Prop 8 to pass?

[HoreTore]

No because the gay rights activists refuse to acknowledge what MARRIAGE is - a contract between one man and one woman. Anything else, by any stretch of the imagination, does not = marriage.

Nope, sorry. That's in your religion. Outside of it, we deem marriage to be a contract between two people irrespective of gender. And since religion is separate from the state, you have no say whatsoever

Marriage has nothing to do with religion - stop hijacking it. perhaps it did 500 years ago, but that doesn't have anything to do with the here and now. We decide for ourselves what our words mean, thankyouverymuch. I have no need for some religious figure to tell me what the words I say mean. I define them myself.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Nope, sorry. That's in your religion. Outside of it, we deem marriage to be a contract between two people irrespective of gender. And since religion is separate from the state, you have no say whatsoever

Marriage has nothing to do with religion - stop hijacking it. perhaps it did 500 years ago, but that doesn't have anything to do with the here and now. We decide for ourselves what our words mean, thankyouverymuch. I have no need for some religious figure to tell me what the words I say mean. I define them myself.

It also happens to be how it is defined in just about every major religion, and every society that has the concept of marriage (so that's pretty much every society).

As a Lutheran country I presume Norway did not traditionally allow same-sex marriages. And I doubt they were allowed when Norway was Catholic for the whole medieval period, or in the Viking-era before that (although I'm not sure on the last one).

So if you want to accept same-sex "marriages" then you are really making up your own concept, its nothing to do with marriage. You can never change what marriage has always been for the past thousands of years.

[HoreTore]

It also happens to be how it is defined in just about every major religion, and every society that has the concept of marriage (so that's pretty much every society).

As a Lutheran country I presume Norway did not traditionally allow same-sex marriages. And I doubt they were allowed when Norway was Catholic for the whole medieval period, or in the Viking-era before that (although I'm not sure on the last one).

So if you want to accept same-sex "marriages" then you are really making up your own concept, its nothing to do with marriage. You can never change what marriage has always been for the past thousands of years.

BAH!

What marriage was in the past has absolutely nothing to do with what it can be in the future. That's like saying we shouldn't use oil in cars because we used to use them only for lamps.

Neither does it matter what "every religion" say about it, simply because religion, thankfully, has no say in government. Separation of church and state FTW.

[Rhyfelwyr]

What marriage was in the past has absolutely nothing to do with what it can be in the future. That's like saying we shouldn't use oil in cars because we used to use them only for lamps.

Notice how we call them "cars", not "lamps". Same-sex partnerships cannot be a marriage, they are something completely different and should be acknowledged as such, just as cars are different to lamps.

[HoreTore]

Notice how we call them "cars", not "lamps". Same-sex partnerships cannot be a marriage, they are something completely different and should be acknowledged as such, just as cars are different to lamps.

No. It's different from what marriage was. But as we make up a new meaning for it, we can choose not to care about what it once was, and also what it still may be in the head of a few people. Thankfully, that's just what the people here did. I'm sure the yanks will follow eventually

[Seamus Fermanagh]

No. It's different from what marriage was. But as we make up a new meaning for it, we can choose not to care about what it once was, and also what it still may be in the head of a few people. Thankfully, that's just what the people here did. I'm sure the yanks will follow eventually

Quite possibly. But the first step Europe made along these lines was, in many Western European nations, to discard organized religion more or less entirely. Lacking any reverance for religious tradition, the viewpoint you highlight is rather a simple step.

[HoreTore]

Quite possibly. But the first step Europe made along these lines was, in many Western European nations, to discard organized religion more or less entirely. Lacking any reverance for religious tradition, the viewpoint you highlight is rather a simple step.

[ajaxfetish]

Notice how we call them "cars", not "lamps". Same-sex partnerships cannot be a marriage, they are something completely different and should be acknowledged as such, just as cars are different to lamps.

Hang on. Is your argument simply that words cannot change their meanings over time, therefore homosexual couples cannot get married? That's a little far out. I take it you don't call flashlights 'torches,' since they aren't burning on the end of a stick. And you probably don't call automobiles 'cars' since they aren't drawn by livestock as a car should be. And you probably only call the bad guy in a movie the 'villain' if he's a peasant. And of course you'd never call that thing you're using to move your cursor around a 'mouse.' That'd be simply ridiculous. Well, the rest of the world doesn't have such a stagnant view of language, and we've moved on. But you're certainly welcome to think that way. I suppose it makes the world a little more interesting.

Ajax

[Rhyfelwyr]

Hang on. Is your argument simply that words cannot change their meanings over time, therefore homosexual couples cannot get married? That's a little far out. I take it you don't call flashlights 'torches,' since they aren't burning on the end of a stick. And you probably don't call automobiles 'cars' since they aren't drawn by livestock as a car should be. And you probably only call the bad guy in a movie the 'villain' if he's a peasant. And of course you'd never call that thing you're using to move your cursor around a 'mouse.' That'd be simply ridiculous. Well, the rest of the world doesn't have such a stagnant view of language, and we've moved on. But you're certainly welcome to think that way. I suppose it makes the world a little more interesting.

Ajax

These word games are getting ridiculous. The purpose of a car is to get you around, its defining point is that it is a means of transportation (that has certain characteristics eg 4 wheels and used on roads), not the fact that it is drawn by livestock.

The fundamental idea of a marriage is that it is between one man and one woman. So if all marriages were to take place in supermarkets, then without going into religious sensitivities they could still be called a marriage. Take two men though, and we have a problem.

[Ronin]

Take two men though, and we have a problem.

just a small correction....we don´t have a problem....you have a problem.

[ajaxfetish]

The fundamental idea of a marriage is that it is between one man and one woman.

You're welcome to assume this is true. You are not welcome to assume everyone else agrees with you. We don't. And you addressed one of my examples (which are a mere handful of the thousands of words that have changed meaning over time). What about 'villain'? What's the fundamental meaning of the word, and how has it stayed the same from when it meant peasants to when it meant evildoers? You're making up a rule that doesn't exist, and then trying to use that rule to prevent a large group of people from enjoying the familial structure they desire.

Ajax

[Koga No Goshi]

It also happens to be how it is defined in just about every major religion, and every society that has the concept of marriage (so that's pretty much every society).

As a Lutheran country I presume Norway did not traditionally allow same-sex marriages. And I doubt they were allowed when Norway was Catholic for the whole medieval period, or in the Viking-era before that (although I'm not sure on the last one).

So if you want to accept same-sex "marriages" then you are really making up your own concept, its nothing to do with marriage. You can never change what marriage has always been for the past thousands of years.

So what? Atheists get married everyday. Wiccans get married everyday. Agnostics and cross-faith couples get married everyday, even when their union would have been forbidden by the orthodoxy of their faiths for centuries or even milennia of human history.

This strikes me as very similar to the religious argument that the only acceptable purpose of sex or marriage is procreation. Yet there are no attempts to ban barren or infertile couples, or couples who choose never to have children or can't afford to, from marrying, or having sex. Nor should there be.

[Rhyfelwyr]

So what? Atheists get married everyday. Wiccans get married everyday. Agnostics and cross-faith couples get married everyday, even when their union would have been forbidden by the orthodoxy of their faiths for centuries or even milennia of human history.

This strikes me as very similar to the religious argument that the only acceptable purpose of sex or marriage is procreation. Yet there are no attempts to ban barren or infertile couples, or couples who choose never to have children or can't afford to, from marrying, or having sex. Nor should there be.

Indeed (apart from the procreation part, that isn't necessary for a marriage). The reality is that the USA isn't perfectly secular, religious and social norms had their influence on the founding fathers. And it was a good influence too as far as both myself and the majority of California are concerned.

As I said earlier, the only ideal solution (from a secular viewpoint) would be to allow every person to pick one person, sexual partner or not, and share certain benefits with them. Otherwise, you are discriminating against people who can't/don't want to have sexual relationships.

Simply extending these benefits to another variety on the spectrum of sexual relationships would be a bit like arguing for civil right for Blacks but not the Hispanics.

[Koga No Goshi]

Indeed (apart from the procreation part, that isn't necessary for a marriage). The reality is that the USA isn't perfectly secular, religious and social norms had their influence on the founding fathers. And it was a good influence too as far as both myself and the majority of California are concerned.

As I said earlier, the only ideal solution (from a secular viewpoint) would be to allow every person to pick one person, sexual partner or not, and share certain benefits with them. Otherwise, you are discriminating against people who can't/don't want to have sexual relationships.

Simply extending these benefits to another variety on the spectrum of sexual relationships would be a bit like arguing for civil right for Blacks but not the Hispanics.

I am not sure if there was this reservation in what you said or not, but the only change I would make is that all current marriage rights must be present, for ALL of those couples. Even if we are changing the title to a civil contract and getting rid of marriage, or whatever. Failing that whatever benefits are in the civil contract must be precisely the same for everyone. The idea of keeping legal marriage, and creating a separate civil contract... .I realize you aren't an American, Rhyfe, but we have a saying here about our legal history: separate but equal is never equal. Segregated schools were supposed to be separate but equal, segregated services were supposed to be separate but equal, segregated communities were supposed to be separate but equal.

Leaving marriage as-is, and creating a separate civil contract to exist simultaneously, is just BEGGING for an employee of an insurance company, or an employee in social security, or an employee in hospital administration, to refuse service/access to a same-sex spouse with a civil contract "on moral grounds." Or for whole industries or services to refuse to recognize it, or for individual states to slip in benefits to state marriage benefits which do not exist in the Federal civil contract, etc.

[Rhyfelwyr]

I am not sure if there was this reservation in what you said or not, but the only change I would make is that all current marriage rights must be present, for ALL of those couples. Even if we are changing the title to a civil contract and getting rid of marriage, or whatever. Failing that whatever benefits are in the civil contract must be precisely the same for everyone. The idea of keeping legal marriage, and creating a separate civil contract... .I realize you aren't an American, Rhyfe, but we have a saying here about our legal history: separate but equal is never equal. Segregated schools were supposed to be separate but equal, segregated services were supposed to be separate but equal, segregated communities were supposed to be separate but equal.

Leaving marriage as-is, and creating a separate civil contract to exist simultaneously, is just BEGGING for an employee of an insurance company, or an employee in social security, or an employee in hospital administration, to refuse service/access to a same-sex spouse with a civil contract "on moral grounds." Or for whole industries or services to refuse to recognize it, or for individual states to slip in benefits to state marriage benefits which do not exist in the Federal civil contract, etc.

Well here we have seperate Catholic/Non-denominational schools and its not the worst thing in the world.

The state should be able to make people recognise each others rights, but it should never demand that people find anything moral. God knows what the founding fathers would have made of same-sex marriages.

[Koga No Goshi]

Well here we have seperate Catholic/Non-denominational schools and its not the worst thing in the world.

As I stated you do not have the same history of segregated legal rights in the UK as here, with the accompanying repeated findings that they don't work here. Are separate LEGAL rights accorded to Catholic vs. non-denominational weddings in the UK? Somehow I doubt that is the case.

The state should be able to make people recognise each others rights, but it should never demand that people find anything moral. God knows what the founding fathers would have made of same-sex marriages.

The founding fathers were not the fundamentalist christians you seem to believe they were. Most of them were deists. And.... equal legal rights is "forcing anyone to find something moral"... how, exactly? You can go cheat on your wife with 18 different women, and that's legal. But I don't believe it's moral.

[ICantSpellDawg]

the only ideal solution (from a secular viewpoint) would be to allow every person to pick one person, sexual partner or not, and share certain benefits with them.

That is one positive solution. I do, however believe that society has the right to decide that the male/female biological relationship is special and that it is not inherently any more discriminatory than any other restriction on marriage. All are allowed to get married as of a certain age, but it has to conform to the utilitarian biological function to at least an nominal extent.

Now, if we can no longer maintain this, I would rather do away with the entire concept as it no longer serves its original purpose and it would usher in a more arbitrary, metaphysical and discriminatory system. It would, without any cause, give additional tax benefits to 2 joined people. Why shouldn't single mothers get the same marriage benefit? Why should people feel the financial pull to get married at all?

2 people sharing incomes, dormitory bills, utilities, insurance plans etc already receive astronomical discounts simply by sharing. Why do they recieve additional tax breaks for it when there is no reason 2 people together should be preferred citizens? Still no one can answer why the union of two is still so important and worthy of note without the biological function to back it up.


The funny thing is I am debating policy to be enacted by democratic consensus while others on the opposing side are arguing superlative morality to be enacted by cadre.

[Koga No Goshi]

The funny thing is I am debating policy to be enacted by democratic consensus while others on the opposing side are arguing superlative morality to be enacted by cadre.

Part of our democratic process is judicial review and maintaining that laws are consistent with the rights outlined in the Constitution. We are not, and never have been, a straight direct democracy referendum structure.

[ICantSpellDawg]

Part of our democratic process is judicial review and maintaining that laws are consistent with the rights outlined in the Constitution. We are not, and never have been, a straight direct democracy referendum structure.

Judicial review was a relatively early addition (not firmly in the constitution, though), but it was never supposed to usurp legitimate authority from the legislatures - rather only when there was a legitimate question of constitutionality.

It seems that people have started to use this exception as a tool to usurp the legislature whenever one party disagrees with the decision and cannot approach a majority. People brandish "unconstitutional" like it was "hello". If you can find this unconstitutional, you can find a graded tax code unconstitutional and on and on.

We should use the legislature to debate, write and nullify policy unless policy is in direct contradiction of the constitution and its amendments. I don't believe that marriage policy is in direct contradiction of the Constitution, so why would I support a Supreme court that overturns legitimate policy based on a foreign and personal moral code?

These are two separate arguments: Whether marriage laws are in contradiction of the Constitution (I say the are not) and whether Marriage should be extended beyond the male female relationship by the legislature (I say they should not).

It has also come to my attention that Massachusetts never enacted Gay marriage through its legislative process. I had always thought that Romney put "whether or not the state should allow marriage onto the ballot"; when in reality he put a gay marriage ban out to referendum in response to to strong arming of policy by the Supreme Court of Massachusetts. The rejection of the constitutional ban is not the same as the acceptance of Gay marriage in Mass.

So in a sense no U.S. State has decided that Gay marriage is something that they want by either referendum OR legislative decision. Interesting. This is truly a hijacking of the system.

[Whacker]

Yep, so I'm pretty much seeing exactly what I've come to expect from the dear old Backroom, rampant homophobia. It's precious how people use religion to try to lend legitimacy to prejudice. Hey, christian types, got a question for ya'll. The bible condones both polygamy and slavery as well, what say we make those legal as well?

Nope, sorry. That's in your religion. Outside of it, we deem marriage to be a contract between two people irrespective of gender. And since religion is separate from the state, you have no say whatsoever

Marriage has nothing to do with religion - stop hijacking it. perhaps it did 500 years ago, but that doesn't have anything to do with the here and now. We decide for ourselves what our words mean, thankyouverymuch. I have no need for some religious figure to tell me what the words I say mean. I define them myself.

Oh FFS, am I really going to say this? I agree 100% with the dirty commie for once.

So if you want to accept same-sex "marriages" then you are really making up your own concept, its nothing to do with marriage. You can never change what marriage has always been for the past thousands of years.

You just keep your eyes closed, ears covered, and keep chanting that to yourself.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

As I had posted in another thread, and as stated by Div above, the most appropriate response is to remove government from marriage entirely.

All citizens seeking "marriage" rights with one another should enter into the appropriate civil union. Those who believe marriage is a sacrament can supplement that with some form of religious ceremony. Government can still charge its fee for the unions, so taxation has been preserved.


EDIT:

I feel sorry for those who are sexually "inverted." Thier real quest is not equality under the law or even non-discrimination (though these are worthy goals for anyone and gays among other groups will continue to pursue them). They want to be considered "normal." The raw tide of numbers among the herd of humanity makes this impossible. As do those among us who are dwarves or those who are well over 2m in height, they do not fit with the mainstream. No amount of social engineering can remake this fact. Sad, really, since learning to become "comfortable in your own skin" is a difficult enough project for those of us in that mainstream -- it must be horrifyingly difficult with extra stuff stacked against you.

[m52nickerson]

As I had posted in another thread, and as stated by Div above, the most appropriate response is to remove government from marriage entirely.

All citizens seeking "marriage" rights with one another should enter into the appropriate civil union. Those who believe marriage is a sacrament can supplement that with some form of religious ceremony. Government can still charge its fee for the unions, so taxation has been preserved.

I will go with this. The goal is equality for all unions, or marriages, depending on how the government labels them.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I will go with this.

Sure - I think that this would get more people on board BUT we should bring it to the legislature and try to convince people.

If the American people no longer believe that the government should have an interest in propagation or interpersonal relationships, we should change the existing policy. I'm not opposed to taking the government out of what we should or shouldn't be doing (when it doesn't involve homicide or other forms of aggressive tyranny) but we need to discuss it and change it by legislative action.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

I feel sorry for those who are sexually "inverted." Thier real quest is not equality under the law or even non-discrimination (though these are worthy goals for anyone and gays among other groups will continue to pursue them). They want to be considered "normal." The raw tide of numbers among the herd of humanity makes this impossible. As do those among us who are dwarves or those who are well over 2m in height, they do not fit with the mainstream. No amount of social engineering can remake this fact. Sad, really, since learning to become "comfortable in your own skin" is a difficult enough project for those of us in that mainstream -- it must be horrifyingly difficult with extra stuff stacked against you.

You're being far too pessimistic here Seamus...

[Koga No Goshi]

As I had posted in another thread, and as stated by Div above, the most appropriate response is to remove government from marriage entirely.

All citizens seeking "marriage" rights with one another should enter into the appropriate civil union. Those who believe marriage is a sacrament can supplement that with some form of religious ceremony. Government can still charge its fee for the unions, so taxation has been preserved.


EDIT:

I feel sorry for those who are sexually "inverted." Thier real quest is not equality under the law or even non-discrimination (though these are worthy goals for anyone and gays among other groups will continue to pursue them). They want to be considered "normal." The raw tide of numbers among the herd of humanity makes this impossible. As do those among us who are dwarves or those who are well over 2m in height, they do not fit with the mainstream. No amount of social engineering can remake this fact. Sad, really, since learning to become "comfortable in your own skin" is a difficult enough project for those of us in that mainstream -- it must be horrifyingly difficult with extra stuff stacked against you.

I disagree. Legal rights should be equally accessible to everyone (with the caveat that their acts do not demonstrably harm others or society in general- so this would cover the slippery slope arguments like marrying animals or marrying 11 year olds) regardless of how, socially, a particular lifestyle is perceived by the mainstream in terms of "normal" or "alternative/not normal." Besides, there will always be people who define normal as merely what a majority does, and nothing else. And still others who think normal is what they do, and not anyone else.

[Seamus Fermanagh]

I disagree. Legal rights should be equally accessible to everyone (with the caveat that their acts do not demonstrably harm others or society in general- so this would cover the slippery slope arguments like marrying animals or marrying 11 year olds) regardless of how, socially, a particular lifestyle is perceived by the mainstream in terms of "normal" or "alternative/not normal." Besides, there will always be people who define normal as merely what a majority does, and nothing else. And still others who think normal is what they do, and not anyone else.

Koga:

I think we are saying the same thing.

My point was that the government would sanction NO marriages at all. It would only sanction and tax civil unions, they would be as simple to contract as a current "marriage," and they would be accessible to any legally competent adult.

Marriage would then be a strictly religious concern administered by and for the religion in question and marriage would be irrelevant legally.

The other discussion regarding normalcy was not directly connected. I was using "normal" strictly based on frequency of occurrence as any other definition is, as you correctly note, highly subjective.

[Strike For The South]

Yep, so I'm pretty much seeing exactly what I've come to expect from the dear old Backroom, rampant homophobia. It's precious how people use religion to try to lend legitimacy to prejudice. Hey, christian types, got a question for ya'll. The bible condones both polygamy and slavery as well, what say we make those legal as well?.

This is why nothing ever gets done in American politics.

[ICantSpellDawg]

This is why nothing ever gets done in American politics.

That is ridiculous. Nobody here is afraid of gay people. I just don't want people to exchange good policy that I believe is important for bad policy that I believe will render that important institution absurd. If you must do it, please make a case and win legislation instead of try to strongarn new policy without the consent of the people within your State. This is an issue of a small group of people making things up in the constitution and radically redefining how our governments work.

I'm a homophobic jerk because I believe in people having a right to put a stamp of approval over policy and institutions that govern them when they are important enough?

[Strike For The South]

That is ridiculous. Nobody here is afraid of gay people. I just don't want people to exchange good policy that I believe is important for bad policy that I believe will render that important institution absurd. If you must do it, please make a case and win legislation instead of try to strongarn new policy without the consent of the people within your State. This is an issue of a small group of people making things up in the constitution and radically redefining how our governments work.

I'm a homophobic jerk because I believe in people having a right to put a stamp of approval over policy and institutions that govern them when they are important enough?

I agree with you Tuff. I quoted Whacker because he is unfairly painting his opposition as foaming at the mouth homophobes basing there decision on the bible. Its a craze in American politics to paint the other side as the bad guy who has ulterior motives rather than someone who has a different opinion because that wouldn't be sensationalist enough. My opponent needs to want to destroy America.

We fought the Russians for to long.

[ICantSpellDawg]

I agree with you Tuff. I quoted Whacker because he is unfairly painting his opposition as foaming at the mouth homophobes basing there decision on the bible. Its a craze in American politics to paint the other side as the bad guy who has ulterior motives rather than someone who has a different opinion because that wouldn't be sensationalist enough. My opponent needs to want to destroy America.

We fought the Russians for to long.

Oh, okay. We fought the Nazis followed by the Russians. Double whammy.