Proposition 8 declared unconstitutional

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.

[Fragony]

You do understand that we will have to get married now

[The Celtic Viking]

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.)

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.

[Fragony]

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.

[Beskar]

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.

[rory_20_uk]

Seperate that State from those Churches.

Oh, the irony...

[Beskar]

Oh, the irony...

I thought some people might like that.

[The Celtic Viking]

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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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.)

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.

[The Celtic Viking]

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]

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]

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?

[Rhyfelwyr]

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]

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 ). 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.

[Beskar]

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.