However it is a bit of a moot point because [i]we cannot know since we would not recognize them. That's for the social/moral pioneers to find (not figure) out.
Crazed Rabbit
08-14-2010, 04:04
Where on earth does he gather that from? :dizzy2: It doesn't follow.
Does he believe that womens voting and slavery being immoral would have been "shocking" back in the day? If so then he has the same "problem" he's babbling about here.
If the constitutional right for gay marriage came into being during the 1800s (due to the 14th amendment), then that means the right to gay marriage has existed since then. So gay people should have been able to marry since that time.
But gay marriage would have been a very shocking idea and concept to the people of the 1800s.
Furthermore, assume that there are yet unrecognized rights in the constitution, similar to how the foundation for gay marriage existed since the 1800s but is only now recognized.
Mr. Kerr is asking for thoughts on what consitutional rights may exist now but are unrecognized, similar to the situation of gay marriage in the 1800s.
I think that just becuase they are unrecognized does not mean they are impossible for people, understanding what the constitution promises and where society is headed, to give an educated guess as to what rights may exist, unrecognized.
CR
Tellos Athenaios
08-14-2010, 04:55
I'm not saying you cannot make (educated) guesses, or even pretty good predictions. I'm saying that just because you “guess” that something is a right does not make it so until you can verify that it passes the acid test of a few court cases, or a political campaigns. And that requires more than just theorizing about it, so unless someone invents the time machine sharpish it remains a bit of a moot point.
Sasaki Kojiro
08-14-2010, 05:24
If the constitutional right for gay marriage came into being during the 1800s (due to the 14th amendment), then that means the right to gay marriage has existed since then. So gay people should have been able to marry since that time.
But gay marriage would have been a very shocking idea and concept to the people of the 1800s.
Furthermore, assume that there are yet unrecognized rights in the constitution, similar to how the foundation for gay marriage existed since the 1800s but is only now recognized.
Mr. Kerr is asking for thoughts on what consitutional rights may exist now but are unrecognized, similar to the situation of gay marriage in the 1800s.
I think that just becuase they are unrecognized does not mean they are impossible for people, understanding what the constitution promises and where society is headed, to give an educated guess as to what rights may exist, unrecognized.
CR
This is entirely a false dilemma based on the various definitions of "right". Women had the natural right to vote (equality) before they were given the legal right to vote. That's usually how it goes, we see that people have a certain right and then we encode it in our laws.
Kerr's going for a cloaked version of the "but if we legalize gay marriage, then something-something might become legal next!" slippery slope argument.
If there is an accidental loophole in the constitution that gives a legal right where it shouldn't be given (where there is no natural right), that is unfortunate but irrelevant to the gay marriage situation (where the legal right should be given).
If I'm mistaken and he isn't interested in any gay marriage angle, but just in possible interpretations of the constitution, then this is all off topic.
Yup, Orin Kerr is delivering a very gussied-up and well-dressed version of the slippery slope fallacy (http://www.fallacyfiles.org/slipslop.html).
Meanwhile, going back to the notion that the Prop 8 supporters pretty much threw the trial, here's a little hard data (http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-marriage-appeal-20100814,0,7326322.story):
Challengers of Proposition 8 presented 17 witnesses at the trial. ProtectMarriage called only two, and those witnesses made several damaging concessions during cross-examination. In his ruling overturning Proposition 8, Walker complained about the dearth of evidence from ProtectMarriage.
A little more detail (http://www.opednews.com/articles/The-Prop-8-Decision-Can-W-by-Daniel-Vojir-100809-376.html):
ADF CANCELLED all of their pertinent witnesses except two: David Blankenhorn and William Tam.
Proponents elected not to call the majority of their designated witnesses to testify at trial and call not a single official proponent of Proposition 8 presented to voters and the arguments presented in court. [...]
Both witnesses were deemed completely unacceptable by the judge. They had no pertinent academic credentials and they both had ties to the George Reeker scandal as well. When asked about sources for a statement, William Tam gave one of the most anemic answers in trial history "I found it on the internet."
While they were supposedly acting as proponents for the State of California (NOT Protect Marriage), they did nothing to prove that the State of California would be harmed in any way by same-sex marriages. NOTE: Judge Walker has been known to weigh heavily on economic impact in cases like these. They certainly didn't do their homework.
[...] the defense folded before everyone's eyes.
Sasaki Kojiro
08-14-2010, 18:58
William Tam gave one of the most anemic answers in trial history "I found it on the internet."
:laugh4:
Rhyfelwyr
08-14-2010, 19:45
they did nothing to prove that the State of California would be harmed in any way by same-sex marriages.
Why is any of this relevant? I thought this issue was whether or not gay marriage was a constitutional right, not whether or not gay marriage is a beneficial thing to have for society.
Why have people attacked the opposition for subjecting the idea of gay marriage to common views, only to go on to appeal to... common views when making their argument in favour of it.
Bottom line: Homosexual marriage isn't a constutional right, nor is any kind of marriage. It is a privilege given to heterosexual families because they were once the basic social unit.
I cannot see the discrimination angle as being relevant given this, especially when asexuals and single people will still be discriminated against given the strange concept of 'discrimination' that makes heterosexual-only marriages discrimination against gay people.
Rhyfelwyr, IANAL, but as I understand the legal reasoning it is thus:
Prop 8 denies a state-sanctioned condition to a minority of the population (marriage and teh gayzorz)
To make this denial valid, there must be a reason for it
The defenders of Prop 8 claimed they were going to demonstrate 22 "specific" harms that gay marriage would cause the State of California (& citizens)
They didn't articulate even one
Hence the judicial/legalshut-out
Rhyfelwyr
08-14-2010, 20:54
Rhyfelwyr, IANAL, but as I understand the legal reasoning it is thus:
Prop 8 denies a state-sanctioned condition to a minority of the population (marriage and teh gayzorz)
To make this denial valid, there must be a reason for it
The defenders of Prop 8 claimed they were going to demonstrate 22 "specific" harms that gay marriage would cause the State of California (& citizens)
They didn't articulate even one
Hence the judicial/legalshut-out
Yeah I have to admit the opposition quite spectacularly imploded. The only thing I would disagree with on your list is with point 2, since I think it confuses the order of things.
Marriage, when it was institutionalised into the legal system as a "state-sanctioned condition", was commonly accepted by all as meaning the union of one man and one woman. That the meaning of the word 'marriage' has changed with the views of society does not mean the legal system must follow suit, and when we discuss the legal status of marriage, we have to remember the context, with the fact that marriage specifically meant the set up with one man/woman when it was first given legal status.
In that sense, the 'marriage' idea that modern folk have as being between any two adult people, was never given legal status, and since homosexual couples never came within the standard bounds of marriage, there is no reason to validate your second point, which is "To make this denial valid, there must be a reason for it". It makes it sound as if homosexuals were deliberately removed from the institution of marriage, when really they were never a part of it to begin with.
Rather, since marriage was granted as a privilege to heterosexual couples, surely the burden of proof lies on those who wish to see the institution extended to homosexuals?
The reason for the old heterosexual marriage was obvious. The nuclear family was the basic social unit. The man worked, the woman kept the house in order, and they generally reproduced. IMO, the burden of proof is on those who support homosexual marriage, if they wish to provide reasons why the legal privileges once given to heterosexual couples ought to be extended to their homosexual counterparts.
Sasaki Kojiro
08-14-2010, 20:59
IMO, the burden of proof is on those who support homosexual marriage, if they wish to provide reasons why the legal privileges once given to heterosexual couples ought to be extended to their homosexual counterparts.
A quick search finds this list of legal privileges associated with marriage:
1. Joint parental rights of children
2. Joint adoption
3. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6. Crime victims recovery benefits
7. Domestic violence protection orders
8. Judicial protections and immunity
9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10. Public safety officers death benefits
11. Spousal veterans benefits
12. Social Security
13. Medicare
14. Joint filing of tax returns
15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17. Child support
18. Joint Insurance Plans
19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21. Estate and gift tax benefits
22. Welfare and public assistance
23. Joint housing for elderly
24. Credit protection
25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans
Don't you think at least most of these apply just as well to same sex marriages as they do to straight marriages?
Seamus Fermanagh
08-14-2010, 23:14
Sasaki:
None of those things in your 25 point list should be prohibited to a same sex couple. If such privileges are extended to an officially designated heterosexual pairing, there can be little or no reasonable grounds NOT to extend the same benefits to an officially designated homosexual or lesbian couple -- or for that matter a platonic couple. Any pair of consenting adults should be able to form such a union.
The problem for the religious is that marriage (at least to them) is more than these civil benefits. It represents a sanctified joining that is sacramental and spiritual as well as legal and physical. Since many (most?) faiths do not consider same-sex unions to be sanctifiable, they oppose same-sex marriage on that basis. A few view homosexuals as actively sinning against the will of God, making such unions not only unsanctifiable but actively blasphemous.
Civil unions required of all who would claim/enjoy the legal benefits of such a union and marriage reserved to the dictates of the various faith groups would seem to be an equitable re-structuring. But it won't happen that way. Hardliners on both sides of the issue abhor such a compromise and want victory thrown in the face of their opposition. A bit too much "so NyahQ take that!" going both ways if you ask me.
Rhyfelwyr
08-14-2010, 23:19
Don't you think at least most of these apply just as well to same sex marriages as they do to straight marriages?
Well they can't perform the primary function of producing children, and I still do not believe having two fathers/mothers is good for children. But otherwise, yes, homosexual couples can do all the rest of the stuff. But why not make do with a civil partnership? Everything on your list could just as easily be performed by any two people living together in any sort of relationship, the question is why must it then be granted the legal status of a marriage?
Sasaki Kojiro
08-14-2010, 23:34
Well they can't perform the primary function of producing children, and I still do not believe having two fathers/mothers is good for children. But otherwise, yes, homosexual couples can do all the rest of the stuff. But why not make do with a civil partnership? Everything on your list could just as easily be performed by any two people living together in any sort of relationship, the question is why must it then be granted the legal status of a marriage?
The primary function isn't producing children. That's the logical hopskotch that pvc went through where he claimed infertile women shouldn't be allowed to marry. As for calling it a civil partnership, that's seamus's point too, so...
Civil unions required of all who would claim/enjoy the legal benefits of such a union and marriage reserved to the dictates of the various faith groups would seem to be an equitable re-structuring. But it won't happen that way. Hardliners on both sides of the issue abhor such a compromise and want victory thrown in the face of their opposition. A bit too much "so NyahQ take that!" going both ways if you ask me.
A lot of opposition to civil unions is because the proposed laws regarding them have left many rights off the table, and have often not been applicable outside of the state that granted them (I believe).
Atheists can get married right? But isn't that non sacramental?
Essentially, religions have no more right to object to non-holy marriages than they do to atheists and non-christians celebrating christmas. They don't have to call it x-mas, or "civil gift giving holiday". I can't help but find it a petty objection. You have to live and let live more than that.
Civil Union is "Marriage", since "Marriage" in legal speak becomes a "Civil Union" and they are not held seperately.
It is not really a compromise, since the Union still occurs. It is fighting over what to call it.
Rhyfelwyr
08-14-2010, 23:57
The primary function isn't producing children. That's the logical hopskotch that pvc went through where he claimed infertile women shouldn't be allowed to marry. As for calling it a civil partnership, that's seamus's point too, so...
The is an important difference in the way PVC and myself presented these points though. PVC (IIRC) argued the point with producing children in order to justify the relevance of heterosexual marraige today. On the other hand, I was putting it more in a historical context, since I had just made the points on the meaning of marriage when it was institutionalised into the legal system, and explained the role of the traditional nuclear family etc.
I was saying that our idea of marriage has its roots in the nuclear family, although it is no longer justified by these. Historically, heterosexual couples generally produced children, they generally functioned very well as a social unit etc.
Because of these functions, we have over the centuries gained our understanding of what marriage is. Whether or every heterosexual couple actually produced children, or functioned well as a family, they generally had one thing in common - the one man and one woman.
This is the 21st century, much of the practical side of the old hetersexual marriage is irrelevent. A lot of people can't be bothered with kids, their role in life is not longer determined by their position in the extended family. But it is because of these historic functions that marriage came to be what it currently means to us.
And I was in reply mode before I was able to read what seamus wrote. :tongue2:
A lot of opposition to civil unions is because the proposed laws regarding them have left many rights off the table, and have often not been applicable outside of the state that granted them (I believe).
Atheists can get married right? But isn't that non sacramental?
Essentially, religions have no more right to object to non-holy marriages than they do to atheists and non-christians celebrating christmas. They don't have to call it x-mas, or "civil gift giving holiday". I can't help but find it a petty objection. You have to live and let live more than that.
Although religious ideas are intertwined in the minds of those who opposed gay marriage, our arguments have never been based on them, but have been strictly secular. I never said gay marriage should be illegal because God says it is an abomination.
The question here remains simply whether or not homosexual couples deserve legal status as being 'married'. They are, of course, free to have a ceremony in their own church/gay person's club/whatever, and carry out a ceremony there, and call it marriage, if they feel so inclined.
The is an important difference in the way PVC and myself presented these points though. PVC (IIRC) argued the point with producing children in order to justify the relevance of heterosexual marraige today. On the other hand, I was putting it more in a historical context, since I had just made the points on the meaning of marriage when it was institutionalised into the legal system, and explained the role of the traditional nuclear family etc.
I was saying that our idea of marriage has its roots in the nuclear family, although it is no longer justified by these. Historically, heterosexual couples generally produced children, they generally functioned very well as a social unit etc.I think it's pretty apparent that one of, if not the only, primary reason for legal recognition of marriage was foster stable environments for the upbringing of children. Should that mean sterile people can't get married? No, the state never required that level of invasiveness for a legal union. To actively search out sterile marriages would be needlessly difficult and an invasion of privacy. I mean, if PVC wants to push for automatic dissolution of childless marriages, he can- but why? People in favor of same-sex marriage are free to argue that society will benefit from the stability that would bring- convince enough people and they'll get what they want.
But again, the entire point is that this is not a Constitutional issue. And it is not an issue that should be decided by the courts.
PanzerJaeger
08-15-2010, 17:56
People in favor of same-sex marriage are free to argue that society will benefit from the stability that would bring- convince enough people and they'll get what they want.
I agree that minds have to be changed as well as laws, but keep in mind that right now somewhere in this country a gay man or woman is being denied visitation access to his or her partner in the hospital. I read a particularly compelling story where a woman was barred from being at her partner of 23 year’s side as she lay dying of cancer.
This is all conceptual to us. Is it constitutional or isn’t it? To these people though, it is a stark reality. They’re living the discrimination, and I can definitely see why they would feel like second class citizens.
a completely inoffensive name
08-15-2010, 20:57
He could explain in detail how Prop.8 violated the US Constitution instead of prattling on about how gay marriage will be beneficial to society and how all the haters have bad arguments. It's like the judge had it 180 degrees backwards and thought it was the defense that had the burden of proof and not the plaintiff. Here's where the plaintiff said how great gay marriage will be and you didn't disprove any of them, so you lose.:dizzy:
That's not what the case was about.
Did you even the report? If so, quotes please that support your statement.
Actually, in appelate law at the constitutional level, judges are expected to ask critical and probing questions of the advocates and to more or less cross-examine their assertions. Effectively, the judge should have "argued the other side" as part of her/his query into the complaint's constitutional implications. I have not read the transcript, so I acknowledge that the judge may have done just that.
He did. For every point that the Prop 8 supporters brought up he challenged the Prop 8 opponents to prove that it was false, otherwise there would be a reasonable basis to deny same sex marriages. It turned out that that every point brought was proven false.
Philippus Flavius Homovallumus
08-15-2010, 23:24
The primary function isn't producing children. That's the logical hopskotch that pvc went through where he claimed infertile women shouldn't be allowed to marry. As for calling it a civil partnership, that's seamus's point too, so...
.
What logical hopsctoch?
A man's inability to perform on the wedding Night is also grounds for annullment, or did you just ignore that?
Marriage is a legal contract, intended to be indisoluable, designed to provide a stable environment for the couple's children, and to afford those children legal protection.
What logical hopsctoch?
A man's inability to perform on the wedding Night is also grounds for annullment, or did you just ignore that?
Marriage is a legal contract, intended to be indisoluable, designed to provide a stable environment for the couple's children, and to afford those children legal protection.
What if an infertile couple planned to marry and adopt, would you allow that or do you believe the children they are raising must be biological?
Reenk Roink
08-16-2010, 07:46
None of those things in your 25 point list should be prohibited to a same sex couple. If such privileges are extended to an officially designated heterosexual pairing, there can be little or no reasonable grounds NOT to extend the same benefits to an officially designated homosexual or lesbian couple -- or for that matter a platonic couple. Any pair of consenting adults should be able to form such a union.
The problem for the religious is that marriage (at least to them) is more than these civil benefits. It represents a sanctified joining that is sacramental and spiritual as well as legal and physical. Since many (most?) faiths do not consider same-sex unions to be sanctifiable, they oppose same-sex marriage on that basis. A few view homosexuals as actively sinning against the will of God, making such unions not only unsanctifiable but actively blasphemous.
Civil unions required of all who would claim/enjoy the legal benefits of such a union and marriage reserved to the dictates of the various faith groups would seem to be an equitable re-structuring. But it won't happen that way. Hardliners on both sides of the issue abhor such a compromise and want victory thrown in the face of their opposition. A bit too much "so NyahQ take that!" going both ways if you ask me.
Really good post on the insights of the mindset of the religious opposition. The problem I see with the anti gay marriage religious viewpoint is that, as mentioned before, the institution of marriage has become SO watered down from whatever it used to mean spiritually and religiously, that even though they may have a point about sanctification in THEIR eyes, it simply is hard to see for all others. The civil institution of marriage with all it's benefits has basically become what "marriage" is for the majority of people.
And yet, despite this, the word marriage still has enough of a "meaning" behind it that as you anticipate, same sex couples will simply not accept having "unions" with all the same benefits except for the name "marriage". And I can more than understand their "separate but equal" criticism of it...
Really good post on the insights of the mindset of the religious opposition. The problem I see with the anti gay marriage religious viewpoint is that, as mentioned before, the institution of marriage has become SO watered down from whatever it used to mean spiritually and religiously, that even though they may have a point about sanctification in THEIR eyes, it simply is hard to see for all others. The civil institution of marriage with all it's benefits has basically become what "marriage" is for the majority of people.
And yet, despite this, the word marriage still has enough of a "meaning" behind it that as you anticipate, same sex couples will simply not accept having "unions" with all the same benefits except for the name "marriage". And I can more than understand their "separate but equal" criticism of it...
In otherwords - Patato/Potato ?
Reenk Roink
08-16-2010, 18:38
In otherwords - Patato/Potato ?
In other words, even though marriage has largely lost it's "sacred" sense and meaning, the idea of a state privilege of marriage still permeates through society, and thus it is pretty easy to see why calling heterosexual unions one thing and homosexual unions another, despite them having the same benefits, would piss off one group.
it is pretty easy to see why calling heterosexual unions one thing and homosexual unions another, despite them having the same benefits, would piss off one group.
Being "pissed off" is not really the issue; if there are two separate conditions with two separate meanings, laws that apply to one will not apply to the other unless explicitly written to do so. So the many privileges associated with being married will have to be re-written, one by one, to apply to domestic partnership or whatever you want to call it. Or, more likely, they will not be re-written.
Reenk Roink
08-16-2010, 19:49
Being "pissed off" is not really the issue; if there are two separate conditions with two separate meanings, laws that apply to one will not apply to the other unless explicitly written to do so. So the many privileges associated with being married will have to be re-written, one by one, to apply to domestic partnership or whatever you want to call it. Or, more likely, they will not be re-written.
Oh for sure, I understand the practical obstacles to enacting such policies, and knowing the way things work when people realize they cant stop something they just try to tie it up in court. I was merely pointing out why there would be reasonable opposition to calling essentially the same thing two different things.
So the 9th Circuit Court retains the same-sex marriage ban until their hearing starting December 6th.
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/16/same.sex.marriage/index.html?hpt=T1
Interesting decision, I wonder if this was done to postpone flak before the elections. :inquisitive: Because it's a forgone conclusion that the 9th will uphold Walker's ruling.
The "standing" issue is really unsettling to me. You have a majority of voters pass a proposition. One person can challenge it in court and if the attorney general of the state isn't interested in supporting the proposition, it gets overturned by default? That really seems to short-circuit the democratic process. This would mean any referendum passed by the people can be tossed aside if the current government doesn't support it.
On another note- isnt the AG shirking his duty here?
Tellos Athenaios
08-17-2010, 05:13
Which would be the case, if the law in question (prop 8) had actually been valid within the legal framework it must fit in (Californian constitution, and the USA one). Remember that in the USA federal laws trump state laws, and constitutions trump “lesser” laws. But prop 8 isn't and that is the meat of the ruling (that the AG isn't interested in defending it is merely a mildly interesting sideshow).
Now the Judge has noted two things: (1) that the defense for prop 8 failed to make a case why prop 8 is not in fact unconstitutional, (2) that prop 8 does indeed appear to violate applicable constitutions and law. So (2) might have been considered differently had (1) not been the case however (2) still applies which is (a) also the contention brought before the court by the plaintiffs, and (b) the argument which I still haven't seen anyone giving a sound counter-argument to.
Finally, remember that it is the job of the courts to check the excesses of lawmakers (be that popular vote or politicians making hay while the sun is still shining on a Mosque in NYC): that is why you should be grateful not to live in any “democracy” (or rather mob-rule) but in a country where laws can be scrutinized and acid-tested before a court. It gives minorities protection from arbitrary decisions imposed on them by a majority, if they can prove them to be unjust/unfair.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-17-2010, 13:45
The "standing" issue is really unsettling to me. You have a majority of voters pass a proposition. One person can challenge it in court and if the attorney general of the state isn't interested in supporting the proposition, it gets overturned by default? That really seems to short-circuit the democratic process. This would mean any referendum passed by the people can be tossed aside if the current government doesn't support it.
On another note- isnt the AG shirking his duty here?
Depends on whether you view elected officials in Jeffersonian or Burkean terms. Jefferson held that an elected official should reflect the will of her constituency. Burke held that an elected official should work for the long term best interests of their constituency EVEN if that meant opposing the will of that constituency in the short term. I would venture to guess that most of the officials in California believe that restricting marriage to hetersexual unions is morally wrong and that they are duty bound to oppose the short-sighted electorate on the issue.
rory_20_uk
08-17-2010, 14:11
Interesting. I'm sure everyone thinks of themselves as Burkean in nature, as after all this enables one to override all opposition as the other side clearly needs saving from itself.
~:smoking:
Depends on whether you view elected officials in Jeffersonian or Burkean terms. Jefferson held that an elected official should reflect the will of her constituency. Burke held that an elected official should work for the long term best interests of their constituency EVEN if that meant opposing the will of that constituency in the short term. I would venture to guess that most of the officials in California believe that restricting marriage to hetersexual unions is morally wrong and that they are duty bound to oppose the short-sighted electorate on the issue.For just a moment, set aside the gay marriage issue. The logical extension of this is that any law passed by the legislature or by referendum can be cast aside as long as the Governor and AG oppose it. Take any law, challenge it in court, have the AG no-show, and the law gets overturned. The referendum process becomes meaningless if the current regime doesn't support it.
Interesting. I'm sure everyone thinks of themselves as Burkean in nature, as after all this enables one to override all opposition as the other side clearly needs saving from itself.
:yes:
I'm pretty sure the AG's oath of office is to support the laws of the state. Not to support only the laws he likes. The California Supreme Court already determined that the law was legally enacted- which is why it was elevated to the federal courts. As a duly passed amendment to the state's constitution, I don't see where he can get off on just saying "pass".
Interesting. I'm sure everyone thinks of themselves as Burkean in nature, as after all this enables one to override all opposition as the other side clearly needs saving from itself.
~:smoking:
Indeed.
Seamus Fermanagh
08-18-2010, 02:42
Xiahou:
I would suggest that that is exactly the system that obtains. If Schwarzeneggar and enough of the legislature wish to do elsewise, then elsewise it shall be. The voters may turn them out of office via recall or at the next balloting if they are scandalized enough. Unfortunately, enough will forget before the next balloting that this may not motivate the representatives enough to support the constitutional choice of a modest majority of Californians.
In the specific instance of California, I think their simple majority rule for Constitutional changes is coming back to haunt them here. The gov is not seeking another term so he feels free to do as he sees fit. Moreover, he can get political support because the majority that voted YES on this issue was modest -- and many in the legislature know that not enough of their voters will turn on them over this to be decisive. If Cali had a 2/3 rule for such changes, they'd be less frequent but VERY hard to ignore. 67% is not just a majority choice, its a mandate.
PanzerJaeger
02-07-2012, 22:45
The ruling has been upheld (http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/02/07/150967/) by the federal appeals court. On to the Supreme Court.
a completely inoffensive name
02-08-2012, 00:02
I would be surprised if the Supreme Court took it. The ruling by the federal appeals court is very narrow and only specifically concerns the state of California, not the status of same sex marriage for the entire country. Prop 8 supporters would gain more by leaving it as is instead of risking a nationwide SCOTUS ruling.
What logical hopsctoch?
A man's inability to perform on the wedding Night is also grounds for annullment, or did you just ignore that?
Marriage is a legal contract, intended to be indisoluable, designed to provide a stable environment for the couple's children, and to afford those children legal protection.
Wrong. Marriage is a method for two people to join themselves legally, which affords them certain legal rights and privileges.
I agree that minds have to be changed as well as laws, but keep in mind that right now somewhere in this country a gay man or woman is being denied visitation access to his or her partner in the hospital. I read a particularly compelling story where a woman was barred from being at her partner of 23 year’s side as she lay dying of cancer.
This is all conceptual to us. Is it constitutional or isn’t it? To these people though, it is a stark reality. They’re living the discrimination, and I can definitely see why they would feel like second class citizens.
Indeed, I hear stories like that quite often, and it does become reality for me when I hear the sadness and pain in my friend's voices. Treating this like it's not an issues of rights is ridiculous.
ICantSpellDawg
02-08-2012, 04:05
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. If we are no longer able to agree that this type of relationship should be singled out, then we should no longer single out types of relationships. The sensible reaction to these pressures is not to single out another type of relationship which most people don't believe is special, but rather to stop doing it at all. This is a false choice.
Long story short, if we can't all agree on what type of a relationship is special, what are we doing with this thing?
Congratulations, anyone can now marry anyone else, for any reason. We should just do away with the special recognition and allow any one person to leave their social security benefits with any other person and be done with it. From this point forward, I only recognize marriages recognized by the Roman Catholic Church; the term "civil marriage" means nothing other than any 2 people leaving their state and Federal benefits to one another for an undetermined period of time, nothing else.
I don't see how it would make the institution any less special. People with rabid "Marriage is SACRED, Man+Women ONLY!" arguments need to step back and read your own argument again, because it amounts to "If they can do it, then the rest of us NORMAL people won't feel as special!"
My personal experience is that everyone who falls into the rabidly "Marriage is SACRED..." category are all strongly- to ultra-religious and have a strong holier-than-thou streak.
a completely inoffensive name
02-08-2012, 08:33
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.
No, we haven't. That's why there is a gay marriage movement.
If we are no longer able to agree that this type of relationship should be singled out, then we should no longer single out types of relationships. The sensible reaction to these pressures is not to single out another type of relationship which most people don't believe is special, but rather to stop doing it at all. This is a false choice.
Long story short, if we can't all agree on what type of a relationship is special, what are we doing with this thing?
Congratulations, anyone can now marry anyone else, for any reason. We should just do away with the special recognition and allow any one person to leave their social security benefits with any other person and be done with it. From this point forward, I only recognize marriages recognized by the Roman Catholic Church; the term "civil marriage" means nothing other than any 2 people leaving their state and Federal benefits to one another for an undetermined period of time, nothing else.
IF I CAN'T HAVE IT, NOBODY CAN!
How can we put social pride in finding love and unity with another if we don't establish RANKS on which love is more special????
Lol, your ways are dying and you want to burn the house down out of spite.
Veho Nex
02-08-2012, 10:00
The ruling has been upheld (http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/02/07/150967/) by the federal appeals court. On to the Supreme Court.
CLEAR! *Shocks thread* It's alive!!!
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. If we are no longer able to agree that this type of relationship should be singled out, then we should no longer single out types of relationships. The sensible reaction to these pressures is not to single out another type of relationship which most people don't believe is special, but rather to stop doing it at all. This is a false choice.
Long story short, if we can't all agree on what type of a relationship is special, what are we doing with this thing?
Congratulations, anyone can now marry anyone else, for any reason. We should just do away with the special recognition and allow any one person to leave their social security benefits with any other person and be done with it. From this point forward, I only recognize marriages recognized by the Roman Catholic Church; the term "civil marriage" means nothing other than any 2 people leaving their state and Federal benefits to one another for an undetermined period of time, nothing else.
That's either really good satire.
gaelic cowboy
02-08-2012, 10:39
In my view there should be no force of law in any marraige.
You wanna stand in front of the grand wizard of the nine nerfalans and pray to bingo the clown thats fine, but your union is just symbolic and should not have status under law.
The idea of civil marraige or of legally recognising a religious marraige is bogus.
The ruling has been upheld (http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/02/07/150967/) by the federal appeals court. On to the Supreme Court.
I've read a few op-ed bits from different places that tend to agree this probably won't make it to the US Federal Supreme Court. The actual legal issues that were ruled on seem to be pretty specific to the California state legislative and legal processes. Guess we will wait and see.
Hooahguy
02-08-2012, 13:21
The ruling has been upheld (http://sanfrancisco.cbslocal.com/2012/02/07/150967/) by the federal appeals court. On to the Supreme Court.
Hooray for justice!
ICantSpellDawg
02-08-2012, 13:24
In my view there should be no force of law in any marraige.
You wanna stand in front of the grand wizard of the nine nerfalans and pray to bingo the clown thats fine, but your union is just symbolic and should not have status under law.
The idea of civil marraige or of legally recognising a religious marraige is bogus.
I can agree to this. But, if you're asking me - will I agree that the relationship between 2 men or 2 women is worthy of special societal rerecognition? My answer is no. I can't say that is is any more special than a relationship between 2 best friends, or a brother and sister. That's the point of societal recognition, that society places a special value on the particular relationship. My point is that we wont and therefore we shouldn't.
PanzerJaeger
02-08-2012, 15:02
No, we haven't. That's why there is a gay marriage movement.
Yes. It is odd to see someone speak with so much confidence in a societal consensus, when it is so obvious that no such consensus exists. Speak for yourself, but leave the collective 'we' out of it.
Interestingly enough, polling suggests that, within a generation, we will return to a broad accord on this issue. ~;)
http://sas-origin.onstreammedia.com/origin/gallupinc/GallupSpaces/Production/Cms/POLL/2up53nvvmecnlkifjzopyw.gif
Vladimir
02-08-2012, 16:19
How can social conservatives be against this? Like abortion, this will further reduce Democrat voting base. We don't need gay people pretending to be straight, having children, and raising them to be Democrats. :no:
We don't need gay people pretending to be straight, having children, and raising them to be Democrats. :no:
This statement is despicable on multiple levels, and reflects poorly on you.
How can social conservatives be against this? Like abortion, this will further reduce Democrat voting base. We don't need gay people pretending to be straight, having children, and raising them to be Democrats. :no:
Generally gay people pretending to be straight tend to be the most hardcore conservatives. Senator Larry Craig comes to mind.
Vladimir
02-08-2012, 20:05
This statement is despicable on multiple levels, and reflects poorly on you.
It's interesting you quoted this instead of the abortion part. Anyway, not my words, and RVG is right.
But yes, onto SCOTUS. PJ's numbers are interesting but not entirely unexpected given the baby boomer vs. Gen X dynamic. I'm interested to see how that opinion changes over one's life.
Anyway, not my words, and RVG is right.
Another counter-factual, nonsensical statement, although this time you manage to avoid slandering whole segments of the population, so we must be grateful for little mercies.
You posted what you posted.
Generally gay people pretending to be straight tend to be the most hardcore conservatives. Senator Larry Craig comes to mind.
Indeed. You speak truth (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?127960-Why-Is-Seemingly-Every-Anti-Gay-Activist-a-Closet-Case). I feel sorry for people living in the closet, but that does not excuse them for the damage they inflict on others.
ICantSpellDawg
02-08-2012, 23:42
Should 2 heterosexual male best friends be allowed to get married?
Strike For The South
02-09-2012, 00:19
Should 2 heterosexual male best friends be allowed to get married?
There are plenty of sexless, childless heterosexuals marriges out there and in a decade all these fears about the family unit collapsing will prove to be unfounded and hollow
ICantSpellDawg
02-09-2012, 00:21
So, what's your answer? Should I take that to mean that any consensual 2 person relationship should gain tax and SS benefits?
a completely inoffensive name
02-09-2012, 00:25
So, what's your answer? Should I take that to mean that any consensual 2 person relationship should gain tax and SS benefits?Why not?
PanzerJaeger
02-09-2012, 00:27
Should 2 heterosexual male best friends be allowed to get married?
Should two heterosexual male and female best friends be allowed to get married?
ICantSpellDawg
02-09-2012, 00:30
Why not?
So anybody can get married to anyone else? Where do you limit it? Why do we recognize it in the first place?
a completely inoffensive name
02-09-2012, 00:42
So anybody can get married to anyone else? Where do you limit it? Why do we recognize it in the first place?Is this really a question?We limit it as a union between two or more people. You can bring out the ignorant beastiality argument but the fact is that only humans comprehend and understand unions as we talk about it, so it only applies to humans.We recognize it in the first place because we put social pride and emphasis on love, friendship, and community, things that make america stronger.
ICantSpellDawg
02-09-2012, 00:50
So any 2 consenting humans can get married for any reason?
PanzerJaeger
02-09-2012, 00:56
So any 2 consenting humans can get married for any reason?
This is already the case for male/female relationships.
a completely inoffensive name
02-09-2012, 00:59
So any 2 consenting humans can get married for any reason?Why not?
ICantSpellDawg
02-09-2012, 01:00
That's fine, I just want to get an idea of what we are advocating. So, at the end of this, what is the civil institution of marriage? I don't mean "this" as in the gay marriage debate, I mean "this" as in the years of liberalizing the divorce laws, liberalizing the infidelity taboo, gay marriage, etc. Why are we recognizing it at all, as a society - what are we recognizing?
Why is marriage a recognized thing in the first place?
PanzerJaeger
02-09-2012, 01:05
It will be the same as it is now.
ICantSpellDawg
02-09-2012, 01:09
It will be the same as it is now.
So, your praphrased argument is that, since the civil institution of marriage is already meaningless, why not lump more types of relationships onto it? My question is: why wouldn't it just be better to get rid of it entirely? It doesn't do anything to me, the government and society stopped supporting it years ago and it actually increases the value of the Catholic marriage to do so. It's likely that it wouldn't reduce the number of actual marriages, just the number of technical ones. I say let's abandon the idea of civil marriage. A modular marriage system, if you will.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-09-2012, 01:14
Should 2 heterosexual male best friends be allowed to get married?
That would be bad, but are we really going to check up on people to see if they are "really married" the way we do with immigrants? Actually wasn't this the plot of some adam sandler movie?
ICantSpellDawg
02-09-2012, 01:17
That Sandler movie pissed me off. How dare the government recognize the love between 2 men who diddle one another and not the love between 2 men who are best friends, or the "like" between 2 single men who have a mutual interest in sharing SS benefits as an old age hedge with one another.
BTW, why would that be "bad"?
My point is: "How dare me for limiting marriage between 2 heterosexual people of different gender? How dare you for limiting marriage to 2 people who are romantically attracted to one another!"
Sasaki Kojiro
02-09-2012, 01:18
That Sandler movie pissed me off. How dare the government recognize the love between 2 men who diddle one another and not the love between 2 men who are best friends, or the "like" between 2 single men who have a mutual interest in sharing SS benefits as an old age hedge with one another.
BTW, why would that be "bad"?
It's clearly abusing the system...
ICantSpellDawg
02-09-2012, 01:20
Which one? doesn't that depend on what you view the institution's purpose as? What is that purpose, BTW?
My point is: "How dare me for limiting marriage between 2 heterosexual people of different gender? How dare you for limiting marriage to 2 people who are romantically attracted to one another!"Being heterosexual is not a requirement- only being of a different gender. It sounds pedantic, but I think it's important to remember that. Heterosexual marriage does not prohibit homosexual individuals from getting married.
Sasaki Kojiro
02-09-2012, 01:31
Which one? doesn't that depend on what you view the institution's purpose as? What is that purpose, BTW?
They aren't really married, they are just getting legally married for the benefits. Like when people do that to get citizenship. What's complicated?
PanzerJaeger
02-09-2012, 01:53
So, your praphrased argument is that, since the civil institution of marriage is already meaningless, why not lump more types of relationships onto it? My question is: why wouldn't it just be better to get rid of it entirely? It doesn't do anything to me, the government and society stopped supporting it years ago and it actually increases the value of the Catholic marriage to do so. It's likely that it wouldn't reduce the number of actual marriages, just the number of technical ones. I say let's abandon the idea of civil marriage. A modular marriage system, if you will.
Why is it that the strongest defenders of 'traditional' marriage have such a fatalistic attitude towards the institution while gay people tend to be so hopeful about it?
In short, I am a big traditionalist when it comes to marriage and I think the negative trajectory of devaluation and divorce can be reversed. I believe it does have both personal value to the parties involved including children and a greater social value, despite being debased by so many irresponsible people in contemporary times. I simply do not believe that gender is what gives it that value. Instead, commitment, responsibility, devotion, and love make a strong, socially beneficial marriage and a stable environment in which to start a family.
ICantSpellDawg
02-09-2012, 02:11
commitment, responsibility, devotion, and love make a strong, socially beneficial marriage and a stable environment in which to start a family. Is any of that not present in your friendships or the family that you have already? Would any of that not be present if there were not a 2 person limit to a marriage? Is any of that guaranteed in a 2 person marriage?
Again, I ask - Why are we singling it out? Because we just have historically, why question it?
ICantSpellDawg
02-09-2012, 02:13
They aren't really married, they are just getting legally married for the benefits. How do you know? Why do you imply this between 2 best friends? What does "really married" mean?
Sasaki Kojiro
02-09-2012, 02:15
How do you know? Why do you imply this between 2 best friends? What does "really married" mean?
I know because it's a thought experiment and we defined it as such. It's really not hard to understand that gay people can get married in the same sense that straight people can.
ICantSpellDawg
02-09-2012, 02:19
Except that they are missing important components, just like 2 friends are missing important components, just like some male/female couples are missing some components, etc. Plus, I never defined that 2 best friends would get married to game the system, where are you getting that? Do you not love your friends?
What is your definition of marriage and why does it exclude such an arrangement?
Anyway, I hope SCOTUS considers these things upon appeal, because they are coming sooner rather than later and I welcome them.
PanzerJaeger
02-09-2012, 02:50
Is any of that not present in your friendships or the family that you have already? Would any of that not be present if there were not a 2 person limit to a marriage? Is any of that guaranteed in a 2 person marriage?
Again, I ask - Why are we singling it out? Because we just have historically, why question it?
I don't really understand. Presumably, there is a level of affection involved in a marriage that isn't present in friendships and family relationships.
ICantSpellDawg
02-09-2012, 02:56
What is that? Is that what marriage is? Sexual affection? Is that any of the government's business?
PanzerJaeger
02-09-2012, 03:35
What is that? Is that what marriage is? Sexual affection? Is that any of the government's business?
Marriage is what it is. You either believe it has a social value or not. You either think the government should be involved in it or not. What I don't understand is how you can hold such diametrically opposing views of the institution based on gender. When it is limited to a man and a woman it is a special and valuable social institution, but if that were to be expanded to two men or two women, then it should suddenly be thrown out. I am saying that what makes marriage special is not the gender of the involved parties. It is a null variable.
If you don't think government should be in the business of marriage, that is a completely legitimate position. If you've come to that position because you feel like gay marriage will somehow degrade the institution to the point of meaninglessness so it might as well be thrown out, I dispute that notion. It just seems like an intellectual temper tantrum.
ICantSpellDawg
02-09-2012, 03:40
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.
Strike For The South
02-09-2012, 03:43
And I'm asking you - what makes it special then, and why?
The rights and privelges
ICantSpellDawg
02-09-2012, 03:48
But why give them to one type of human relationship over another in the first place?
vBulletin® v3.7.1, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.