Proposition 8 declared unconstitutional

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

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

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


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

[PanzerJaeger]

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

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

[ICantSpellDawg]

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

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

[PanzerJaeger]

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

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

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

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

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

[Rhyfelwyr]

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

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

[Strike For The South]

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

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

They see me trollin

[lars573]

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

Not as much as you might think. I've never believed in god. Even when I was little and my mom was pushing Anglicanism on me. And church services were some boring ass meaningless drivel that took away 2 hours of my life every Sunday.

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

Bloodlust is natural law. Anything else is an artificial construct of man, much like god.

[Ironside]

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

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

[Lemur]

Bloodlust is natural law. Anything else is an artificial construct of man, much like god.

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

[Rhyfelwyr]

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

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

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

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

[Kralizec]

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

[a completely inoffensive name]

Another state is purged from the legal bigotry.

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

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

[Lemur]

Circling back to the "natural law" element, here's an essay with a bit of perspective.

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

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

[Papewaio]

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

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

Whatever is possible is nature.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Another nail in the coffin. Defense of Marriage Act ruled unconstitutional by district judge.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la...wed+Stories%29

[a completely inoffensive name]

And another state gets ready to purge the legal bigotry.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/...qSWR_blog.html

[PanzerJaeger]

Awesome news! Too bad about Christie's decision, though.

[Lemur]

Awesome news! Too bad about Christie's decision, though.

In fairness to Governor Christie, he might need to survive a Republican presidential primary in four years. Signing that bill would effectively put him out of the running.

[PanzerJaeger]

In fairness to Governor Christie, he might need to survive a Republican presidential primary in four years. Signing that bill would effectively put him out of the running.

Indeed, I don't pick up a genuine Santorum-esce hatred from him. In theory, Obama would make the same decision.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Another state officially purged of legal bigotry.
http://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/m...7#.T1BoQPEgeDl