DVD Talk
Why is same sex marriage so bad? [Archive] - Page 3 - DVD Talk Forum
 
Best Sellers
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
The Longest Day
Buy: $54.99 $24.99
9.
10.
DVD Blowouts
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
Alien [Blu-ray]
Buy: $19.99 $9.99
8.
9.
10.

PDA
DVD Reviews

View Full Version : Why is same sex marriage so bad?


Pages : 1 2 [3] 4

Psi
11-05-08, 01:14 PM
A state like California of all places as well.
California is very divided on this issue. Most of the coastal counties voted against, and the inland counties voted for, often by huge margins like 75/25%

Groucho
11-05-08, 01:14 PM
At some point, somebody should point out that marriage's historical roots are economic, not religious.

slop101
11-05-08, 01:14 PM
I seems like the anti-gay sentiment is much stronger with those minority groups, which proves my theory that minorities are generally more bigoted towards other minorities than non-minorities are.

But more than that, what amazes me is that none of the pro-8 people I've talked to understand or care about the gravity of changing the constitution to discriminate against a group of people.

wendersfan
11-05-08, 01:16 PM
I seems like the anti-gay sentiment is much stronger with those minority groups, which proves my theory that minorities are generally more bigoted towards other minorities than non-minorities are. I'm white, male, college educated, and middle-class. I can afford to be magnanimous to any and all minority groups, because no matter what I always end up on top.

:shrug:

Nick Danger
11-05-08, 01:25 PM
At some point, somebody should point out that marriage's historical roots are economic, not religious.

I think this is what the actual ballot said:ELIMINATES RIGHT OF SAME-SEX COUPLES TO MARRY. INITIATIVE CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENT. Changes the California Constitution to eliminate the right of same-sex couples to marry in California. Provides that only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California. Fiscal Impact: Over next few years, potential revenue loss, mainly sales taxes, totaling in the several tens of millions of dollars, to state and local governments. In the long run, likely little fiscal impact on state and local governments.[30]

solipsta
11-05-08, 01:28 PM
If the ballot was about preserving the traditional definition of marriage, and that definition includes how it's all about having children and creating families, should the ballot not also forbid a man and a woman to marry who have no ability or intention of having children?

Iron Chef
11-05-08, 01:33 PM
If the ballot was about preserving the traditional definition of marriage, and that definition includes how it's all about having children and creating families, should the ballot not also forbid a man and a woman to marry who have no ability or intention of having children?

that, and it should have banned divorce as well

LiquidSky
11-05-08, 01:45 PM
Ironic...on a day that I am proud to be an American (as we celebrate the election of the first African-American to the highest office in the land), I am disgusted as I am reminded that we still have a long way to go in terms of recognizing those famous words, "all men are created equal".

:up:

orangecrush
11-05-08, 02:04 PM
At some point, somebody should point out that marriage's historical roots are economic, not religious.
That depends on how you view Genesis ;)

kvrdave
11-05-08, 02:06 PM
At some point, somebody should point out that marriage's historical roots are economic, not religious.

Leave it to the Utah guy to try to pre-arrange the 5 year old girls' futures. -ohbfrank-

Groucho
11-05-08, 02:09 PM
That depends on how you view Genesis ;)Phil Collins has been married three times.

spainlinx0
11-05-08, 02:14 PM
Phil Collins has been married three times.

Further proof that gay guys can get married already.

Psi
11-05-08, 02:22 PM
Further proof that gay guys can get married already.
In my California ballot book, one of the listed proponents of Prop 8 was a Director of a group called "Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays." See, proof that people can change :)

Bronkster
11-05-08, 02:25 PM
In my California ballot book, one of the listed proponents of Prop 8 was a Director of a group called "Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays." See, proof that people can change :)
That's not change I can believe in.

slymer
11-05-08, 02:29 PM
In my California ballot book, one of the listed proponents of Prop 8 was a Director of a group called "Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays." See, proof that people can change :)

that's pretty hilarious! sounds like some people were doing a little experimenting. I'd like to hear these people's explanations.

LiquidSky
11-05-08, 02:30 PM
In my California ballot book, one of the listed proponents of Prop 8 was a Director of a group called "Parents and Friends of Ex-Gays." See, proof that people can change :)

I want to become the Director of "Parents and Friends of Ex-Straights" :D

slymer
11-05-08, 02:33 PM
You'd probably have a way bigger membership

Psi
11-05-08, 02:33 PM
I want to become the Director of "Parents and Friends of Ex-Straights" :D
You go do the conversion.

Giantrobo
11-05-08, 02:45 PM
Wow. I guess Nick Danger was on to something. a portion of an article from back in Oct. (http://www.bilerico.com/2008/10/dont_blame_latinos_and_blacks_if_prop_8.php)


Don't blame latinos and blacks if Prop 8 passes
Filed by: Alex Blaze
October 30, 2008

As for black people, well, their support for Prop 8 is slightly higher than it is for whites in that survey. But the story is that they're going to turn out in record numbers for Obama, putting Prop 8 at risk of passing. Considering that African Americans make up about 6% of the California population, and that their support for Prop 8 is a mere 10 points higher than it is for whites, this narrative is looking more like a manifestation of white gays' general anxiety about putting their well-being in the hands of black people.

<b>Try to deny it all we want, there is a fear among many white gays that they will be harmed by black people (specifically black men), and it manifests itself in strange ways. The idea that a small group of voters will be the reason Prop 8 will pass is looking like a manifestation of that fear.</b>

But, seriously, if turnout is really high for African Americans, let's say about 20% more in California than there is normally, then there would be about one more percentage point of the voting population being black. And that percentage point will be only about 10% more likely to vote for Prop 8. That's a drop in the bucket.

I guess he was wrong in the long run.


Anyway, I guess the voter breakdown on Prop 8 is really bothering me in regards to the Black vote. It's quite disturbing.

OldDude
11-05-08, 03:04 PM
So did all the "prop 8's" from around the country got passed? Am I hearing this wrong?

Arizona and Florida were the only other states who had it on the ballot, and it passed there too.
http://www.floridabaptistwitness.com/9576.article
ORLANDO (FBW) – After a four-year effort and overcoming numerous obstacles, supporters of traditional marriage were able to convince 62 percent of Floridians to amend their state constitution with a measure upholding the traditional definition of marriage.

Floridians joined citizens in Arizona and California who also amended their respective state constitutions to protect traditional marriage, bringing to 30 the total number of states that have passed marriage amendments since 2004 when the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court legalized “gay marriage.”

With 99 percent of precincts reporting, the Florida Marriage Protection Amendment was adopted by a super-majority, exceeding the 60 percent threshold required to amend the Florida constitution and eclipsing public opinion polls that never showed the measure getting any more than 59 percent support.

This site is obviously on the "a man and a woman" side of the argument, but they have a map that shows the 27 States who previously amended their Constitutions. The three above brings it to 30. 14 more have a DOMA law, but not a constitutional amendment.
http://www.heritage.org/research/family/marriage50/

Nick Danger
11-05-08, 03:17 PM
Man, this is such an ideal wedge issue. The Republicans could use this for years to split Blacks and Catholic Hispanics from the college educated liberals in the Democratic party. Who would have thought that Blacks would be in agreement with Mormons about anything?

When this came up four years ago, I just thought it was an appeal to the Christian conservatives. But I bet that politically savvy knew this all along.

Shoveler
11-05-08, 03:29 PM
As I've contended since this issue first came up many years ago, the best solution is to get the government out of the marriage business completely. A "marriage" should have no more legal standing than a friendship. That is to say, none. Let any two consenting adults, of any gender combination, enter into a civil partnership, a legal relationship granting certain well defined rights and obligations. And then, if their place of worship recognizes any sort of religious marital partnering, they are free to enter into that religious commitment, or not to, as they see fit. Their church and community could recognize the spiritual union as a personal relationship, and the government would recognize their civil union as a legal relationship. What would be wrong with that?

VinVega
11-05-08, 03:31 PM
As I've contended since this issue first came up many years ago, the best solution is to get the government out of the marriage business completely. A "marriage" should have no more legal standing than a friendship. That is to say, none. Let any two consenting adults, of any gender combination, enter into a civil partnership, a legal relationship granting certain well defined rights and obligations. And then, if their place of worship recognizes any sort of religious marital partnering, they are free to enter into that religious commitment, or not to, as they see fit. Their church and community could recognize the spiritual union as a personal relationship, and the government would recognize their civil union as a legal relationship. What would be wrong with that?
I wish.

Tracer Bullet
11-05-08, 03:55 PM
http://slog.thestranger.com/2008/11/black_homophobia

Black Homophobia

posted by Dan Savage on November 5 at 9:55 AM

African American voters in California voted overwhelmingly for Prop 8, writing anti-gay discrimination into California’s constitution and banning same-sex marriage in that state. Seventy percent of African American voters approved Prop 8, according to exit polls, compared to 53% of Latino voters, 49% of white voters, 49% of Asian voters.

I’m not sure what to do with this. I’m thrilled that we’ve just elected our first African-American president. I wept last night. I wept reading the papers this morning. But I can’t help but feeling hurt that the love and support aren’t mutual.

I do know this, though: I’m done pretending that the handful of racist gay white men out there—and they’re out there, and I think they’re scum—are a bigger problem for African Americans, gay and straight, than the huge numbers of homophobic African Americans are for gay Americans, whatever their color.

This will get my name scratched of the invite list of the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, which is famous for its anti-racist-training seminars, but whatever.

Finally, I’m searching for some exit poll data from California. I’ll eat my shorts if gay and lesbian voters went for McCain at anything approaching the rate that black voters went for Prop 8.

The more this sets in, the harder I'm finding it to be happy for blacks about Obama's victory.

JasonF
11-05-08, 04:03 PM
A "marriage" should have no more legal standing than a friendship. That is to say, none.

That's never going to happen. You might as well wish for the problem to go away by having Jesus descend from Heaven on a fiery chariot and declare he's perfectly cool with gay marriage.

Giantrobo
11-05-08, 04:27 PM
As I've contended since this issue first came up many years ago, the best solution is to get the government out of the marriage business completely. A "marriage" should have no more legal standing than a friendship. That is to say, none. Let any two consenting adults, of any gender combination, enter into a civil partnership, a legal relationship granting certain well defined rights and obligations. And then, if their place of worship recognizes any sort of religious marital partnering, they are free to enter into that religious commitment, or not to, as they see fit. Their church and community could recognize the spiritual union as a personal relationship, and the government would recognize their civil union as a legal relationship. What would be wrong with that?


It's not enough for some people...

Anyway, like JasonF said, it'll never happen.

feenst
11-05-08, 05:12 PM
Funny, if it were up to me I'd choose being able to choose for myself.

Living in Ohio I don't really have much room to talk, but as it stands I'll never set foot in California. I was actually planning to go there later in the month, but no way I'm doing that now.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:800px-Samesex_marriage_in_USA.png

Where will you travel?

The new and controversial legal argument is quite valid if you ask me, and given how most conservatives claim to have strict constitutional interpretation, I can't wait to see them squirm their way around it.

U.S. Constitution Article I Section 10 - Powers prohibited of States
"No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility."

Could a Supreme Court decision using this argument that rejects the California amendment have any bearing on laws and state constitutions dealing with same-sex marriage around the rest of the country?

Artman
11-05-08, 08:15 PM
[url]The more this sets in, the harder I'm finding it to be happy for blacks about Obama's victory.

Because some happen to disagree on a political issue? I'm not surprised that the best The Stranger can do is to sum it up as homophobia... yeah, that's it.

Tracer Bullet
11-05-08, 08:52 PM
Because some happen to disagree on a political issue? I'm not surprised that the best The Stranger can do is to sum it up as homophobia... yeah, that's it.

Marriage equality is not a political issue. It's a civil rights issue.

nodeerforamonth
11-05-08, 09:22 PM
Well I'm getting married in August and it's going to be a gay marriage. It's going to be festive, merry, full of joy & happiness (but no homosexuality).

B5Erik
11-05-08, 10:31 PM
Of course you're 'against' gay people! If the vast majority of homosexuals justly desire the right to marry so they can start a family and you then turn around and say they can't, you're inherently in opposition to them.

:whofart:

So, if I SUPPORT civil unions with ALL the legal rights of marriage, I'm inherently in opposition to gay couples? Really?

:wtf:

Wow.

Yes, as you say, marriage is about starting a family. Wrongly, you use that as a reason to deny gays the right to marry, because they can't procreate. Starting a family is about a lot more than procreation, and there are many other ways to start one. Further, civil marriage brings with it a whole host of benefits and a legal framework that facilitates the ability to be a family.

So keep working on changing the status of Civil Unions so that they have each and every right that marriage does. Why trample on something that so many people consider sacred and hugely important NOT to change?


Suggesting that homosexuals can't marry because 'it's all about family' is insulting to gay people, because that's exactly why they want to get married. And yes, it makes you a bigot, because you suggest that they are somehow incapable of being a family.

See, I knew this would come up. Point out biological facts and get called names. Bring up facts, get insulted.

You do realize how that marginalizes your arguments, don't you?

Gay couples cannot have children in which both of the partners are biological parents. They aren't going to procreate by accident. Or intentionally, for that matter.

That's not saying that gay couples are lesser, just different. I thought different was good? Variety is the spice of life, etc?


It's not like they all just want to get some tax breaks on the primary residence in which they have perverse sex.

No shit. Thanks for that newsflash. By the way, I'm not stupid, just in case you got too caught up in your condescention to think that was possible.


You don't really expect anyone to believe that this is really just about the definition of a word, do you?

Actually, yes. Things like that mean a lot to me. If institutions that are that important can be changed willy nilly then what's their real value and importance? Wet the finger, stick it in the air, and go with whichever way the breeze is blowing to get your current definition. That, to me, just seems a bit too anarchistic. I prefer concrete foundations. I'm conservative - I don't like radical change.


Especially when you trot out this idealized 'traditional family' nonsense. You can't hold up some idealized version of a perfect marriage and use that as a means to deny homosexuals the right to marry, when the majority of straight people can't seem to live up to it either. Clearly, marriage is something else - and it's something gay people should be able to have.
Marriage is what the dictionary says it is, what it has ALWAYS said it is - a man and a woman.

But a civil union can have the EXACT same value as a marriage if people keep working towards it. Why is that not enough? Do you really need to trample on the beliefs of a huge group of people?

kvrdave
11-05-08, 10:34 PM
<img src=http://www.photosfan.com/images/black-and-colored-drinking-water1.jpg>

RoyalTea
11-05-08, 10:36 PM
But a civil union can have the EXACT same value as a marriage if people keep working towards it.If two things have the EXACT same value, then why do they need to have different names?

joeblow69
11-05-08, 10:38 PM
Ok, here's the press release they put out about how they are going to challange this:

http://www.americablog.com/2008/11/lawsuit-filed-against-anti-gay-prop-8.html

The American Civil Liberties Union, Lambda Legal and the National Center for Lesbian Rights filed a writ petition before the California Supreme Court today urging the court to invalidate Proposition 8 if it passes. The petition charges that Proposition 8 is invalid because the initiative process was improperly used in an attempt to undo the constitution's core commitment to equality for everyone by eliminating a fundamental right from just one group - lesbian and gay Californians. Proposition 8 also improperly attempts to prevent the courts from exercising their essential constitutional role of protecting the equal protection rights of minorities. According to the California Constitution, such radical changes to the organizing principles of state government cannot be made by simple majority vote through the initiative process, but instead must, at a minimum, go through the state legislature first.

The California Constitution itself sets out two ways to alter the document that sets the most basic rules about how state government works. Through the initiative process, voters can make relatively small changes to the constitution. But any measure that would change the underlying principles of the constitution must first be approved by the legislature before being submitted to the voters. That didn't happen with Proposition 8, and that's why it's invalid.

"If the voters approved an initiative that took the right to free speech away from women, but not from men, everyone would agree that such a measure conflicts with the basic ideals of equality enshrined in our constitution. Proposition 8 suffers from the same flaw - it removes a protected constitutional right - here, the right to marry - not from all Californians, but just from one group of us," said Jenny Pizer, Senior Counsel with Lambda Legal. "That's too big a change in the principles of our constitution to be made just by a bare majority of voters."

"A major purpose of the constitution is to protect minorities from majorities. Because changing that principle is a fundamental change to the organizing principles of the constitution itself, only the legislature can initiate such revisions to the constitution," added Elizabeth Gill, a staff attorney with the ACLU of Northern California.

The lawsuit was filed today in the California Supreme Court on behalf of Equality California and 6 same-sex couples who did not marry before Tuesday's election but would like to be able to marry now.

The groups filed a writ petition in the California Supreme Court before the elections presenting similar arguments because they believed the initiative should not have appeared on the ballot, but the court dismissed that petition without addressing its merits. That earlier order is not precedent here.

"Historically, courts are reluctant to get involved in disputes if they can avoid doing so," said Shannon Minter, Legal Director of NCLR. "It is not uncommon for the court to wait to see what happens at the polls before considering these legal arguments. However, now that Prop 8 may pass, the courts will have to weigh in and we believe they will agree that Prop 8 should never have been on the ballot in the first place."

This would not be the first time the court has struck down an improper voter initiative. In 1990, the court stuck down an initiative that would have added a provision to the California Constitution stating that the "onstitution shall not be construed by the courts to afford greater rights to criminal defendants than those afforded by the Constitution of the United States." That measure was invalid because it improperly attempted to strip California's courts of their role as independent interpreters of the state's constitution.

B5Erik
11-05-08, 10:40 PM
If two things have the EXACT same value, then why do they need to have different names?
Because they're different things.

Different things can have the same value, but that doesn't make them the same.

Since when is being different a bad thing? I thought we were supposed to celebrate diversity.

fumanstan
11-05-08, 11:07 PM
So keep working on changing the status of Civil Unions so that they have each and every right that marriage does. Why trample on something that so many people consider sacred and hugely important NOT to change?

But a civil union can have the EXACT same value as a marriage if people keep working towards it. Why is that not enough? Do you really need to trample on the beliefs of a huge group of people?

Isn't preventing the idea of marriage between two people of the same sex pretty much doing the same thing? Alienating what a large group of people feel should be a natural right? Seems like you're going to piss off someone either way, but to me the right of all individuals trump the beliefs of a group, and I consider marriage something any person should be able to do. This is why you're getting "insulted" with implications of bigotry, because for many who support same-sex marriage it's no different then the difference in race. You might not believe so and feel you're just "protecting" marriage, but to the other side you're not doing much different from advocating "separate but equal."

To me, it always comes back to people hanging on to the definition that a marriage has to be between a man and a woman. I just don't think that's the case, nor is there any reason for it to be anymore then black people shouldn't be defined as being less then a single person, and hedging on what has been "tradition" is a terrible reason based on what has been considered the norm and tradition in the past.

Also, championing being "different" is ridiculous. Different like the picture kvrdave posted above? After all, it's great to be different and unique (and separate)! And besides, I thought "change" was good too. Afterall, that's the prevailing theme of the election. Since when is change a bad thing?

kvrdave
11-05-08, 11:37 PM
From JB's article....
"That's too big a change in the principles of our constitution to be made just by a bare majority of voters."

In my opinion, that is an issue for the legislature. People used the system they had available to them, and one that the legislature set up.

I would prefer that this didn't pass, so don't take this opinion as something against gay marriage. But I strongly dislike this manuever in the lawsuit. I dislike it as much as I dislike the use of the constituition to limit rights rather than grant them.

Ideally I would want the initiative to be redone in such a way that it would appease any lawsuit, and that it would fail on that merit. I realize this probably sounds disjointed, but I want people to make the right choice rather than to have the courts force it upon them.

B5Erik
11-05-08, 11:47 PM
Isn't preventing the idea of marriage between two people of the same sex pretty much doing the same thing? Alienating what a large group of people feel should be a natural right? Seems like you're going to piss off someone either way, but to me the right of all individuals trump the beliefs of a group, and I consider marriage something any person should be able to do. This is why you're getting "insulted" with implications of bigotry, because for many who support same-sex marriage it's no different then the difference in race. You might not believe so and feel you're just "protecting" marriage, but to the other side you're not doing much different from advocating "separate but equal."

They never had that right because it's not marriage. What part of that is so hard to understand? Marriage has been defined throughout history as a man and a woman, NEVER (until now) as two men or two women.

They want to change the fundamental nature of what marriage IS into something that it has never been and doesn't need to be.


To me, it always comes back to people hanging on to the definition that a marriage has to be between a man and a woman. I just don't think that's the case, nor is there any reason for it to be anymore then black people shouldn't be defined as being less then a single person, and hedging on what has been "tradition" is a terrible reason based on what has been considered the norm and tradition in the past.

Your logic is severely flawed. No one is saying that gays are sub-human or less than any other human being (no one with ANY credibility, anyway).

The argument 150 years ago that blacks were less human or only counted as 2/3 of a person was saying that they were an inferior race (despite the fact that they were members of thehuman race, just like whites). It was factually incorrect beyond just being morally incorrect.

No one of any real character is advocating denying gays the right to live, love, and enjoy the freedoms that we all have. Civil Unions should establish their relationships legally and handle the same rights as married couples - and that would do nothing to upset 95% of the people opposed to gay marriage. It would leave all the bases covered.


Also, championing being "different" is ridiculous. Different like the picture kvrdave posted above?
Now you're just being insulting.

After all, it's great to be different and unique (and separate)!

You know, sometimes things ARE separate. Like women only gyms. I can't go in there to work out - I have to join a co-ed gym. That's separate. Should I feel bad about that? No. Sometimes things are just different enought that it's a case of square peg, round hole (and don't anyone get nasty or vulgar with that one...)


And besides, I thought "change" was good too. Afterall, that's the prevailing theme of the election. Since when is change a bad thing?
Uh, since a lot of changes have been bad. Since a lot of changes have unintended consequences. Since changes NEVER go completely as planned.

Change is painful, and if it is not completely necessary (and well thought out) should not happen.

fumanstan
11-06-08, 12:17 AM
They never had that right because it's not marriage. What part of that is so hard to understand? Marriage has been defined throughout history as a man and a woman, NEVER (until now) as two men or two women.

They want to change the fundamental nature of what marriage IS into something that it has never been and doesn't need to be.

I'd say that's solely because the idea of gays and lesbians has always been kept in the dark and has not, up until the last few decades, been as open as it has been in this country. Marriage was only between a man and a women because that was what is considered the norm. Again, I fail to see why history should matter. As many have said, the fundamental nature of what marriage is has changed over time, from economic reasons as well as basically sexist and male dominated roles. I equally wonder why that's so hard to understand.

Also, I think the fundamental nature of marriage is more about the union between persons, not the specification of gender. :shrug:


Your logic is severely flawed. No one is saying that gays are sub-human or less than any other human being (no one with ANY credibility, anyway).

The argument 150 years ago that blacks were less human or only counted as 2/3 of a person was saying that they were an inferior race (despite the fact that they were members of thehuman race, just like whites). It was factually incorrect beyond just being morally incorrect.

No one of any real character is advocating denying gays the right to live, love, and enjoy the freedoms that we all have. Civil Unions should establish their relationships legally and handle the same rights as married couples - and that would do nothing to upset 95% of the people opposed to gay marriage. It would leave all the bases covered.

I was simply using that as an example of definitions that have since changed in history, not as a direct example of how this affects homosexuals. Still, surely you can see the multiple ways in history that gays HAVE been treated as less then human, with prevailing attitudes that they have a disease and that there's something wrong with them. Reinforcement that they're different by creating new terminology for the same institution doesn't help.


Now you're just being insulting.

You know, sometimes things ARE separate. Like women only gyms. I can't go in there to work out - I have to join a co-ed gym. That's separate. Should I feel bad about that? No. Sometimes things are just different enought that it's a case of square peg, round hole (and don't anyone get nasty or vulgar with that one...)

I don't see how this is relevant. Yes, some things are different because they directly affect the individuals involved. For instance, I can't go into a women's restroom because it obviously invades their privacy, so there's a clear reason why there's a separation. I still don't really see any reason why a gay couple getting married would affect others and require a separation. Reasoning that "it's because it's what it has always been defined as" is not a good reason, just an empty statement.

Uh, since a lot of changes have been bad. Since a lot of changes have unintended consequences. Since changes NEVER go completely as planned.

Change is painful, and if it is not completely necessary (and well thought out) should not happen.

Exactly. I only wrote about change because championing it is as stupid and meaningless as you championing being how "different is good." Certainly you realize that different isn't always better too, right?

Boogie76
11-06-08, 12:18 AM
You might not believe so and feel you're just "protecting" marriage, but to the other side you're not doing much different from advocating "separate but equal."


I couldn't agree with this more. You are denying a fundamental right (certainly at least as fundamental of a right as education, travel, employment, and the various other things the Court has determined are fundamental) to group of people based on nothing more than the class they belong to.

Instead an alternative is being offered, where the only defense is that the privileges it grants are the same, the only difference is what it is called. That's akin to saying the only problem with segregation was that the facilities weren't actually equal. If the school had been equal, and students had the same materials, and whatnot, then segregation would have been ok. I just can't agree with that. As the Court said in Brown "Segregation is per se inequaility." Civil unions are the same. you can make them as similar to marriage as you want, but it's still just a seperate but equal situation.

As far as B5Erik's women's only gym analogy, people don't have a fundamental right to go to the gym. They do have a fundamental right to get married.

Bronkster
11-06-08, 12:53 AM
From JB's article....
"That's too big a change in the principles of our constitution to be made just by a bare majority of voters."

In my opinion, that is an issue for the legislature. People used the system they had available to them, and one that the legislature set up.

I would prefer that this didn't pass, so don't take this opinion as something against gay marriage. But I strongly dislike this manuever in the lawsuit. I dislike it as much as I dislike the use of the constituition to limit rights rather than grant them.

Ideally I would want the initiative to be redone in such a way that it would appease any lawsuit, and that it would fail on that merit. I realize this probably sounds disjointed, but I want people to make the right choice rather than to have the courts force it upon them.

I don't know if it's the same for other states, but in California, anyone who can get the required amount of signatures can have anything put on the ballot as a proposition. If it passes, then it's subjected to all the legal scrutiny. Sound backwards? You betcha! :sad:

kvrdave
11-06-08, 01:37 AM
I don't know if it's the same for other states, but in California, anyone who can get the required amount of signatures can have anything put on the ballot as a proposition. If it passes, then it's subjected to all the legal scrutiny. Sound backwards? You betcha! :sad:

Then put up a proposition to change how it is done.

Psi
11-06-08, 01:49 AM
Then put up a proposition to change how it is done.
Don't be so logical.

Actually I was surprised that this year we had only 11 propositions to vote on (and nothing on marijuana). A few years ago our then-new governor Schwarzenegger tried to push through a bunch of changes he was having a tough time getting through the Legislature, and it backfired. I don't remember exactly how many we had, but reading through their summaries and analyses was like studying for a bar exam. The voters were fed up and defeated almost all of them just out of spite :) Maybe overloading the voters would have been a good tactic to prevent Prop 8 from getting passed.

JasonF
11-06-08, 01:59 AM
Ideally I would want the initiative to be redone in such a way that it would appease any lawsuit, and that it would fail on that merit. I realize this probably sounds disjointed, but I want people to make the right choice rather than to have the courts force it upon them.

Yes, and I would like world peace, an end to poverty, and a magical flying unicorn.

kvrdave
11-06-08, 02:04 AM
"Darkness cannot drive out darkness; only light can do that. Hate cannot drive out hate; only love can do that." - MLK

I understand I have taken a bit of a disjointed stand. And I understand that this is the way politics is done.

spainlinx0
11-06-08, 09:47 AM
It's so frustrating arguing with you B5. You only follow the traditions you want to follow. You still have not addressed the fact that marriage has constantly evolved through time and hold fast to the fact that even though marriage is completely different from its origins, you still can't change the gender. Why are you so hung up on gender? Why do you care if they can't procreate "by accident?"

Let me ask you something. Do you think a couple that spends thousands and thousands of dollars for just the chance to adopt a child, because it is something they want more than anything, stands a better chance of raising a model citizen than someone who got drunk and forgot to wear a condom?

And I'm sorry but your dictionary argument always was and STILL is the stupidest fucking argument around. A dictionary does not advocate policy. It presents the currently accepted definition. It is not a sacred keeper of all that is good and stable in the world. You're arguing for something that just recently included "bling-bling" among its pages. Do we now and forever in the future refer to all jewelry as bling because a new vocabulary tradition has been started?

Guess what, when gay marriage is passed, that dictionary definition will change the next second. And you know what will happen to our society? Nothing! Nothing will happen! Society will continue! People will continue to live and die much as they have been through time. Nothing negative will happen except that divorce lawyers will have even more job opportunities.

spainlinx0
11-06-08, 10:00 AM
How about this? You let gay marriage pass, and the rest of us will let the Chargers win the Superbowl? Sorry, but giving up one month of sun is not enough.

eXcentris
11-06-08, 10:03 AM
Marriage is what the dictionary says it is, what it has ALWAYS said it is - a man and a woman.


I can't fathom why you still cling to that argument when it has been proven numerous times that it was both silly and wrong.

fumanstan
11-06-08, 10:05 AM
How about this? You let gay marriage pass, and the rest of us will let the Chargers win the Superbowl? Sorry, but giving up one month of sun is not enough.

:lol::lol:

fumanstan
11-06-08, 10:11 AM
No one of any real character is advocating denying gays the right to live, love, and enjoy the freedoms that we all have. Civil Unions should establish their relationships legally and handle the same rights as married couples - and that would do nothing to upset 95% of the people opposed to gay marriage. It would leave all the bases covered.

Regarding the definition of marriage and proposing civil unions take their place for homosexuals, the problem is that the definition of marriage has taken on a lot more meaning and has a certain connotation. If you want to argue that it's just semantics and that the rights are the same, then ask yourself why you're fighting so hard to keep the word marriage "sacred" to begin with and you should realize why it means so much for gays and lesbians to be able to do so.

kvrdave
11-06-08, 10:15 AM
How about this? You let gay marriage pass, and the rest of us will let the Chargers win the Superbowl? Sorry, but giving up one month of sun is not enough.

:lol: Are you trying to lose me?

orangecrush
11-06-08, 01:24 PM
Regarding the definition of marriage and proposing civil unions take their place for homosexuals, the problem is that the definition of marriage has taken on a lot more meaning and has a certain connotation. If you want to argue that it's just semantics and that the rights are the same, then ask yourself why you're fighting so hard to keep the word marriage "sacred" to begin with and you should realize why it means so much for gays and lesbians to be able to do so.
So what you are saying is that the real issue is acceptance and not equal rights or privileges?

spainlinx0
11-06-08, 01:31 PM
It's two sides of the same coin. If they were accepted, there wouldn't be this fight.

fumanstan
11-06-08, 02:20 PM
So what you are saying is that the real issue is acceptance and not equal rights or privileges?

It's two sides of the same coin. If they were accepted, there wouldn't be this fight.

I'm not sure what you mean. It would seem to me, like spainlinx0 said, that acceptance would be part of having equal rights. Obviously there could be one without the other, like B5 saying he accepts gays but believing they should be a part of a separate union, but I would be keen to believe that true acceptance would result in this being a non-issue.

Groucho
11-06-08, 02:29 PM
Marriage is what the dictionary says it is, what it has ALWAYS said it is - a man and a woman.You have a point here. The definition of words in the English language has never, ever changed. Particularly when it comes to homosexuality.

Now, if you'll excuse me on this gay afternoon, I'm beginning to feel a little queer. I think I'll go outside and smoke a **** -- if that doesn't work, perhaps a warm fire will help. But to start that I'll have to buy a faggot from the Lesbian immigrant guy down the street.

JasonF
11-06-08, 03:10 PM
You have a point here. The definition of words in the English language has never, ever changed. Particularly when it comes to homosexuality.

Now, if you'll excuse me on this gay afternoon, I'm beginning to feel a little queer. I think I'll go outside and smoke a **** -- if that doesn't work, perhaps a warm fire will help. But to start that I'll have to buy a faggot from the Lesbian immigrant guy down the street.

You're such a fruit (by which I mean that you are the fleshy, edible portion of a plant).

slop101
11-06-08, 04:34 PM
Here's what it means (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/marriage), according to someone called Merriam Webster:



Main Entry: mar·riage
Pronunciation: \ˈmer-ij, ˈma-rij\
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English mariage, from Anglo-French, from marier to marry
Date: 14th century

1 a (1): the state of being united to a person of the opposite sex as husband or wife in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law (2): the state of being united to a person of the same sex in a relationship like that of a traditional marriage <same-sex marriage> b: the mutual relation of married persons : wedlock c: the institution whereby individuals are joined in a marriage2: an act of marrying or the rite by which the married status is effected ; especially : the wedding ceremony and attendant festivities or formalities3: an intimate or close union

So there's your dictionary definition. What now?

Groucho
11-06-08, 04:53 PM
Meh. I have it on good authority that Webster had dealings with the Devil himself! I even saw a play about it.

Giantrobo
11-06-08, 05:02 PM
Groups are protesting a Mormon temple in Westwood out here in California. There was a good sized protest in West Hollywood last night.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2008/11/los-angeles-p-1.html

B5Erik
11-06-08, 10:58 PM
To use A.J. Smith's favorite phrase - It is what it is.

Marriage has always been about a man and a woman. Primarily to have a family.

Whether it was arranged marriages or marriages of choice, whether it was to join two prominent families it was always about establishing a "legitimate" foundation for a man to have children (heirs). Another purpose of marriage was to give the man the responsibility of supporting and raising his children (as opposed to running around and knocking up as many women as he could and then leaving them high and dry to raise the kids alone).

My point is merely this - if you can fundamentally change the cornerstone of civilization, then what can't you change in order to give the squeaky wheel the grease?

I just don't see gay couples as being married. Sorry, I just don't. I honestly don't see them as being lesser or greater than married couples, it's just not marriage to me. Or to 52% of California voters.

And for all of you getting all worked up and angry over this, answer this question - if you want people on the other side to accept your point of view, isn't it hypocritical to mock, insult, and arrogantly demean the people that disagree with you? You're hurling insults, and showing a mean spirited and closed minded attitude about those who you are debating. How is that OK?

Do the beliefs - backed by thousands of years of tradition - of the majority not count for anything? NO ONE is being hurt by continuing marriage as what it is, and what it always has been. NO ONE. No one is being told to ride on the back of the bus. No one is being told they can't eat in the same restaurants. They merely cannot call their relationships a marriage. No one is trying to deny them happiness or the basic civil rights that they deserve - but fundamentally changing marriage is a slap in the face to everyone who holds their beliefs dearly.

I'm reading a lot of people calling the anti-gay marriage people closed minded bigots, but they are showing a bigotry of their own in hurling insults and basically saying that the conservatives don't count. The conservatives should go to the back of the ideological bus as far as they're concerned - and they should have to stay there forever. How is that ANY better than what you're accusing the conservatives of?

Marriage never, ever included gays. They used the courts to force a change in the very definition of a millenia old traditional institution. Did those activists care at all about the feelings and beliefs of those on the other side?

No.

So how, exactly, are they any better than the people they are insulting and condemning?

I've been called a bigot and worse on this thread just for believing that you don't change something as fundamental as marriage. And I haven't insulted anyone in return, just attempted to explain and defend my beliefs (NONE of which include discrimination of any kind).

How about the 55 year old California man who punched his neighbors (a 71 year old man AND his 70 year old wife) in the face just because they had a Yes on 8 sign in their yard?

The most extreme anger, vitriol, and violence is on your side, folks. Think about that.

Tracer Bullet
11-06-08, 11:18 PM
I'm being hurt. Don't tell me I'm not.

How much arrogance there is in privilege.

B5Erik
11-06-08, 11:31 PM
I'm being hurt. Don't tell me I'm not.

How are you being hurt? If Civil Unions/Registered Domestic Partnerships end up with ALL the legal rights of marriage how are you hurt?


How much arrogance there is in privilege.
Privelige? You have no idea what you're talking about. I'm the last one who gets to live a life of privelige - of ANY kind.

You have been insulting and condescending throughout this debate, and now you're saying that I'm arrogant?

Look, I'm sorry if you feel like you're being discriminated against somehow, but that's not my intent - I've NEVER discriminated against anyone in my life.

Marriage is what it is, but that's not good enough for you so you want to change what it is. How many sacred cows are you willing to step on?

slop101
11-06-08, 11:59 PM
Marriage shmarriage... What you're failing to understand is that marriage, in and of itself, isn't the issue people (should) have with prop8. The problem is that it amends the state constitution to discriminate against a group of people. That's what's wrong with it. The gay marriage thing is just a hot-button distraction from the fact that this takes away basic citizen rights.

I forgot who said this, but it's like banning brussel sprouts for everyone just because I don't like them - I'm not content and secure enough to keep away from them myself, I have to keep everyone else from having them too, because I'm either so confident that my opinion (and that's really all it is) is so right, or because I'm so insecure in my stance (I might actually like them).

So basically your saying you want to take people rights away just because of your opinion, that only about 50% of the population shares? And you don't see why people are pissed at you?

riley_dude
11-07-08, 12:16 AM
While Obama publicly backed the "No on Prop. 8" effort, African American voters had no trouble voting overwhelmingly for the man who will be the nation's first black president and then voting 70 percent in favor of Prop. 8, exit polls showed.

B5Erik
11-07-08, 12:27 AM
Marriage shmarriage... What you're failing to understand is that marriage, in and of itself, isn't the issue people (should) have with prop8. The problem is that it amends the state constitution to discriminate against a group of people. That's what's wrong with it. The gay marriage thing is just a hot-button distraction from the fact that this takes away basic citizen rights.

No, actually it merely clarifies and defines what marriage IS. It matches the same definition that has been used for thousands of years. It doesn't say one word about gays.


So basically your saying you want to take people rights away just because of your opinion, that only about 50% of the population shares? And you don't see why people are pissed at you?
So only people who support gay marriage are allowed to have an opinion, is that what you're really trying to say?

Wow. Now who's discriminating?

(And, yet again, no one is taking rights away - Prop 8 merely clarified and defined what a marriage is - and that definition is hardly anything new.)

Baron Of Hell
11-07-08, 12:31 AM
Marriage has always been about a man and a woman. Primarily to have a family.

So we should do everything exactly the same forever? Marriages used to be arranged but we don't do that anymore. We use to force people to get married after knocking up a girl. We don't do that any more.


My point is merely this - if you can fundamentally change the cornerstone of civilization, then what can't you change in order to give the squeaky wheel the grease?

That doesn't make any sense. Marriage has fundamentally changed a hundred times already.


I just don't see gay couples as being married. Sorry, I just don't. I honestly don't see them as being lesser or greater than married couples, it's just not marriage to me. Or to 52% of California voters.

Then why fuck do you care?


And for all of you getting all worked up and angry over this, answer this question - if you want people on the other side to accept your point of view, isn't it hypocritical to mock, insult, and arrogantly demean the people that disagree with you?

Sure


Do the beliefs - backed by thousands of years of tradition - of the majority not count for anything?

No one is asking them to changed their belief.


NO ONE is being hurt by continuing marriage as what it is, and what it always has been.

No one is being hurt by allowing gay people to merry.


They merely cannot call their relationships a marriage.

THEY not YOU. So why the fuck do you care. Why do YOU care what other people call THEIR relationship.


I'm reading a lot of people calling the anti-gay marriage people closed minded bigots,

It is pretty hard not to see them that way.



Marriage never, ever included gays. They used the courts to force a change in the very definition of a millenia old traditional institution. Did those activists care at all about the feelings and beliefs of those on the other side?

It doesn't effect the people on the other side so why should they care. This is the same stupid logic that kept interracial couples from getting married. This is like me telling you what you can and can't name your kid even though I'll probably never meet your kid nor even know he or she exist. You want force your views down other peoples throats and have the audacity to cry offense when people call you on your bullshit.


I've been called a bigot and worse on this thread just for believing that you don't change something as fundamental as marriage.

you fall into my definition of bigot (a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudice). I see no logical reason why a reasonable person would have your views. However, I see no reason to call you a racist or whatever else you've been called but bigot seems to fit. Don't get me wrong. That wouldn't stop me from having a beer with you or playing LBP with you.

Baron Of Hell
11-07-08, 12:33 AM
While Obama publicly backed the "No on Prop. 8" effort, African American voters had no trouble voting overwhelmingly for the man who will be the nation's first black president and then voting 70 percent in favor of Prop. 8, exit polls showed.

Obama is a democrat. The percentage of blacks vote he got was almost the same as Kerry got.

kvrdave
11-07-08, 12:34 AM
Marriage has always been about a man and a woman. Primarily to have a family.



I assume you meant "a man and several women." Over the course of history, that has had more time on the face of the planet than what you suggest. And it continues to this day in areas of Africa and the Middle East. And even parts of the US where it is openly not prosecuted provided it is not used in welfare fraud.

And until recently (based on history) it has involved girls well under 18 years of age. Why not defend that as a traditional marriage?

Hank Ringworm
11-07-08, 12:42 AM
I'm being hurt. Don't tell me I'm not.

How much arrogance there is in privilege.

Hurt how? I'm not denying that you're being personally affected, but the rule of law does not exist to keep people from having their feelings hurt. If you're being hurt in other ways, then forgive me for misunderstanding.

I understand both sides of the issue, as best I can. (I would have voted no on prop 8, had I been silly enough to live in California.) But we have only the guarantee of equal protection under the law to go by. I, personally, don't consider it the law's responsibility to protect feelings.

fumanstan
11-07-08, 12:47 AM
To use A.J. Smith's favorite phrase - It is what it is.

Marriage has always been about a man and a woman. Primarily to have a family.

Whether it was arranged marriages or marriages of choice, whether it was to join two prominent families it was always about establishing a "legitimate" foundation for a man to have children (heirs). Another purpose of marriage was to give the man the responsibility of supporting and raising his children (as opposed to running around and knocking up as many women as he could and then leaving them high and dry to raise the kids alone).

My point is merely this - if you can fundamentally change the cornerstone of civilization, then what can't you change in order to give the squeaky wheel the grease?

The cornerstone of civilization isn't being changed. People aren't going to stop procreating because homosexuals marry each other, nor do gay people being married have any effect on heterosexual relationships that will continue as always. It changes NOTHING.

I just don't see gay couples as being married. Sorry, I just don't. I honestly don't see them as being lesser or greater than married couples, it's just not marriage to me. Or to 52% of California voters.

Which to some extent is understandable, but i'd hope you could at least see why supporters do feel that it means less.

And for all of you getting all worked up and angry over this, answer this question - if you want people on the other side to accept your point of view, isn't it hypocritical to mock, insult, and arrogantly demean the people that disagree with you? You're hurling insults, and showing a mean spirited and closed minded attitude about those who you are debating. How is that OK?

It's been pointed out numerous times to you that the reason for this reaction is because people feel that the argument same sex marriages is no different then believing in the "separate but equal" philosophy that black people had to deal with. If someone called viciously called a black person the n-word, would you not feel apt to say that they're racist? While you obviously don't think this is equivalent, the other side does. You're going to have to deal with it.

Do the beliefs - backed by thousands of years of tradition - of the majority not count for anything? NO ONE is being hurt by continuing marriage as what it is, and what it always has been. NO ONE. No one is being told to ride on the back of the bus. No one is being told they can't eat in the same restaurants. They merely cannot call their relationships a marriage. No one is trying to deny them happiness or the basic civil rights that they deserve - but fundamentally changing marriage is a slap in the face to everyone who holds their beliefs dearly.

As Tracer said, he is hurt by this. Thousands of gay people are hurt by this. I'm not gay or black, so I won't pretend to identify, but I can imagine this would feel equivalent to having to sit in the back of the bus. There's no inherent physical harm, but for you to assume that there's no emotional impact is incredibly naive.

I'm reading a lot of people calling the anti-gay marriage people closed minded bigots, but they are showing a bigotry of their own in hurling insults and basically saying that the conservatives don't count. The conservatives should go to the back of the ideological bus as far as they're concerned - and they should have to stay there forever. How is that ANY better than what you're accusing the conservatives of?

Marriage never, ever included gays. They used the courts to force a change in the very definition of a millenia old traditional institution. Did those activists care at all about the feelings and beliefs of those on the other side?

No.

So how, exactly, are they any better than the people they are insulting and condemning?

I've been called a bigot and worse on this thread just for believing that you don't change something as fundamental as marriage. And I haven't insulted anyone in return, just attempted to explain and defend my beliefs (NONE of which include discrimination of any kind).

How about the 55 year old California man who punched his neighbors (a 71 year old man AND his 70 year old wife) in the face just because they had a Yes on 8 sign in their yard?

The most extreme anger, vitriol, and violence is on your side, folks. Think about that.

As I said above, there's a very good reason that there's a lot of anger directed at opponents of same-sex marriages. And it's pretty easy to see, as i've said before, that the basic rights of all humans trump the outdated beliefs of religion, which has obviously has a pretty long history of atrocities and inaccuracies in the past. I obviously don't condone any physical harm to proponents of Prop 8, but I can understand pent up frustration. Regardless, you seem to continue to maintain what you feel is the definition of marriage despite numerous questions and examples of how that makes little sense. I still don't see why you can't accept that definitions can, and have, changed and why your (and I do emphasize YOUR definition) particular definition of marriage can't.

B5Erik
11-07-08, 12:52 AM
See, we're never going to agree - but I won't stoop to the name calling and ridiculing that others have.

You're entitled to your opinions. So am I - and so are the 52% of Californians who voted merely to officially and legally define what a marriage is. A definition that is NOTHING new.

kvrdave
11-07-08, 12:54 AM
I understand both sides of the issue, as best I can. (I would have voted no on prop 8, had I been silly enough to live in California.) But we have only the guarantee of equal protection under the law to go by. I, personally, don't consider it the law's responsibility to protect feelings.

I agree that it isn't the law's place to protect feelings. But I can see where, if I were gay, I would not feel like I was being given equal protection under the law. Can anyone argue that straight people are being harmed if gays can marry?

If you were to want to be the kind of neighbor that you would like to have, why would one want to deny anyone of something that you yourself charish, especially when it has no affect on how you will continue to live your life?

Draven
11-07-08, 12:54 AM
I assume you meant "a man and several women." Over the course of history, that has had more time on the face of the planet than what you suggest. And it continues to this day in areas of Africa and the Middle East. And even parts of the US where it is openly not prosecuted provided it is not used in welfare fraud.

And until recently (based on history) it has involved girls well under 18 years of age. Why not defend that as a traditional marriage?

Because that wouldn't support his position?

fumanstan
11-07-08, 12:57 AM
Hurt how? I'm not denying that you're being personally affected, but the rule of law does not exist to keep people from having their feelings hurt. If you're being hurt in other ways, then forgive me for misunderstanding.

I understand both sides of the issue, as best I can. (I would have voted no on prop 8, had I been silly enough to live in California.) But we have only the guarantee of equal protection under the law to go by. I, personally, don't consider it the law's responsibility to protect feelings.

I mentioned this in my reply to B5Erik, but taking this attitude how does forcing black people to sit in the back of the bus or use separate bathrooms or drinking fountains hurt them?

Regardless, Tracer wasn't asking the law to protect his feelings from being hurt, he's asking the law for the equal protection that you mentioned. The lack of it is what's causing the hurt.

kvrdave
11-07-08, 12:57 AM
See, we're never going to agree - but I won't stoop to the name calling and ridiculing that others have.

You're entitled to your opinions. So am I - and so are the 52% of Californians who voted merely to officially and legally define what a marriage is. A definition that is NOTHING new.


If it feels good to gloat, feel free. But I was on the same side as you at one point not terribly long ago. And in the last election cycles when these issues were on ballots, they passed by a much bigger margin, even in liberal states like Oregon and Washington.

And while you haven't resorted to name calling and ridiculing, you have consistently stooped to rubbing it in.

JasonF
11-07-08, 01:01 AM
See, we're never going to agree - but I won't stoop to the name calling and ridiculing that others have.

You're entitled to your opinions. So am I - and so are the 52% of Californians who voted merely to officially and legally define what a marriage is. A definition that is NOTHING new.

You're entitled to your opinion, but when you act on your opinion by voting to deny rights to other people, don't be surprised when those other people (and those who empathize with them) get angry with you.

Hank Ringworm
11-07-08, 01:18 AM
I agree that it isn't the law's place to protect feelings. But I can see where, if I were gay, I would not feel like I was being given equal protection under the law. Can anyone argue that straight people are being harmed if gays can marry?

If you were to want to be the kind of neighbor that you would like to have, why would one want to deny anyone of something that you yourself charish, especially when it has no affect on how you will continue to live your life?

Good points. I think it boils down to an acceptance issue, as several here have said. And you cannot legislate acceptance. The word "marriage" may give folks the feeling of acceptance, but they will unfortunately be ostracized by certain folk no matter what they are legally called.

I guess I don't see the point of pushing for the term "marriage" as though a simple word could change people's minds. It's like a change in title vis-a-vis a pay raise. I understand that it could make some feel more accepted, but, again, I don't think acceptance is a public issue.

Personally, gay marriage doesn't harm me one bit, so if it brings happiness to some people, I'm all for it. But I can see how people would be personally harmed by its legal acceptance, in much the same way gays are personally harmed by its nonacceptance.

B5Erik
11-07-08, 01:20 AM
Because that wouldn't support his position?
No, because that has nothing to do with the history of WESTERN civilization, which we happen to be a part of.

(And as for girls under 18 you forget how different society was back then - kids had to grow up REAL fast back then. People only lived to be 40 years old, 50 if they were lucky.)

kvrdave
11-07-08, 01:26 AM
No, because that has nothing to do with the history of WESTERN civilization, which we happen to be a part of.

(And as for girls under 18 you forget how different society was back then - kids had to grow up REAL fast back then. People only lived to be 40 years old, 50 if they were lucky.)

Mormons were a part of WESTERN civilization. And kids actually mature earlier today than they did back then.

And if I have forgotten how different society was back then, keep in mind that I may well be saying the same to you in 4 years when we look back at this election. But it is nice to see that you understand that society changes, but it doesn't help your argument that this should be kept from happening based on tradition.

fumanstan
11-07-08, 01:26 AM
No, because that has nothing to do with the history of WESTERN civilization, which we happen to be a part of.

(And as for girls under 18 you forget how different society was back then - kids had to grow up REAL fast back then. People only lived to be 40 years old, 50 if they were lucky.)

Society is different now too.

B5Erik
11-07-08, 01:28 AM
And I still have yet to see a valid argument that says that gays having the exact same rights as straights, but just having to use a different term is so terribly harmful.

You can't call a gay man straight. He can't be called that, because he's not.

So what? He's still a human being, he has just as much value as anyone else - so what if he has a different label? The different label is ACCURATE.

It's the same with marriage. It labels the legal relationship between a man and a woman. A gay couple can have a label all their own that straight couples can't use - and there is no logical argument against that because the different labels are more accurate descriptors (to describe the genders of the couples involved).

Got a married couple - you know that a man and a woman are involved. Got Registered Domestic Partners - you know you've got two people of the same gender involved.

Marriage is what it has been, and there is no need to change it.

Hank Ringworm
11-07-08, 01:29 AM
I mentioned this in my reply to B5Erik, but taking this attitude how does forcing black people to sit in the back of the bus or use separate bathrooms or drinking fountains hurt them?

Regardless, Tracer wasn't asking the law to protect his feelings from being hurt, he's asking the law for the equal protection that you mentioned. The lack of it is what's causing the hurt.

Ah! The black/white separation is a good point. I could see a sort of "separate but unequal" argument arising from that. But again, if that inequality is not tangible, if it can only be traced back to a vague personal hurt feeling, it is pretty much moot.

It still feels to me like a matter of semantics, which even Brown v. Board didn't touch--the decision didn't lead to the banning of the N-word, even though that word "hurts" black people. In the same way, I feel uncomfortable with any legislation regarding the W-word, whether it bans it or patently allows it.

B5Erik
11-07-08, 01:34 AM
Mormons were a part of WESTERN civilization. And kids actually mature earlier today than they did back then.

Mormons were not accepted - not the ones who practiced polygamy. And kids may mature PHYSICALLY earlier today, but not mentally and emotionally. A 14 year old had a hell of a lot more responsiblity heaped on him/her 200 years ago than they have to deal with now. A hell of a lot more.


And if I have forgotten how different society was back then, keep in mind that I may well be saying the same to you in 4 years when we look back at this election. But it is nice to see that you understand that society changes, but it doesn't help your argument that this should be kept from happening based on tradition.
Yeah, let's just get rid of tradition and what has been working so well and just radically change it. Why not? What could happen?

Hell, why study history? It's in the past, none of that matters, right? It's all old and we all know so much better now - we couldn't possibly learn anything from the people who came before us, right?

-rolleyes-

That's the attitude I'm seeing here. Maybe unintentionally, but that's what's coming across.

fumanstan
11-07-08, 01:51 AM
Yeah, let's just get rid of tradition and what has been working so well and just radically change it. Why not? What could happen?

Hell, why study history? It's in the past, none of that matters, right? It's all old and we all know so much better now - we couldn't possibly learn anything from the people who came before us, right?

-rolleyes-

That's the attitude I'm seeing here. Maybe unintentionally, but that's what's coming across.

This doesn't make any sense to me. In fact, i'd say your attitude is more akin to your comment of ignoring history. If anything, it's the societal changes that have developed throughout history and what we've learned from past mistakes should support the adaptation of marriage.

I also find it interesting that you pose the question "what could happen?" Do tell. What could happen if you allow homosexuals to marry? Do you see a major negative impact? I just don't see it. I also don't see how we're getting rid of tradition, since heterosexual marriages aren't impacted.

Tracer Bullet
11-07-08, 06:45 AM
I also find it interesting that you pose the question "what could happen?" Do tell. What could happen if you allow homosexuals to marry? Do you see a major negative impact? I just don't see it. I also don't see how we're getting rid of tradition, since heterosexual marriages aren't impacted.

Well, we have two states with marriage equality, with a third probably joining soon. It's inevitable, no one can stop it forever, and that, more than anything else, make the laughable impotence of B5Erik's position apparent. There'll be another vote in California in a few years, and bigotry will lose that one.

He's like my 90-year-old great-aunt who still call blacks ******s because hell, she's always called them ******s.

orangecrush
11-07-08, 08:10 AM
I assume you meant "a man and several women." Over the course of history, that has had more time on the face of the planet than what you suggest. And it continues to this day in areas of Africa and the Middle East. And even parts of the US where it is openly not prosecuted provided it is not used in welfare fraud.

And until recently (based on history) it has involved girls well under 18 years of age. Why not defend that as a traditional marriage?
How many non-rich dudes throughout history have had multiple wives vs. just 1? I doubt it has been as pervasive as some here suggest. People point to the bible to illustrate their point as well, but it isn't really a common occurence in the O.T. either. I am pretty sure there aren't any examples to be found in the N.T. (I could be wrong though).

spainlinx0
11-07-08, 08:14 AM
The only thing I can say to B5 is that what if your son or daughter came to you, and said they were gay. And they asked you, why you felt they shouldn't be married. Would you put your hand on a dictionary and say "by the word of Webster, you shall not marry."

parker63
11-07-08, 08:20 AM
While I try and stay out of political discussions and stick with the lighter side of DVD Talk, I was curious about the argument of civil unions vs. marriage, and the "same rights" that would or would not apply.

I found this article to be interesting: What is a Civil Union?

http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

Spoilered for length:

What Is a Civil Union?
August 9, 2007
Politicians often say they support civil unions but not gay marriage. We sort out the difference.

Summary
When politicians say they support civil unions but not marriage for people of the same sex, what do they mean? We find three main differences between civil unions and marriage as it's traditionally viewed:

* The right to federal benefits. States that allow some type of same-sex union are able to grant only state rights. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 prohibits same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage rights and benefits.

* Portability. Because civil unions are not recognized by all states, such agreements are not always valid when couples cross state lines.

* Terminology. "Marriage" is a term that conveys societal and cultural meaning, important to both gay rights activists and those who don't believe gays should marry.

Analysis
On Aug. 9, the Democratic presidential candidates will debate issues important to gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender individuals. The forum in Los Angeles is sponsored by the Human Rights Campaign Foundation and the MTV Networks’ Logo Channel. We expect the candidates will be asked about gay marriage and civil unions – a major issue that has sparked political passions on both the right and the left.

In a questionnaire that Human Rights Campaign, a gay rights advocacy group, sent to presidential candidates, all of the Democrats said they were in favor of civil unions for gay couples – a solution that is often touted as being functionally equivalent to marriage. Only Rep. Dennis Kucinich and former Sen. Mike Gravel said they would support gay marriage. But what exactly is the difference? FactCheck.org offers this primer on the subject.

Federal Recognition

The Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), signed into law by President Bill Clinton in 1996, stipulated that for all federal legal purposes “marriage” is a union between one man and one woman. Because of that legislation, all federal laws pertaining to married couples apply exclusively to opposite-sex couples. States that have made civil unions legal, including Connecticut, New Hampshire, New Jersey and Vermont, have granted state benefits to same-sex couples. These include state tax benefits, better access to family health plans, co-parenting privileges, automatic preference for guardianship and decision-making authority for a medically incapacitated partner, as well as protection under state divorce and separation laws. While each state law is somewhat different, they are similar in that they convey these state rights to gay couples; they do not and cannot grant federal rights and benefits.

California, Hawaii, Maine, Oregon, Washington and the District of Columbia have domestic partnership laws, which are fundamentally similar to civil unions. Massachusetts is the only state in which gays can legally marry, due to the 2003 Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court ruling that said the state constitution didn’t support discriminating against same-sex couples that wanted to wed. Like states that grant civil unions, Massachusetts extends all the state benefits of marriage to same-sex couples; unlike in other states, gay couples also can be issued a marriage license. However, married gay couples still are not eligible for federal benefits.

The Government Accountability Office lists 1,138 federal laws that pertain to married couples. Many in that long list may be minor or only relevant to small groups of citizens. However, a number of provisions are key to what constitutes a marriage legally in the United States:

* Taxes. Couples in a civil union may file a joint state tax return, but they must file federal tax returns as single persons. This may be advantageous to some couples, not so for others. One advantage for married couples is the ability to transfer assets and wealth without incurring tax penalties. Partners in a civil union aren't permitted to do that, and thus may be liable for estate and gift taxes on such transfers.

* Health insurance. The state-federal divide is even more complicated in this arena. In the wake of the Massachusetts high court ruling, the group Gay & Lesbian Advocates & Defenders put together a guide to spousal health care benefits. GLAD’s document is Massachusetts-specific but provides insight into how health insurance laws would apply to those in a civil union in other states. In general, GLAD says, it comes down to what’s governed by state law and what’s subject to federal oversight. If a private employer’s health plans are subject to Massachusetts state insurance laws, benefits must be extended to a same-sex spouse. If the health plan is governed by federal law, the employer can choose whether or not to extend such benefits.

* Social Security survivor benefits. If a spouse or divorced spouse dies, the survivor may have a right to Social Security payments based on the earnings of the married couple, rather than only the survivor’s earnings. Same-sex couples are not eligible for such benefits.

Other federal areas in which couples in civil unions don't have the same rights as married couples include immigration (a partner who's a foreign national can't become an American by entering into a civil union with someone) and veterans' and military benefits (only opposite-sex spouses have a right to pensions, compensation for service-related deaths, medical care, housing and the right to burial in veterans’ cemeteries). Gay couples, however, may actually benefit when applying for programs such as Medicaid or government housing that require low-income eligibility. A spouse’s income is included in such applications, but a same-sex partner’s income is not. One change has been made in federal law: A provision in the Pension Protection Act of 2006 allows same-sex couples to transfer 401(k) and IRA earnings to partners without penalty.

Brad Luna, director of communications at Human Rights Campaign, says there have been several unsuccessful lawsuits filed by same-sex couples who wish to receive federal benefits. “It’s going to have to take the repeal of DOMA or a federal civil union law that would grant them that kind of federal recognition,” he says.

Portable Unions

Since civil unions are only legal in certain states, they also can't be taken across state lines. If a couple gets married in Vermont, they can reasonably expect to still be married if they move to California; the same is not true for same-sex unions. While New Jersey law specifies that the state will recognize civil unions and domestic partnerships performed elsewhere, this is not true for all states that allow some form of same-sex partnership. And if civil partners move to a state that disallows all same-sex unions, they may find themselves with no legal standing whatsoever as a couple.

Most states have enacted DOMA legislation or passed constitutional amendments stipulating that marriage is a union exclusively between one man and one woman. In fact, only five states do not have laws on the books that prohibit same-sex marriage: Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York and Rhode Island. The District of Columbia also does not have such a law. Both HRC and DOMAwatch.org, a project of the Alliance Defense Fund, which opposes gay marriage, have U.S. maps showing the breakdown of legislation by state.

The Meaning of "Marriage"

The least concrete difference between civil unions and marriage is also perhaps the most polarizing: the term “marriage” and the social and cultural weight it bears. For many, this is not just a semantic issue. Opponents are concerned that allowing gays to marry will dilute the term “marriage,” threatening the institution it stands for. Supporters, meanwhile, feel that setting up a marriage-like institution for gays (such as civil unions) while defining marriage as fundamentally heterosexual is an example of flawed “separate but equal” legislation.

In an interview with FactCheck.org, Paul Cates of the Lesbian Gay Bisexual Transgender Project at the American Civil Liberties Union stressed the cultural significance of marriage: “You’re not a little kid dreaming about your civil union day. It’s your wedding day.” When you want to commit to a partner, “you’re not really thinking about the [legal] protections,” he says. “It’s the significance and what it means to be married and hold yourself out as married.”

Opponents of gay marriage also recognize the social importance of the word. Jenny Tyree, associate analyst for marriage at Focus on the Family, a Christian organization headed by James C. Dobson, says her group "does not believe that marriage has to be redefined to care for all the people in society. We understand that every person has needs and people they want to care for. But these are pretty bold attempts to undermine the marriage institution.”

Focus on the Family and other groups that oppose same-sex marriage are not just concerned with terminology. “Marriage is important because it’s a time-honored enduring social institution that serves women, men and children,” Tyree says. “And civil unions undermine marriage by reducing it to a bundle of rights and benefits.” Despite difficulties like divorce, marriage “is still an institution that does what we need it to do for children,” she adds.

Such views seem to be in the majority. A 2003 Pew Research Center survey showed that 56 percent of respondents agreed that gay marriage would undermine the traditional family.

As previously noted, even states that allow for same-sex civil unions or domestic partnerships – including California, Connecticut, Maine, Vermont and Washington – have passed laws defining marriage as something that occurs between a man and a woman. Liberal-leaning politicians have made that distinction as well: Most of the Democratic candidates set to debate these issues support extending all the federal legal rights of married couples to same-sex couples – but they don’t want to call that “marriage.”

– by Jess Henig and Lori Robertson

Update Aug. 9: Our article originally said that Jenny Tyree of Focus on the Family cited studies showing that children do better when raised by a married mother and father. Better than what, though? When we had a chance to do a little more checking, we found that research does seem to show that children raised by married biological parents are better off on average than those raised by cohabiting biological parents. In addition, other studies show that children raised by both parents fare better than children raised by one. Studies have also shown, though, that children raised by homosexual parents are just as emotionally and socially healthy as those raised by heterosexual parents. The Child Welfare League of America says of its position on same-sex parenting: “Studies using diverse samples and methodologies in the last decade have persuasively demonstrated that there are no systematic differences between gay or lesbian and non-gay or lesbian parents in emotional health, parenting skills, and attitudes toward parenting.”

Sources
Connecticut General Assembly. Substitute Senate Bill No. 963. 14 Apr. 2005.

DOMAwatch.org, Alliance Defense Fund. Issues by State. 8 Aug. 2007.

Government Accountability Office. Defense of Marriage Act: Update to Prior Report. GAO.gov. 23 Jan. 2004.

Human Rights Campaign. State-by-State Information, national maps of marriage-related laws. HRC.org. 8 Aug. 2007.

New Hampshire General Court. House Bill 437-FN-LOCAL. 4 Apr. 2007.

New Jersey Legislature. Bill A3787. 21 Dec. 2006.

Vermont General Assembly. Act No. 91: An Act Relating to Civil Unions. 26 Apr. 2000.

Birrman54
11-07-08, 08:23 AM
I have dictionary facts to support me!

B5Erik
11-07-08, 08:33 AM
The only thing I can say to B5 is that what if your son or daughter came to you, and said they were gay. And they asked you, why you felt they shouldn't be married. Would you put your hand on a dictionary and say "by the word of Webster, you shall not marry."
Yes, I would.

Believe me, that thought has crossed my mind. I'm no hypocrite, I would hold the same beliefs even if it involved my daughter.

I would encourage her to go after a registered domestic partnership if she wanted a commitment, though.

I just don't believe that gay marriage is marriage. To make it so you have to CHANGE what marriage is, and like I said if something that fundamental can be changed what can't be changed?

Changing marriage is trampling on the beliefs of a majority of people in this country. Is that OK? (And do you not expect a backlash? Do you not expect anger to be directed at the gay community? How would that be good for promoting the gay community as a fully integrated, fully accepted part of society? Wouldn't creating that kind of anger and backlash actually set back those desires of overall acceptance?)

spainlinx0
11-07-08, 08:40 AM
Yes, I believe it is OK to trample on the beliefs of the majority when they attempt to deny rights, through sheer numbers of a smaller and less represented group.

You see marriage as this "foundation" of this country. Divorce rates sky high. Infidelity numbers sky high. People getting married to strangers on TV. People going on third, fourth, and fifth marriages.

Frankly I don't care if it angers those against this. I'm sure people were angry when black integration was forced. I'm not going to sympathize with them though. Suck it up.

I just don't know why you think marriage is so fundamental. Hell, tradition has usually been to have a monarchy in governments until fairly recently in your "millenia" timeline. Would you like the US to adopt that? Would you like Obama to be King Obama?

Draven
11-07-08, 08:42 AM
No, because that has nothing to do with the history of WESTERN civilization, which we happen to be a part of.


You said "thousands of years of tradition" but you were only talking about Western Civilization?? How old do you think our country is? Want to amend your statement?

I'm going to a gay wedding this weekend. These two men have had a long relationship, got engaged, got registered, sent invitations, have booked a lovely space and invited all of their friends. But, in your mind, they shouldn't be allowed to call it a "marriage". And for no better reason than "I don't like it".

"Marriage" is more than a word. It brings up feelings of love and romance, partnership, finding a soulmate and starting a family. And you don't want them to be able to use that word. They have to call it a "civil union" or some other dry, legal term. Why on earth would you deny them the same experience that you've automatically had access to your entire life? Just because you were born the "right" way?

Once again, gay marriage does not affect straight marriage at all. Denying them the word is about your feelings, not theirs. And since you aren't the one getting married in this scenario, your opinion on their relationship is worth nothing.

wendersfan
11-07-08, 08:44 AM
Changing marriage is trampling on the beliefs of a majority of people in this country. Is that OK?Absolutely, if it's the right thing to do, and I believe it's the right thing to do.

spainlinx0
11-07-08, 08:44 AM
Yes, I would.

Believe me, that thought has crossed my mind. I'm no hypocrite, I would hold the same beliefs even if it involved my daughter.

I would encourage her to go after a registered domestic partnership if she wanted a commitment, though.

I just don't believe that gay marriage is marriage. To make it so you have to CHANGE what marriage is, and like I said if something that fundamental can be changed what can't be changed?

Changing marriage is trampling on the beliefs of a majority of people in this country. Is that OK? (And do you not expect a backlash? Do you not expect anger to be directed at the gay community? How would that be good for promoting the gay community as a fully integrated, fully accepted part of society? Wouldn't creating that kind of anger and backlash actually set back those desires of overall acceptance?)


Well I hope you're comfortable having an estranged daughter in that scenario.

Tracer Bullet
11-07-08, 08:45 AM
I still don't understand where B5Erik got the idea that dictionaries are proscriptive and not descriptive.

B5Erik
11-07-08, 08:45 AM
Absolutely, if it's the right thing to do, and I believe it's the right thing to do.
But what about the people who believe that it's the wrong thing to do? What makes you right and all those people wrong? What if you're actually the one who's wrong?

wendersfan
11-07-08, 08:46 AM
Well I hope you're comfortable having an estranged daughter in that scenario.Better to risk ruining a relationship with a close family member than disagreeing with your dictionary!

Tracer Bullet
11-07-08, 08:50 AM
You can have, "Feelings of love and romance," without marriage. If their happiness relies on the use of ONE word then they've got other issues to work out.

Someone has issues here, but it's no one that is supporting marriage equality.

Sean O'Hara
11-07-08, 08:52 AM
(And as for girls under 18 you forget how different society was back then - kids had to grow up REAL fast back then. People only lived to be 40 years old, 50 if they were lucky.)

Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

The average life expectancy was lower because of infant mortality and childhood diseases -- a new born baby might have as little as a 50% chance of reaching adult hood, but someone who reached the age of 15 was as likely to see 60 as you or I.

B5Erik
11-07-08, 08:53 AM
"Marriage" is more than a word. It brings up feelings of love and romance, partnership, finding a soulmate and starting a family. And you don't want them to be able to use that word. They have to call it a "civil union" or some other dry, legal term. Why on earth would you deny them the same experience that you've automatically had access to your entire life?
Marriage is about more than just, "Feelings of love and romance." It's about family. It's about creating the ideal unit from which to raise children.

You can have, "Feelings of love and romance," without marriage. If their happiness relies on the use of ONE word then they've got other issues to work out. And if they just don't like the term Civil Union or Domestic Partnership, they can just hijack marriage and make it their own?

And I have ALWAYS hated that term, "Soul mate." It's just a bunch of new agey crap.

B5Erik
11-07-08, 08:54 AM
Wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong.

The average life expectancy was lower because of infant mortality and childhood diseases -- a new born baby might have as little as a 50% chance of reaching adult hood, but someone who reached the age of 15 was as likely to see 60 as you or I.
No, you are the one who is wrong. People died of diseases in middle age that they do not now (not in significant numbers, anyway). People died from injuries that can easily be fixed in surgery now.

Life expectancy is based on a lot more than infant mortality.

Sean O'Hara
11-07-08, 08:56 AM
Marriage is what it has been, and there is no need to change it.

Have you arranged your childrens' marriages yet? How much have you put aside for dowry?

wendersfan
11-07-08, 08:58 AM
Have you arranged your childrens' marriages yet? How much have you put aside for dowry?I hope at least three or four oxen, and a couple of herds of sheep, at least. Dowry inflation is a bitch.

Draven
11-07-08, 08:59 AM
Marriage is about more than just, "Feelings of love and romance." It's about family. It's about creating the ideal unit from which to raise children.

Many people get married and never have kids. Is their marriage somehow less? If not...then having kids must not be required.


You can have, "Feelings of love and romance," without marriage. If their happiness relies on the use of ONE word then they've got other issues to work out. And if they just don't like the term Civil Union or Domestic Partnership, they can just hijack marriage and make it their own?

Sure YOU can. But that doesn't mean the word isn't important to other people. Why do you care what they call it? You don't own the word "marriage". You have no reason to "defend" it. What about people that get married on television, or for money, or because they had a child out of wedlock, or have been divorced three times and are on their fourth. You're worried that GAYS will ruin it? I'd say that, at least for now, gay people are more likely to be getting married for the right reasons.

And I have ALWAYS hated that term, "Soul mate." It's just a bunch of new agey crap.

Again, to you. You don't seem to grasp that other people may feel differently, and that's ok.

B5Erik
11-07-08, 09:12 AM
Just an aside here, I thought the goal of the gay & lesbian community was universal acceptance.

How does poking a stick in the eye of those that disagree with them on this issue help them gain universal acceptance? Doesn't doing that push that goal backwards? It angers and irritates those who do not share their beliefs, prolonging the hostility on both sides.

How is that a good thing?

I mean, calling people names, insulting them, demeaning them - does that really help in the long run?

I thought that the gay community was against labels and stereotypes, and yet all I'm reading and hearing from them and their supporters in this debate are labels and stereotypes used to describe those who disagree with them.

Hello, Pot? This is Kettle....

Sean O'Hara
11-07-08, 09:15 AM
No, you are the one who is wrong. People died of diseases in middle age that they do not now (not in significant numbers, anyway). People died from injuries that can easily be fixed in surgery now.

Life expectancy is based on a lot more than infant mortality.

Indeed, and without infant mortality, the life expectancy of Ancient Rome or the Middle Ages would've been less than ours. But not thirty or forty years less -- that is a result a large number of childhood deaths skewing the average downwards.

You've surely read Psalm 90:10:

The days of our years are threescore years and ten; and if by reason of strength they be fourscore years, yet is their strength labour and sorrow; for it is soon cut off, and we fly away.

That wasn't written by someone in a society where most people died in their 40s.

wendersfan
11-07-08, 09:16 AM
Just an aside here, I thought the goal of the gay & lesbian community was universal acceptance.I think you're wrong about that, which means everything else you wrote is invalid. Universal acceptance probably isn't possible, but equality under the law is.

Draven
11-07-08, 09:18 AM
How does poking a stick in the eye of those that disagree with them on this issue help them gain universal acceptance? Doesn't doing that push that goal backwards? It angers and irritates those who do not share their beliefs, prolonging the hostility on both sides

What sticks?

It's YOUR PROBLEM. Why should other people care about your hang ups?

Racial equality is a good parallel. It's discrimination based on how someone is born. It's not fair. And people got just as uppity about having to share drinking fountains and bus seats. That doesn't mean they were right to get upset. In fact, history has shown how wrong they were, and the same thing will happen with this issue.

The bottom line is there is no logical reason to deny gay couples marriage. It comes down to individual beliefs and issues, and that's not a good enough reason to shoot it down.

spainlinx0
11-07-08, 09:28 AM
And can you stop playing such a victim here? As you said you're in the majority right? I don't see many people here insulting you. Arguing with you, and calling your points wrong, and showing you WHY they are wrong, is not insulting or belittling you. It is called a debate.

Nausicaa
11-07-08, 10:14 AM
And can you stop playing such a victim here? As you said you're in the majority right? I don't see many people here insulting you. Arguing with you, and calling your points wrong, and showing you WHY they are wrong, is not insulting or belittling you. It is called a debate.

Well, I called him a bigot. Before I did though, I consulted my dictionary for a definition.

1. a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices

It sounded pretty accurate, and that's the definition that's been used for hundreds of years, so I don't know why B5Erik is upset.

solipsta
11-07-08, 10:51 AM
Many people get married and never have kids. Is their marriage somehow less? If not...then having kids must not be required.
My marriage has no potential for children. Therefore, I guess we're not a family. I guess we don't have a marriage. Should my wife and I not really be married? Should someone not be arguing that WE should never been able to call what we have a marriage?

orangecrush
11-07-08, 11:05 AM
I think you're wrong about that, which means everything else you wrote is invalid. Universal acceptance probably isn't possible, but equality under the law is.
I thought that equality and acceptance were two sides of the same coin.

orangecrush
11-07-08, 11:07 AM
Racial equality is a good parallel. It's discrimination based on how someone is born. It's not fair. And people got just as uppity about having to share drinking fountains and bus seats. That doesn't mean they were right to get upset. In fact, history has shown how wrong they were, and the same thing will happen with this issue.
You racist ;)

Artman
11-07-08, 11:37 AM
It comes down to individual beliefs and issues, and that's not a good enough reason to shoot it down.

Does anyone vote for reasons other than "beliefs and issues?" Confused...

Draven
11-07-08, 12:01 PM
Does anyone vote for reasons other than "beliefs and issues?" Confused...

I'm not talking about voting. I'm talking about doing what is right despite your personal feelings on the subject.

There are things that I don't like in this world, but I accept that they don't directly affect me so they are none of my business. I wouldn't deny someone happiness just because I thought it was icky, no matter how I felt about what they were doing.

It's about looking beyond one's own prejudices.

spainlinx0
11-07-08, 12:37 PM
For example I don't believe it's a good idea to do heroin everyday. Personally, I would never go that direction. But if someone can do that, and still not harm anyone else, I believe they should have the right to do that.

Obviously I don't equate gay marriage with a drug addiction, but I am saying that it is possible to allow others to do something that you yourself do not agree with.

Artman
11-07-08, 12:46 PM
For example I don't believe it's a good idea to do heroin everyday. Personally, I would never go that direction. But if someone can do that, and still not harm anyone else, I believe they should have the right to do that.


So you'd legalize heroin? Don't heroin users need government endorsement to truly be happy?

Artman
11-07-08, 12:48 PM
I'm not talking about voting. I'm talking about doing what is right despite your personal feelings on the subject.


Well, not everyone has the same opinion on what is right. :shrug:

Draven
11-07-08, 12:56 PM
Well, not everyone has the same opinion on what is right. :shrug:

To me, this isn't an "opinion".

Can we all agree that it's wrong to believe that black people shouldn't share drinking fountains with white people? That's not an opinion.

In the next few decades, I'm sure the same thing will happen with homosexuality.

Draven
11-07-08, 12:57 PM
So you'd legalize heroin? Don't heroin users need government endorsement to truly be happy?

Maybe they do. But that has nothing to do with you.

That's the point. Maybe gay people DO need the government to recognize their partnership as a marriage. Maybe that is important to them. What do you care?

spainlinx0
11-07-08, 01:00 PM
I just don't understand how allowing gays marriage affects straight marriage in any way. I have never heard a logical reason. Just this tradition bullshit. So gays haven't been allowed to marry previously, I understand that. So they haven't been part of the definition before. I understand that as well. What I don't understand is what that has to do with anything.

Things should be evaluated as to what is equal NOW. Because things have been that way for thousands of years doesn't mean things should be done that way now.

Artman
11-07-08, 01:18 PM
What do you care?

I care about what my government says and does, yes.

Artman
11-07-08, 01:21 PM
Can we all agree that it's wrong to believe that black people shouldn't share drinking fountains with white people? That's not an opinion.

In the next few decades, I'm sure the same thing will happen with homosexuality.

I'm sure it will to. And it appears the majority of black people in CA are tired of the constant comparisons....based on their voting... just fyi.

spainlinx0
11-07-08, 01:27 PM
They're not tired of the constant comparisons. Black people, as a culture, are often more derogatory towards gay than others. Which is why black males are often gay "on the down low."

If your government approves gay marriage. What exactly is that saying? What wrong message do you believe that puts out there Artman?

Draven
11-07-08, 01:31 PM
I care about what my government says and does, yes.

Even when it has nothing to do with you? Why?

spainlinx0
11-07-08, 01:37 PM
Because he wants a Christian nation I'm guessing. Otherwise he couldn't make that argument.

Artman
11-07-08, 01:39 PM
They're not tired of the constant comparisons. Black people, as a culture, are often more derogatory towards gay than others. Which is why black males are often gay "on the down low."


Huh, first I've heard of that.... derogatory? What do you base that on.... personal experience or what?

Edit: I guess I just don't look at people as groups, or cultures.

Artman
11-07-08, 01:43 PM
Because he wants a Christian nation I'm guessing. Otherwise he couldn't make that argument.

Hey mind if I speak for myself? Thanks. No I don't want a Christian nation, I simply don't see marriage as a right that the government should be obligated to change for other relationships. Nothing personal, no hatred or bigotry or phobia involved.

spainlinx0
11-07-08, 01:45 PM
You feel they have the right to give it, but not change it? How does that work?

Dr Mabuse
11-07-08, 01:56 PM
So you'd legalize heroin?

Yes.

Yes I would.

Giantrobo
11-07-08, 02:13 PM
rotfl @ Dr Mabuse

Birrman54
11-07-08, 03:58 PM
Yes.

Yes I would.

:thumbsup:

Draven
11-07-08, 04:13 PM
No I don't want a Christian nation, I simply don't see marriage as a right that the government should be obligated to change for other relationships. Nothing personal, no hatred or bigotry or phobia involved.

Well, if it's not personal, based on hate, bigotry or phobia...I see no other reason to be against it.

Because it's icky?

Artman
11-07-08, 04:20 PM
Well, if it's not personal, based on hate, bigotry or phobia...I see no other reason to be against it.


:hscratch: I already stated it...

I simply don't see marriage as a right that the government should be obligated to change for other relationships.

Chrisedge
11-07-08, 04:24 PM
For those of you who say they have the same rights under a "civil union" I found this online...
Just a few rights that gay people lost because of Prop 8 - please explain how a religious belief can justify taking away civil liberties of Americans.

1. Marriage goes with you on your travels. If you're married in one state, you are still married if you travel or move to another state. Civil unions and domestic partnerships do not cross state borders. Rights offered to Californians under domestic partnerships are only legal in California. If domestic partners must move to another state, their legal rights under California's domestic partnership laws no longer protect the couple.

2. If one member of a married couple dies, the assets transfer instantly to the surviving spouse. If one member of a civil union or domestic partnership dies and the couple no longer resides in the state that issued the civil union or domestic partnership, assets transfer to the next of kin of the deceased. If a will is in place, a domestic partner would still be required to pay property tax on the transferred assets, whereas a widowed spouse is exempt from this tax.

3. If one member of a married couple becomes ill and can no longer make decisions for their self, the spouse has the right to make decisions on their behalf. In civil unions or domestic partnerships, these rights do not exist outside of their home state.

A lawyer can help setup wills and power of attorney for gay couples, but the costs are in the thousands; compare that to the minimal cost of a marriage license.

4. There is no federal tax benefit to being part of a civil union or domestic partnership, but married couples have a federal tax benefit because of their ability to file a joint tax return. Depending on your income, the joint tax return may carry significant monetary value.

5. Americans have the right to marry non-Americans and then sponsor their spouse to become of citizen of the United States. This right does not exist for civil unions or domestic partnerships.

6. Social security benefits, pension benefits, veterans benefits, and breaks on insurance premiums all exist for married couples but do not exist for members of a civil union or domestic partnership outside of their own state.

fumanstan
11-07-08, 04:41 PM
For those of you who say they have the same rights under a "civil union" I found this online...

I think that most people are aware that civil unions currently don't have the same rights, which is why some anti same sex marriage people are proposing that the fight should be to make civil unions equal instead.

Draven
11-07-08, 04:49 PM
:hscratch: I already stated it...

That's not a reason - that's a statement. There's no logical reason to think that. It has to be based on something, otherwise you'd have no problems with it.

B5Erik
11-08-08, 09:26 AM
I think that most people are aware that civil unions currently don't have the same rights, which is why some anti same sex marriage people are proposing that the fight should be to make civil unions equal instead.
That's what I've been saying.

There would be much less resistance to that than to gay marriage (there would still be some from the religous hardliners, but much less than to, "Gay marriage"). It's an achievable goal that would have much less backlash against the gay community.

fumanstan
11-08-08, 12:36 PM
Unfortunately it just reinforces the separate but equal philosophy though, so I can see why that route hasn't been taken yet.

Although your comment from the CA Tax thread is kind of ironic. I've been saying for years that California is run by a bunch of trained monkeys and that there are a lot of ignorant, stupid voters out there.

B5Erik
11-08-08, 01:02 PM
Unfortunately it just reinforces the separate but equal philosophy though, so I can see why that route hasn't been taken yet.

So, what sacred cow is next? There seems to be a willingness to discriminate against people who have strong religious convictions. I'm not a strongly religious person - hell, I'd say I'm more agnostic than anything, but I do see the value in religion and the convictions of the people who follow basic Christian beliefs.

But, again, there are times when things ARE truly, inherently separate - but still equal. Can I use a Women Only gym because it's more convenient for me on the way home? Or am I going to have to go to a separate, but equal gym?

There are a lot of things that are different, but still have equal value. Men and women, football and soccer (although both feature 11 players on the field and part of the game is to kick the ball through the goal, and even though they are both called football around the world, they are still significantly different), Chinese food and Mexican food, Rock and Roll and Jazz. They're not exactly the same, but none of the individuals in those pairs has any greater or lesser value than the other in each of those pairs.

There is nothing, "Separating," gays from straights. They don't have to work in different offices, live in different neighborhoods, eat at different restaurants, or anything like that. Anyone who would argue in favor of TRUE discrimination like that SHOULD be called on the carpet as a bigot.

But just because someone believes that marriage should hold true to the one absolute constant throughout the history of that institution doesn't make him or her a bigot or anything like that.

The people who have resorted to the name calling, particularly calling Prop 8 supporters bigots, are just resorting to lazy, inaccurate arguments. Not to mention proving that they are just as intolerant as the people they claim are intolerant.


Although your comment from the CA Tax thread is kind of ironic.

I've been saying for years that California is run by a bunch of trained monkeys and that there are a lot of ignorant, stupid voters out there.
Yeah, I was surprised by how many people voted against Prop 8, too. Stupid, ignorant voters, indeed. ;)

Look, we're not going to agree on this issue. Ever. So what? That doesn't mean that people on either side have to resort to name calling and hostility. I've tried to maintain a sense of civility in this debate (and if I've ever failed in that attempt then let me apologize right now - although I can't think of anything that I've said that was truly uncivil).

(And, by the way, for anyone who didn't get it, my stupid, ignorant voters comment above next to the winky face was a joke.)

wendersfan
11-08-08, 01:06 PM
It's an achievable goal that would have much less backlash against the gay community.It's an achievable goal that violates everything this country represents, and don't pretend for a second you give a fuck about "the gay community", because you're not fooling anyone.

B5Erik
11-08-08, 01:11 PM
It's an achievable goal that violates everything this country represents, and don't pretend for a second you give a fuck about "the gay community", because you're not fooling anyone.
Do you know me? Because now not only are you claiming to have personal insight about me, but you're almost claiming to be able to read my mind.

And, for the record, you are way off base and out of line. A moderator should know better.

Shazam
11-08-08, 01:46 PM
Man fucking woman = Good
Man fucking man = ICKY! NO GAY MARRIAGE
Ugly woman fucking ugly woman = ICKY! NO GAY MARRIAGE
Hot woman fucking hot woman = BRING IT ON!

Th0r S1mpson
11-08-08, 02:17 PM
Man fucking woman = Good
Man fucking man = ICKY! NO GAY MARRIAGE
Ugly woman fucking ugly woman = ICKY! NO GAY MARRIAGE
Hot woman fucking hot woman = BRING IT ON!

One example of ignorance on "the other side" of the issue. Equating sex and marriage makes for a nice emotional argument, although it has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. Unfortunately there are numerous examples of dodging the core of the issue by holding up "rights" that already exist. That's not to say there are some very important things to work out, but all these straw men don't serve any purpose of actually swaying anyone.

RunBandoRun
11-08-08, 02:25 PM
I did the "gay marriage" thing years before it was cool. :lol: In 1993 I had a commitment ceremony with my then-lover. My dad (who's a minister) even performed it.

She and I were together until late 1997, when I left her. Because part of what broke us up was the interference of her family, if we had had access to some of the automatic protections that legal marriage affords, we might have stayed together longer, although I doubt it. Over the years I've come to realize I don't "do" relationships well, nor do I even really consider myself a lesbian anymore. But oh well.

In my opinion, the government should not be in the business of deciding who can marry who, at least when we're talking about consenting adults who are not otherwise related.

Any two people should be able to contract a civil union that would afford them all of the protections and privileges that legal marriage does. If they are religiously observant, then they would be free to solemnize their union further with a church wedding. But they would not be any more "married" than people who got hitched at City Hall.

Th0r S1mpson
11-08-08, 02:42 PM
Any two people should be able to contract a civil union that would afford them all of the protections and privileges that legal marriage does. If they are religiously observant, then they would be free to solemnize their union further with a church wedding. But they would not be any more "married" than people who got hitched at City Hall.

Yyyyyyyyup. :up:

Tracer Bullet
11-08-08, 03:23 PM
You know, straight people (that can get married) saying that they would rather abolish civil marriage and call it a "civil union"? You know what that sounds like? It sounds you'd rather make a much more radical change in the law just to keep a tiny minority out of your club.

And as little respect as I have for that position, I have even less for non-heterosexuals that make that argument. It's the worst kind of internalized homophobia.

orangecrush
11-08-08, 03:55 PM
You know, straight people (that can get married) saying that they would rather abolish civil marriage and call it a "civil union"? You know what that sounds like? It sounds you'd rather make a much more radical change in the law just to keep a tiny minority out of your club.

And as little respect as I have for that position, I have even less for non-heterosexuals that make that argument. It's the worst kind of internalized homophobia.
That assessment of non-heterosexuals seems more than a bit presumptuous.

Lee Harvey Oswald
11-08-08, 04:37 PM
I if we had had access to some of the automatic protections that legal marriage affords, we might have stayed together longer, although I doubt it.

You would have considered staying married, just for the "automatic protections"??

Doesn't sound like a good reason to stay married.

fumanstan
11-08-08, 06:09 PM
But, again, there are times when things ARE truly, inherently separate - but still equal. Can I use a Women Only gym because it's more convenient for me on the way home? Or am I going to have to go to a separate, but equal gym?

There are a lot of things that are different, but still have equal value. Men and women, football and soccer (although both feature 11 players on the field and part of the game is to kick the ball through the goal, and even though they are both called football around the world, they are still significantly different), Chinese food and Mexican food, Rock and Roll and Jazz. They're not exactly the same, but none of the individuals in those pairs has any greater or lesser value than the other in each of those pairs.

There is nothing, "Separating," gays from straights. They don't have to work in different offices, live in different neighborhoods, eat at different restaurants, or anything like that. Anyone who would argue in favor of TRUE discrimination like that SHOULD be called on the carpet as a bigot.

But just because someone believes that marriage should hold true to the one absolute constant throughout the history of that institution doesn't make him or her a bigot or anything like that.

You brought up the separation earlier and it was addressed. You can't go into a women's gym because there's privacy issues involved. There wouldn't be any such thing with a homosexual marriage. Surely you can see the difference between the two, especially when we're addressing the rights of human beings. Maybe you were too busy complaining over and over again about being insulted?

The people who have resorted to the name calling, particularly calling Prop 8 supporters bigots, are just resorting to lazy, inaccurate arguments. Not to mention proving that they are just as intolerant as the people they claim are intolerant.

Look, we're not going to agree on this issue. Ever. So what? That doesn't mean that people on either side have to resort to name calling and hostility. I've tried to maintain a sense of civility in this debate (and if I've ever failed in that attempt then let me apologize right now - although I can't think of anything that I've said that was truly uncivil).

(And, by the way, for anyone who didn't get it, my stupid, ignorant voters comment above next to the winky face was a joke.)

See what I mean? You keep arguing about changing definitions when it's been brought up that definitions have changed without harm. I still fail to see what harm you feel will be done if gay marriages are allowed.

B5Erik
11-08-08, 06:56 PM
You brought up the separation earlier and it was addressed. You can't go into a women's gym because there's privacy issues involved. There wouldn't be any such thing with a homosexual marriage. Surely you can see the difference between the two, especially when we're addressing the rights of human beings.

That's what dressing rooms are for. Even if I were willing to skip using the sole dressing room (if I came in dressed for the workout and left to change and shower at home), I still couldn't use the gym. That's not entirely about privacy. It's about wanting to be able to have their own gym because some women feel uncomfortable working out in front of men.


See what I mean? You keep arguing about changing definitions when it's been brought up that definitions have changed without harm. I still fail to see what harm you feel will be done if gay marriages are allowed.
I'm concerned about unintended consequences, for one thing. Things happen that people either don't believe will happen as a result of a particular action, or just didn't foresee as a possibility. We don't know what the long term effect would be. You can ASSUME what will likely happen, and you may not believe now that anything unintended will happen, but you don't know for sure.

I'm cautious. Extremely cautious. Especially with something as fundamental a part of society as marriage. None of us is wise enough to really know for a fact what the best course of action is, so I stay on the side of playing it safe.

Which is why I then side with those who believe that Civil Unions/Registered Domestic Partnerships should get the equal legal rights of marriage.

Which leads to another point I've made that has been ignored....

Registered Domestic Partners in California. What will their status be if gay marriage were upheld? Some gays had expressed concern during the campaign because they are Registered Domestic Partners - a status that straight couples cannot have. (How discriminatory!) Once gay marriage is allowed there is no reason to keep an EXTRA right on the books for gays that straights don't have, and I had read that legally it may have to be abolished in such a scenario. So all of a sudden you've got thousands of registered domestic partners who could lose their status and have to decide whether or not to take the further step of getting married. Some of them, believe it or not, don't want to do that. They feel that their status is fine as it is, and don't want to lose it. (I'm just relating what I heard on a radio news report about a month ago.)

Groucho
11-08-08, 07:19 PM
I'm concerned about unintended consequences, for one thing. Things happen that people either don't believe will happen as a result of a particular action, or just didn't foresee as a possibility. We don't know what the long term effect would be.Booga booga! I fear change! Might as well not pass ANY new laws or change ANYTHING because of "unintended consequences."

But I'm happy to listen. What terrible things have occurred in California in the few months Gay Marriage was legal? I'm sure it's a very long, very shocking list of horrible events. So I'll go easy on you and let you list the worst five. Should be easy since this is such a HORRIBLE thing.

B5Erik
11-08-08, 07:32 PM
Booga booga! I fear change! Might as well not pass ANY new laws or change ANYTHING because of "unintended consequences."

But I'm happy to listen. What terrible things have occurred in California in the few months Gay Marriage was legal? I'm sure it's a very long, very shocking list of horrible events. So I'll go easy on you and let you list the worst five. Should be easy since this is such a HORRIBLE thing.

-rolleyes-

I'm talking decades down the line - when we're both either quite elderly or dead. When my grandchildren or great grandchildren will have to live in the society that has to live with the unintended consequences of what we do now.

And like I said, I just don't believe that a gay relationship can become a marriage. It just doesn't match what marriage has ever been. Changing what marriage is and can be WILL have unintended consequences. You don't know what they will be, and neither do I.

Groucho
11-08-08, 07:36 PM
I'm talking decades down the line - when we're both either quite elderly or dead. When my grandchildren or great grandchildren will have to live in the society that has to live with the unintended consequences of what we do now.Like I said, that's an argument against ALL changes in the law, not just this one.

B5Erik
11-08-08, 07:46 PM
Like I said, that's an argument against ALL changes in the law, not just this one.
True, but this one is a huge change in one of the most fundamental building blocks of society. It's not just another change in law.

fumanstan
11-08-08, 07:48 PM
I'm concerned about unintended consequences, for one thing. Things happen that people either don't believe will happen as a result of a particular action, or just didn't foresee as a possibility. We don't know what the long term effect would be. You can ASSUME what will likely happen, and you may not believe now that anything unintended will happen, but you don't know for sure.

I'm cautious. Extremely cautious. Especially with something as fundamental a part of society as marriage. None of us is wise enough to really know for a fact what the best course of action is, so I stay on the side of playing it safe.

So you're worried about potential effects, but can't think of any? While I understand that it's always good to be cautious, but if there are absolutely zero reasons that come to mind I can't see that as a very good reason. Especially since it doesn't change the fundamental part of marriage. (As much as you believe that it does, I'd say most people here don't agree with that.)


]Which leads to another point I've made that has been ignored....

Registered Domestic Partners in California. What will their status be if gay marriage were upheld? Some gays had expressed concern during the campaign because they are Registered Domestic Partners - a status that straight couples cannot have. (How discriminatory!) Once gay marriage is allowed there is no reason to keep an EXTRA right on the books for gays that straights don't have, and I had read that legally it may have to be abolished in such a scenario. So all of a sudden you've got thousands of registered domestic partners who could lose their status and have to decide whether or not to take the further step of getting married. Some of them, believe it or not, don't want to do that. They feel that their status is fine as it is, and don't want to lose it. (I'm just relating what I heard on a radio news report about a month ago.)

I haven't really heard anything about it, but I imagine the overwhelming opinion would be that the ability to marry would trump the protection of a domestic partnership, especially if they're equal for all intents and purposes.

Groucho
11-08-08, 07:53 PM
True, but this one is a huge change in one of the most fundamental building blocks of society.Just because you keep saying that, doesn't make it more true.

sherm42
11-08-08, 08:06 PM
True, but this one is a huge change in one of the most fundamental building blocks of society. It's not just another change in law.

Same argument was used to justify laws against interracial marriage.

That's been around for a while now. Please list some horrible consequences of that.

B5Erik
11-08-08, 08:17 PM
Same argument was used to justify laws against interracial marriage.

That's been around for a while now. Please list some horrible consequences of that.
It's not a valid comparison. Not even close. No one is saying that gays are less human than the rest of us - no one worth listening to, and no one with any credibility.

sherm42
11-08-08, 08:24 PM
Why is that not a valid comparison?

At one time, many believed that god had ordained that whites only marry whites. It was also argued that it would destroy families. What would child be? Not black, not white, etc.

Allow me to repeat part of my post from way earlier in this thread:

Here is what a trial court had to say in 1959 about interracial marriage:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.’

The U.S. Supreme Court had a problem with this. (See Loving v. Virgina).

You wrote of terrible consequences of gay marriage. I don't see the difference except that now, no one would ever argue that interracial marriage is wrong (at least not publicly) whereas society still accepts such discrimination against gays.

B5Erik
11-08-08, 08:33 PM
Look, as I said before, we are NEVER going to agree on this one.

I'm not backing down because I just don't think that gay marriage IS marriage. Period. It has nothing to do with bigotry or prejudice or anything like that.

And I'm willing to admit that down the line it will probably happen anyway. But I'm going to vote against it in the meantime.

I read a novel about 25 years ago that took place a coupple hundred years in the future. In this future society marriage was merely a renewable term contract that any two adults could sign. The way things are going now I could actually see that happening. I could also see a future where marriage isn't as significant a part of society as it has been for the last several thousand years, where mostly religious fundamentalists and gays get married. How likely is that? Who the hell knows? None of us do - I don't think any of us will claim to be a modern day Nostrodamus to be able to know for sure. But I could see that as a very real possibility.

I just believe strongly that marriage is a vitally important part of society, especially when it comes to providing a stable, structured, but loving and supportive environment to raise children.

sherm42
11-08-08, 08:38 PM
Well it's good to know you have nothing concrete to back up your arguments.

Personally, I don't care whether you back down or not, but bigotry and prejudice are just as much a product of actions as they are words. To me, voting to deny equal rights under the law to a minority group is an act of bigotry and prejudice.

One need only look at the age breakdown of who voted yes to prop 8 (higher percentage for 30 and over) to know that it is only a matter of time until enough people out there will not stand for this kind of unequal treatment.

Groucho
11-08-08, 08:41 PM
Well it's good to know you have nothing concrete to back up your arguments.What are you talking about? He's got the dictionary and a sci-fi novel on his side!

B5Erik
11-08-08, 08:47 PM
What are you talking about? He's got the dictionary and a sci-fi novel on his side!
Let me ask you, do you really think that such a future is all that unlikely with the way that society has been moving on all fronts marriage related over the last 50 years? (The increased ease of and lack of social stigma involved with divorce, more and more people having children out of wedlock, the promotion of gay marriage, etc.)

DVD Polizei
11-08-08, 09:00 PM
I just believe strongly that marriage is a vitally important part of society, especially when it comes to providing a stable, structured, but loving and supportive environment to raise children.

When we tend to hinder a part of our society from engaging in activities that other groups are opportune to, we overall hinder our society in general.

Just imagine 50 years ago on the thoughts of a Black President. We'd probably hear the same arguments. Blacks can't be President because it would ruin the status quo, Blacks can't be educated, Blacks can't hold such an important position in our US Government, etc.

Believe it or not, the younger you are, the more accepting you are. Why? Because we don't have the biases and prejudices bombarded to our brains in the media, the entertainment industry, our parents, our friends, and whatever else. A continued onslaught of prejudices to our brains does have an effect on us.

I completely respect your opinion and choice to be against gay marriage. But can we honestly think gay marriage is going to ruin the stability of marriage? Is it by some magical happening when gays get officially married that our society will crumble? We have so many "heterosexual" problems of child abuse, divorce, and domestic violence going on every single day, that I have a really difficult time believing my gay neighbors, who keep their yards cleaner than most on my block, who are quiet and respectful, are somehow eroding the marriage foundation.

You see, I think gay marriage is not dangerous to marriage in general or to society. It's simply the testing of your own personal idea of what marriage is. We have no evidence to support the idea gay marriage will erode the societal concept of marriage. Societal concepts of marriage change as they evolve. If you track any culture which has been around hundreds of years, it evolves.

For those of us who have some hesitations of gay marriage, think of gay marriage as the old world concept of the world being flat.

While we (I say "we" because I do have some biases of my own on gay marriage) have hesitations the world is round, let's be more open to possibilities and letting the idea work itself out. If the world is indeed flat as we think it is, we will have evidence to support it when those discoverers finish their voyage.

If it's not to be...it won't be. But purposely hindering a group of people who want to participate in an act where they are a functioning group anyway, is to invite more problems to our society. We may find the act of homosexuality repulsive. This is reasonable as you and I already have been tainted by the ridiculously prejudiced world we live in.

However, let's not hinder our younger generation and pass down the same prejudices we have...

fumanstan
11-08-08, 10:10 PM
Look, as I said before, we are NEVER going to agree on this one.

(1)I'm not backing down because I just don't think that gay marriage IS marriage. Period. It has nothing to do with bigotry or prejudice or anything like that.

(2)I just believe strongly that marriage is a vitally important part of society, especially when it comes to providing a stable, structured, but loving and supportive environment to raise children.

I still don't understand how (1), and adjusting it so it isn't limited to man and woman, is related to (2). The only reasons you seem to have "it's always been that way" and a fear that something will change (without being able to think of anything).

William Fuld
11-08-08, 10:15 PM
I just believe strongly that marriage is a vitally important part of society...

So do gays who want to get married!

solipsta
11-09-08, 01:09 AM
(The increased ease of and lack of social stigma involved with divorce, more and more people having children out of wedlock, the promotion of gay marriage, etc.)
Would you support a ban on divorce? Divorce is a threat to the "foundation of marriage", isn't it?

JasonF
11-09-08, 03:17 AM
Let me ask you, do you really think that such a future is all that unlikely with the way that society has been moving on all fronts marriage related over the last 50 years? (The increased ease of and lack of social stigma involved with divorce, more and more people having children out of wedlock, the promotion of gay marriage, etc.)

That's a good point. I wouldn't want to marry a dude 'til death do us part, but I could totally be down with marrying a dude for five years or so.

wildcatlh
11-09-08, 03:36 PM
For those using the "marriage has always been defined this way!" argument, I give you a letter from the Mormon Church (you know, the ones who funded the Yes on Prop 8 movement), circa 1947

Dear Brother Nelson:

As you have been advised, your letter of June 16 was received in due course . . . We have carefully considered [its] content; and are glad to advise you as follows:

We make this initial remark: the social side of the Restored Gospel is only an incident of it; it is not the end thereof.

The basic element of your ideas and concepts seems to be that all God's children stand in equal positions before Him in all things. Your knowledge of the Gospel will indicate to you that this is contrary to the very fundamentals of God's dealings with Israel dating from the time of His promise to Abraham regarding Abraham's seed and their position vis-a-vis God Himself. Indeed, some of God's children were assinged to superior positions before the world was formed.

We are aware that some Higher Critics do not accept this, but the Church does. Your position seems to lose sight of the revelations of the Lord touching the pre-existence of our spirits, the rebellion in heaven, and the doctrines that our birth into this life and the advantages under which we may be born, have a religionship in the life heretofore.

From the days of the Prophet Joseph Smith even until now, it is has been the doctrine of the Church, never questioned by any of the Church leaders, that the Negroes are not entitled to the full blessings of the Gospel.

Furthermore, your ideas, as we understand them, appear to contemplate the intermarriage of the Negro and White races, a concept which has heretofore been most repugnant to most normal-minded people from the ancient partiarchs till now. God's rule for Israel, His Chosen People, has been endogamous [meaning 'marriage within a specific tribe or similar social unit']. Modern Israel has been similarly directed.

We are not unmindful of the fact that there is a growing tendency, particularly among some educators, as it manifests itself in this are, toward the breaking down of race barriers in the matter of intermarriage between whites and blacks, but it does not have the sanction of the Church and is contrary to Church doctrine.

Faithfully yours,

[signed]

George Albert Smith
J. Reuben Clark, Jr.
David O. McKay

The First Presidency

Source: http://www.mormonwiki.org/Racism#1947_First_Presidency_letter_to_Dr._Lowry_Nelson

Bandoman
11-09-08, 06:19 PM
Let me ask you, do you really think that such a future is all that unlikely with the way that society has been moving on all fronts marriage related over the last 50 years? (The increased ease of and lack of social stigma involved with divorce, more and more people having children out of wedlock, the promotion of gay marriage, etc.)

Assuming Robert Heinlein was right, how does that change your right to a lifelong marriage? So what if others want a different arrangement - you still get to live your life the way you want.

Draven
11-09-08, 10:41 PM
On another note, I went to a commitment ceremony tonight. It was absolutely lovely in every way, and there were over 100 guests there, including family and friends. All in support of something that so many people feel is "wrong".

I sat there the whole time feeling sorry for anyone that is against something that beautiful. There is just something fundamentally wrong with their outlook. So sad.

kvrdave
11-09-08, 11:36 PM
You know, straight people (that can get married) saying that they would rather abolish civil marriage and call it a "civil union"? You know what that sounds like? It sounds you'd rather make a much more radical change in the law just to keep a tiny minority out of your club.

And as little respect as I have for that position, I have even less for non-heterosexuals that make that argument. It's the worst kind of internalized homophobia.

If that is a person's reasoning, I would agree. I am fine with gay marriage becoming legal, but I am still for government getting out of the marriage business altogether because I don't think it is something they need to be involved in.

I do admit that it is a much more radical change, but I'm talking about kvrdave's utopia. In that world there would be no WNBA either.

But it is mainly a hypothetical because every kind of marriage will be legalized long before the government gets out of the business.

kvrdave
11-09-08, 11:45 PM
Let me ask you, do you really think that such a future is all that unlikely with the way that society has been moving on all fronts marriage related over the last 50 years? (The increased ease of and lack of social stigma involved with divorce, more and more people having children out of wedlock, the promotion of gay marriage, etc.)

I don't personally like the divorce rate, or kids out of wedlock. But I think it also shows that the heterosexuals have not really done a good job with marriage. And I don't think that what others have failed to live up to is a good reason to keep consenting adults from doing something that doesn't affect me in any way.

Your argument would have a lot more weight if marriage were anything close to a sacred institution today. I don't see evidence that it is.

Ranger
11-09-08, 11:54 PM
It is totally unrealistic for the government to get out of the marriage business. I always roll my eyes every time someone suggests it.

And I agree with Tracer that it's just been another scheme of an idea to stop gays from getting married.

creekdipper
11-10-08, 01:47 AM
It is totally unrealistic for the government to get out of the marriage business. I always roll my eyes every time someone suggests it.

And I agree with Tracer that it's just been another scheme of an idea to stop gays from getting married.

No, I don't expect that the government will give up those marriage license fees without a fight!

Bandoman
11-10-08, 07:20 AM
...I'm talking about kvrdave's utopia. In that world there would be no WNBA either.


Had I known this last Tuesday I would have written your name in for President.

Draven
11-10-08, 09:14 AM
No, I don't expect that the government will give up those marriage license fees without a fight!

You can't possible be unaware of how many legal (as in government) rules, benefits and regulations are involved in marriage, can you?

orangecrush
11-10-08, 09:17 AM
Your argument would have a lot more weight if marriage were anything close to a sacred institution today. I don't see evidence that it is.
Perhaps an unintended consequence of no-fault divorce?

Tracer Bullet
11-10-08, 09:25 AM
Perhaps an unintended consequence of no-fault divorce?

No?

orangecrush
11-10-08, 09:27 AM
No?
Oh, sorry. We were looking for "perhaps?"

Tracer Bullet
11-10-08, 09:33 AM
Oh, sorry. We were looking for "perhaps?"

I wasn't.

No-fault divorce is a symptom, not the cause. And keeping people in bad marriages for the sake of some nebulous morality is certainly not going to fix anything.

orangecrush
11-10-08, 09:38 AM
I wasn't.

No-fault divorce is a symptom, not the cause. And keeping people in bad marriages for the sake of some nebulous morality is certainly not going to fix anything.
You don't honestly think that no-fault divorces have done any harm to the "sanctity of marriage?"

Tracer Bullet
11-10-08, 09:40 AM
You don't honestly think that no-fault divorces have done any harm to the "sanctity of marriage?"

I think this "sanctity of marriage" bullshit is yet another example of a fairytale longing for a past that never existed.

orangecrush
11-10-08, 09:47 AM
I think this "sanctity of marriage" bullshit is yet another example of a fairytale longing for a past that never existed.
Fair enough. I know what not to get you for Christmas (http://www.dvdtalk.com/reviews/34466/shelley-duvalls-faerie-tale-theatre-the-complete-collection/).

Groucho
11-10-08, 09:48 AM
I think this "sanctity of marriage" bullshit is yet another example of a fairytale longing for a past that never existed.If one wants to look for the modern equivalent of the roots of marriage -- look no further than the corporate merger.

orangecrush
11-10-08, 09:51 AM
If one wants to look for the modern equivalent of the roots of marriage -- look no further than the corporate merger.
This gives a whole new meaning to "hostile takeover"

wildcatlh
11-10-08, 10:09 AM
Stolen from a fark post

"But is not the practice of polygamy a transgression of the law of the United States? How are we transgressing that law? In no other way than by obeying a revelation which God has given unto us touching a religious ordinance of his Church. And the anti-polygamy law has yet to be tested, as to its constitutionality, by the courts which have jurisdiction. By and by men will appear in the departments of the Government who will inquire into the validity of some laws and question their constitutionality. Marriage is a civil contract. You might as well make a law to say how many children a man shall have, as to make a law to say how many wives he shall have. It would be as sensible to make a law to say how many horses or oxen he shall possess, or how many cows his wife shall milk." -- Brigham Young

kvrdave
11-10-08, 10:12 AM
Perhaps an unintended consequence of no-fault divorce?


The other side of that is that we would have more adultery without no-fault divorce. Of course it is hard to imagine more than we have now. :lol:

I say we blame everything on birth control.

orangecrush
11-10-08, 10:20 AM
The other side of that is that we would have more adultery without no-fault divorce. Of course it is hard to imagine more than we have now. :lol:

I say we blame everything on birth control.
I think the real answer can be found in the death penalty for adultery and divorce. What is the divorce rate in Muslim countries again? They know how to respect marriage!

creekdipper
11-10-08, 01:24 PM
You can't possible be unaware of how many legal (as in government) rules, benefits and regulations are involved in marriage, can you?

And your point is....?

RunBandoRun
11-10-08, 02:45 PM
You would have considered staying married, just for the "automatic protections"??

Doesn't sound like a good reason to stay married.

Yeah, no straight couple ever has, right? rotfl

Actually, no, I meant that the "automatic protections" might have made it harder for her family to have as much influence as they did over her decisions concerning our relationship. In the end, she wasn't able to separate from them enough for our relationship to come first (which it should have) and without her putting me first, I would have had ZERO security.

As for TracerBullet: Internalized homophobia? Puh-leeze. Don't lump me in with the KKK just because I don't believe in shoving who I sleep with down everybody's throat.

Tracer Bullet
11-10-08, 03:06 PM
As for TracerBullet: Internalized homophobia? Puh-leeze. Don't lump me in with the KKK just because I don't believe in shoving who I sleep with down everybody's throat.

Yeah, this'll certainly change my opinion :lol:

Breakfast with Girls
11-10-08, 03:08 PM
I think the real answer can be found in the death penalty for adultery and divorce. What is the divorce rate in Muslim countries again? They know how to respect marriage!I know you're joking, but adultery and divorce are two very different things in Muslim culture. Adultery is expressly forbidden. Divorce (with a few narrow exceptions) is fine. Marriage is effectively a contract.

RunBandoRun
11-10-08, 03:11 PM
Yeah, this'll certainly change my opinion :lol:

Yes, just like accusing everyone who doesn't think like YOU will change theirs. -ohbfrank-

You won't be happy as long as there's one person in the world who doesn't think homosexuality is not only equal to heterosexuality, but SUPERIOR to it. That's why you will never be happy. That's your choice.

Tracer Bullet
11-10-08, 03:27 PM
You won't be happy as long as there's one person in the world who doesn't think homosexuality is not only equal to heterosexuality, but SUPERIOR to it. That's why you will never be happy. That's your choice.

Wow, wrong again. :lol:

Baron Of Hell
11-10-08, 09:09 PM
Olberman getting all emotional and talking about love. I'd give him a hug if he were here.

<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/cVUecPhQPqY&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/cVUecPhQPqY&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Artman
11-10-08, 09:52 PM
Olberman just doesn't get it... of course I'm biased, I can't stand him.

Tracer Bullet
11-10-08, 10:35 PM
Olberman just doesn't get it... of course I'm biased, I can't stand him.

What doesn't he get? Come on, I'm all ears.

wendersfan
11-10-08, 10:50 PM
Come on, I'm all ears.Who do you think you are, Barack Obama?

shaun3000
11-10-08, 11:03 PM
:rimshot:

Lemdog
11-10-08, 11:20 PM
:lol:

orangecrush
11-11-08, 09:06 AM
I know you're joking, but adultery and divorce are two very different things in Muslim culture. Adultery is expressly forbidden. Divorce (with a few narrow exceptions) is fine. Marriage is effectively a contract.
Divorce is fine? Really? I wouldn't expect the Muslims to be more "liberal" than Christians on this issue.

Tracer Bullet
11-11-08, 09:19 AM
Who do you think you are, Barack Obama?

I have Obama ears, actually.

wildcatlh
11-11-08, 09:50 AM
I usually can't stand Olbermann, but that was incredible.

Meanwhile...

http://idrewthis.org/comics/idt20060329equality.png

orangecrush
11-11-08, 10:41 AM
What does the "W" stand for?

arminius
11-11-08, 10:46 AM
What does the "W" stand for?

Wanker.

orangecrush
11-11-08, 10:47 AM
Wanker.
Thanks.

kvrdave
11-11-08, 11:11 AM
What does the "W" stand for?

I believe it is a symbol that represents 75% of Black voters.

Dr Mabuse
11-11-08, 12:18 PM
I believe it is a symbol that represents 75% of Black voters.

:lol:

Awesome kvr.

I guess it also represents every single state where the issue has been put on the ballot.

fumanstan
11-11-08, 01:14 PM
Olberman just doesn't get it... of course I'm biased, I can't stand him.

I thought he summed it up perfectly.

I guess he doesn't get the dictionary definition either.

Bandoman
11-11-08, 01:29 PM
Those who don't see Olbermann's point just don't get it.

wildcatlh
11-11-08, 01:57 PM
As much as I liked Olbermann's take, I definitely liked Jon Stewart's better.

<object width="512" height="296"><param name="movie" value="http://www.hulu.com/embed/-w_b2_p7whBf_C4b8W0t3w"></param><embed src="http://www.hulu.com/embed/-w_b2_p7whBf_C4b8W0t3w" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="512" height="296"></embed></object>

Breakfast with Girls
11-11-08, 02:29 PM
What doesn't he get? Come on, I'm all ears."Tradition, religion, etc., etc., etc."

Baron Of Hell
11-12-08, 12:10 AM
"Tradition, religion, etc., etc., etc."

Yep he doesn't get why the traditions, relgions, etc, etc of bigots should be forced on everybody.

Th0r S1mpson
11-12-08, 12:18 AM
Nobody is forcing the traditions of marriage on gays.

Mark_vdH
11-12-08, 04:50 AM
Nobody is forcing the traditions of marriage on gays.Which is why it's nice having the choice of getting married or not. That way you can choose whether you want this tradition "forced" upon you, just like most other people which already have that option.

We've had more than 7 years of gay marriage over here, and before that law change I've heard the same arguments about tradition and the concept of marriage. The simple truth is that most people now realize it doesn't change anything about (their) marriages at all. Does anyone consider Dutch straight couples' marriages of less value than marriages in other countries?

Even anti-gay people just don't give a shit anymore, and I don't think that's because it is a lost war or something, but because it just feels petty and empty and trivial in retrospect.

Bandoman
11-12-08, 06:59 AM
Well, "going Dutch" has taken on a whole new meaning.


;)

Tracer Bullet
11-12-08, 08:23 AM
Nobody is forcing the traditions of marriage on gays.

What?

sracer
11-12-08, 08:43 AM
Those who don't see Olbermann's point just don't get it.
I see Olbermann's point. I get his point. His point is wrong.

I don't get to choose what is morally acceptable. So his attempts to appeal to my sense of fairness are misplaced. He refers to Jesus saying "do unto others as you would have them do unto you" as if that one statement stands alone in a vacuum. I understand why moral relativists like Olbermann would latch onto that verse... because it makes it seem like God commanded everyone to decide for themselves what should and shouldn't be done.

He chose THAT verse but conveniently neglected something else that Jesus said... and that is that marriage is between a man and a woman. But because it didn't fit in with his opinion, he tossed that one aside.

If he wanted to make a valid point to Christians, he should've asked where in God's word are believers instructed to force non-believers to conform to what God's word says.

I have to wonder why that argument is not used but attempts to redefine what the Bible says are. Why try to bash through the Bible when it is much easier and more effective to do an end run around it?

Bandoman
11-12-08, 08:48 AM
I assume, sracer, that you would support a constitutional amendment banning religions such as Buddhism, which don't believe in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God? After all, the First Commandment demands it. To be consistent, you would have to support it, no?

This is ridiculous, of course, but my point is that we shouldn't have to argue the Bible, or around it. The Bible should have nothing to do with whether any particular group is "allowed" their civil rights.

spainlinx0
11-12-08, 08:56 AM
I don't know which is more frustrating to argue against, the Bible, or the nebulous "tradition" argument. If you want to live in the past, please do. Just realize that the rest of us don't idealize it. I wouldn't want to live in any time but the present, except for the future.

Groucho
11-12-08, 09:08 AM
I personally have no quarrel with the religious beliefs of others. If your religious text tells you not to marry another dude, don't marry another dude. Simple as that. :shrug:

Tracer Bullet
11-12-08, 09:10 AM
Yeah, and we stop using the term "moral relativist"? Just because someone's morals aren't the same as yours doesn't mean they change on a whim.

sracer
11-12-08, 09:15 AM
I assume, sracer, that you would support a constitutional amendment banning religions such as Buddhism, which don't believe in the Judeo-Christian-Islamic God? After all, the First Commandment demands it. To be consistent, you would have to support it, no?

This is ridiculous, of course, but my point is that we shouldn't have to argue the Bible, or around it. The Bible should have nothing to do with whether any particular group is "allowed" their civil rights.
I was commenting specifically on Olbermann's commentary. In Olbermann's opinion video, he acknowledges that religious beliefs are the primary reason for the support for Prop 8. Christian religious beliefs in particular. His attempts to appeal to "fairness" by using the Bible are not correct. Challenging the belief that "Christians are to prevent non-believers from acting like non-believers" is valid. (but he didn't go that route)

Christians don't have that as part of their "marching orders". Olbermann attempts to appeal to individual believers by rhetorically asking, "what does it matter to you?" but then turns around and attempts to use the Bible prove to Christians that they should be supportive of homosexual marriage.

I guess what I'm saying is that for some/many this is not simply to legally acknowledge homosexual marriage. Yes, I'm sure that there are many who simply want that. But for others, it is a battle to tear down the Bible's authority to Christians.

All that to say, advocates who have no agenda other than legalizing homosexual marriage should appeal to the boundaries that the Bible places on believers rather than trying to use the Bible to prove that it is acceptable.

Birrman54
11-12-08, 09:17 AM
as if Christians voting for Prop 8 actually follow the bible...

sracer
11-12-08, 09:18 AM
If your religious text tells you not to marry another dude, don't marry another dude. Simple as that. :shrug:
Yes, it IS that simple. And if Olbermann left it at that, it would be fine.


as if Christians voting for Prop 8 actually follow the bible...
Some do, some don't. But if they are using it as a reason, it is fair to challenge them on it.

Yeah, and we stop using the term "moral relativist"? Just because someone's morals aren't the same as yours doesn't mean they change on a whim.
I use the term to mean that each person defines for themselves what is moral and what is not... NOT that what is moral changes depending upon the situation.

Tracer Bullet
11-12-08, 09:25 AM
I use the term to mean that each person defines for themselves what is moral and what is not... NOT that what is moral changes depending upon the situation.

That's not what marriage equality proponents are doing, but whatever.

Birrman54
11-12-08, 09:31 AM
Some do, some don't. But if they are using it as a reason, it is fair to challenge them on it.


I use the term to mean that each person defines for themselves what is moral and what is not... NOT that what is moral changes depending upon the situation.

Challenging them on bible quotes is a waste of time, Christians pick and choose which aspects of the bible they want to consider important. It's exactly what you're accusing 'moral relativists' of doing.

Groucho
11-12-08, 09:36 AM
Christians pick and choose which aspects of the bible they want to consider important.I think that one reason that gay marriage has become a big topic is because homosexuality is one sin that it's easy to avoid (assuming your not gay). That way you can take the moral high road without risk, and be a "good Christian" without changing anything about your own personal lifestyle.

Rockmjd23
11-12-08, 09:38 AM
Christians pick and choose which aspects of the bible they want to consider important.
Some do, yes.

kvrdave
11-12-08, 10:40 AM
as if Christians voting for Prop 8 actually follow the bible...

Agreed. If a Christian does not follow the bible perfectly, the only logical action is to abandon it completely.

Birrman54
11-12-08, 10:43 AM
Agreed. If a Christian does not follow the bible perfectly, the only logical action is to abandon it completely.

Oh come on, I never said anything similar to that.

I'd settle for them not trying to legislate public policy based on something they themselves can't follow.

kvrdave
11-12-08, 10:52 AM
I'd settle for people not always pulling the "Hypocrite Card" in every thread that involves any religious discussion, as though Christians are the only humans in the world that do this, or that there is value in an argument that says, "You didn't hold to this in your moral code, so you shouldn't hold to this argument either."

It is like the idea of throwing out the baby with the bathwater is the position a non-Christian believes the Christian should take. It's nonsense.

kvrdave
11-12-08, 10:53 AM
And I agree with you. Just not your reasoning or argument. :shrug:

Birrman54
11-12-08, 11:01 AM
And I agree with you. Just not your reasoning or argument. :shrug:

I know your position on this, but I still think you're wrong :)

Again, I don't care what Christians do / do not follow. I'm not asking them to give up their beliefs, simply because they don't follow the book 100%. I'm asking them not to use a few random lines from a book written 2000 years ago to masquerade as rational opposition to what should be a matter of civil policy.

Also, this isn't my argument for gay marriage, I just brought it up because of the Olbermann thing. If anything this is showing why arguing bible quotes with 'believers' is a waste of time. They've already identified which quotes they consider meaningful or not. Furthermore, it shouldn't even be part of the debate, since we're not arguing whether a christian church should marry a same-sex couple, we're arguing whether the state should recognize a legal agreement between two consenting adults.

Th0r S1mpson
11-12-08, 11:07 AM
You know the wrong Christians, my friend.

kvrdave
11-12-08, 11:11 AM
I just brought it up because of the Olbermann thing. If anything this is showing why arguing bible quotes with 'believers' is a waste of time.

No, it generally shows that even Satan can quote scripture. -wink-

Any bible verse argument in meaningless if you don't know what comes before and after each quote. And rarely do people who are trying to get Christians to change their position.

But really...
I'm asking them not to use a few random lines from a book written 2000 years ago to masquerade as rational opposition to what should be a matter of civil policy.
To Christians (or any religious people0, their scriptures are the most important writings they can go by, and you think there is way to get them not to consider it? Or that it isn't a rational reason to oppose something simply because you don't believe it (irrationally, in my view :p )?

Okay, I don't want to get into this today. :lol:

Birrman54
11-12-08, 11:22 AM
No, it generally shows that even Satan can quote scripture. -wink-

Any bible verse argument in meaningless if you don't know what comes before and after each quote. And rarely do people who are trying to get Christians to change their position.

But really...

To Christians (or any religious people0, their scriptures are the most important writings they can go by, and you think there is way to get them not to consider it? Or that it isn't a rational reason to oppose something simply because you don't believe it (irrationally, in my view :p )?

Okay, I don't want to get into this today. :lol:

Well that's why I don't use bible quotes, I'm not Christian and I'm not a theological scholar. I leave that for far more interested persons than I.

Do Christians believe their scriptures should apply to everyone? I guess that's the problem. If we're debating whether Congress should force churches to marry gays, then I can understand using scriptures to vote against that.

But we aren't. We're talking about whether the state should use gender or sexual orientation to decide on the legitimacy of contracts between consenting adults. What happened to rendering unto Caesar that which is Caesar's? Why should scripture be invoked for this particular issue? It's not invoked with the war on drugs, it isn't invoked to criminalize adultery, it's completely inconsistent.

I think we should stone adulterers. Scripture commands it - otherwise we're just accepting sin into our lives.

Rockmjd23
11-12-08, 11:24 AM
You know the wrong Christians, my friend.
You mean there's more than one kind? :eek:

Birrman54
11-12-08, 11:25 AM
You mean there's more than one kind? :eek:

I split it into, those that try and force their beliefs on everyone and those that don't.

Th0r S1mpson
11-12-08, 11:36 AM
I split it into, those that try and force their beliefs on everyone and those that don't.

Yet you look down on both groups, correct? Because you aren't specifying which you are talking about when you refer to all Christians as "them."

Tracer Bullet
11-12-08, 11:40 AM
I prefer referring to them as "those people", myself.

kvrdave
11-12-08, 11:43 AM
I think we should stone adulterers. Scripture commands it - otherwise we're just accepting sin into our lives.

:lol:
This is exactly why it is hard to take a scripture debate seriously. For someone to take that position (and Christians do it all the time wrt homosexuality) completely forgets what comes after the Old Testament.

As to your other question, which I think is completely legitimate, your "challenge" is to convince Christians that this is not a Christian nation. You won't do that using the Bible because it really is not addressed. You won't win this issue with Christians using the Bible, just as you wouldn't have convinced those Christians that wanted to continue slavery by using the Bible. Especially as a non-Christian.

I would say that is unfair and close minded of them to not engage in the debate fairly, but most Christians I know are intrinsically not trusting in the biblical arguments made by someone who does not hold it to be true. I generally question their motives as well. Hell, if you are going to convince me that this one part of the bible is true and should be listened to, but these other parts that are considered truly more important are considered to by myth by you, what weight does that really hold?

If I were a non-Christian trying to "win" in this argument, I wouldn't go back to the bible to do it. If this debate is going to end in a way that wins over Christians, it will be other Christians winning them over, imo.

kvrdave
11-12-08, 11:43 AM
I prefer referring to them as "those people", myself.


I prefer that label from your kind. :grunt:


:lol:

LiquidSky
11-12-08, 11:55 AM
This is ridiculous, of course, but my point is that we shouldn't have to argue the Bible, or around it. The Bible should have nothing to do with whether any particular group is "allowed" their civil rights.

Thank you.

Th0r S1mpson
11-12-08, 11:58 AM
I agree that we shouldn't have to argue the Bible or around it. That doesn't mean I'm going to ignore it.

When it comes time to vote, we all vote our values to some extent. Sometimes different values that we hold may conflict and it is up to the voter to decide how that weighs in.

People have different views on what marriage is and how it should be defined as an "inalienable right" that all humans must share.

Our society has been asked to rule on this, and so far society has leaned towards one definition. That doesn't mean that it cannot change, but that's where it stands currently. That also does not mean that it is "correct" or "good." And I will certainly concur that the will of the people must at times be overruled for the greater good because people are prone to error. I could be wrong about this one. So far I have not been so convinced that a union between a man and a woman must be called "marriage" in order for their treatment under the law to be truly equal. Yes, it's the fast lane to attain those rights, but still imperfect even from a legal standpoint when you get into issues on a national level or state to state or regarding business handlings where gender and marital status are considerations.

Ranger
11-12-08, 12:40 PM
Society was only asked this because certain groups were so afraid of judges giving equal marriage rights to, dare I say it, same-sex couples.

Bandoman
11-12-08, 12:48 PM
Thor - nor should civil rights be the subject of popular vote. This is a huge Constitutional issue, IMO.

Th0r S1mpson
11-12-08, 12:59 PM
Agreed. Maybe just the naming of those rights. ;)