Proposition 8 declared unconstitutional

[Rhyfelwyr]

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?

[miotas]

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.

[Fragony]

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.

[miotas]

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?

Marriage isn't a religious institution, it's an institution that the church adopted.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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?

[Fragony]

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.

[Lemur]

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.

[Husar]

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?

[Lemur]

Giving tax cuts to gay couples will cause America to die out slowly.

... could you, um, substantiate that one? Just a little bit?

[Rhyfelwyr]

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]

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.

[miotas]

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]

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.

[Beskar]

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.

[miotas]

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]

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.

[Fragony]

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]

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?

[Fragony]

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]

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 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]

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.

[Fragony]

So you want to have a 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?

[Fragony]

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.

[Moros]

Marriage is gay.

[Husar]

... could you, um, substantiate that one? Just a little bit?

No, it's not easy to substantiate sarcastic comments.

[Fragony]

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]

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]

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?

[Fragony]

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]

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 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.