Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 06:27 am
@Debra Law,
Debra Law wrote:
...The right to marry embodies the right to marry the person of your choice. It is completely meaningless to a gay woman who is in a committed relationship with another gay woman to tell her that she can't marry the person of her choice, but she can marry a man.

This is part of what's in dispute - whether something which has been forbidden in every society on Earth since the dawn of the human race is an inherent right. The law is not obligated to allow anyone to do anything he wishes. The fact remains that the law is treating everyone equally. You cannot argue that people are being denied a right before you demonstrate that what they are being denied is a right. Now, present an argument that gay marriage is a right.
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 06:51 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:
By taking a civil term such as "marriage" and defining unnecessarily in the state government, the state of CA (and other states) now must somehow rationalize how this does not impair on the rights of the minority. How can CA reconcile the marriages of gay couples from Maine who move to CA? Their are issues here for the federal courts, it's not just there because people didn't like it. It's questionably constitutional and raises larger issues about freedoms and second class citizenry.

I would like you to respond to all of my previous points 9000.

T
K
O

You haven't shown that gay marriage is a right in the first place. We need not grant people a government endorsement of anything they may wish to do.

I don't have to. Marriage be it straight or gay is not a right. What right do straight couples have? Understand?

If you aren't prepared to defend your ideas, you shouldn't have posted to begin with. You set my statements aside, but my statements were directly in response to what you said. You brought it into the dialog, not me. It's fair game. Please address the points I originally made.

T
K
O


You're contradicting yourself. Part of your argument was based on the idea that marriage is a right and a part of being free. You said:

Quote:
... the state of CA (and other states) now must somehow rationalize how this does not impair on the rights of the minority. How can CA reconcile the marriages of gay couples from Maine who move to CA? Their are issues here for the federal courts, it's not just there because people didn't like it. It's questionably constitutional and raises larger issues about freedoms and second class citizenry.

You cannot argue that a right or component of freedom is being denied, when you haven't established that gay marriage is a right or component of freedom in the first place. I am prepared to move on, if you like, but by refusing to prove that gay marriage is a right or necessary component of being free, you will have nullified the position you took in the above quotation. Furthermore, it's absurd to argue that every state must endorse something if any state endorses it. Finally, it's ludicrous to claim, as you seem to have, that gay marriage is a right protected by the national Constitution, since it isn't mentioned in the national Constitution and was probably never mentioned by any Founder.

Do you have a problem defending your ideas 9000? Why won't you address my points? What you've done here is pure non sequitur. The founders made no mention of "marriage" at all, so the point that marriage begins to be treated as a right to heterosexuals, is the point where you facing an ethical dilemma by discriminating against homosexuals. It's you who is dealing in contradictions.

What is "absurd" is the notion that a state condemns gay marriage. Allowing gays to marry is not an "endorsement."

Respond to my original points please, and stop dodging.

T
K
O
0 Replies
 
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 07:10 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Debra Law wrote:
...The right to marry embodies the right to marry the person of your choice. It is completely meaningless to a gay woman who is in a committed relationship with another gay woman to tell her that she can't marry the person of her choice, but she can marry a man.

This is part of what's in dispute - whether something which has been forbidden in every society on Earth since the dawn of the human race is an inherent right.

This is factually false. Many societies allowed and embraced homosexuality. Greek, Druids, Japan... Your claim is empty.
Brandon9000 wrote:

The law is not obligated to allow anyone to do anything he wishes. The fact remains that the law is treating everyone equally.

False. The new law creates a second class citizenship by intentionally making making marriage only between a man and a woman. Why did marriage need to be defined like this? Why was this distinction necessary? Heterosexual couples were able to get married before that point weren't they? Did this definition let them get married to some new degree? No.

Also, as DL pointed out, it's irrelevant that a lesbian has the ability to marry a male. At best you're not reading carefully, at worst you're actively trying to be uneducated about your approach.
Brandon9000 wrote:

You cannot argue that people are being denied a right before you demonstrate that what they are being denied is a right. Now, present an argument that gay marriage is a right.

You can't argue that marriage straight or gay is a right. But when you choose to discriminate a minority like this does, you must defend why one group deserves it and another does not.

You laid out "history" and "science" as your justification. Both angles disagree with you. Now you won't defend it.

Stop trying so hard. Just say what we both know: You have no real reason to object to homosexuals getting married beyond simply not wanting them to. You don't approve of homosexuality, and your disapproval in your mind has more merit to you than any amount of fact contrary. You simply just don't want it to happen.

T
K
O
Diest TKO
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 07:13 am
@Diest TKO,
BUMP, now stop dodging.
Diest TKO wrote:

9000,

History disagrees with you, ancient societies had homosexuals living quite openly. Homosexuality became largely criminal when Rome adopted Christianity. Additionally, groups like the druids etc had the practice of same sex marriage. I only bring that up because Christians are attempting to define something that has been around longer than Christianity. Further, this proposition actually hurts religious freedom because not all religious views define marriage this way.

Science disagrees with you to. Homosexuality exists in many pack animals as well, and while it brings no inherent breeding benefit, pack animals all benefit from defending each other etc. Additionally, you argument is one about procreation and not civil interaction. If gays aren't privilege to marriage, then why are heterosexuals privilege to it? You don't have to be married to breed right?

Your argument is full of holes-made of holes.

T
K
O
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 07:31 am
@Diest TKO,
Diest TKO wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Debra Law wrote:
...The right to marry embodies the right to marry the person of your choice. It is completely meaningless to a gay woman who is in a committed relationship with another gay woman to tell her that she can't marry the person of her choice, but she can marry a man.

This is part of what's in dispute - whether something which has been forbidden in every society on Earth since the dawn of the human race is an inherent right.

This is factually false. Many societies allowed and embraced homosexuality. Greek, Druids, Japan... Your claim is empty.

If you claim that it is factually false, then please tell me an example of a society which issued marriage licenses to gay people prior to, say, 50 years ago. Did the Greeks? Did the Druids? Did the Japanese? Let's see whether it's factually false or factually true.

Diest TKO wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:

The law is not obligated to allow anyone to do anything he wishes. The fact remains that the law is treating everyone equally.

False. The new law creates a second class citizenship by intentionally making making marriage only between a man and a woman. Why did marriage need to be defined like this? Why was this distinction necessary? Heterosexual couples were able to get married before that point weren't they? Did this definition let them get married to some new degree? No.

Also, as DL pointed out, it's irrelevant that a lesbian has the ability to marry a male. At best you're not reading carefully, at worst you're actively trying to be uneducated about your approach.

The law is treating everyone equally, since it gives everyone the exact same right. Everyone is allowed to marry another person of the opposite sex and no one is allowed to marry someone of the same sex. There is no group which is allowed by law to do something which another group is denied. An argument that the law is discriminating is therefore demonstrably false. Marriage has always been defined like this, and as long as most people want it to continue to be defined like this it will be. This definition was motivated by the apparent design of gender and sexual attraction to enable reproduction. The law is not obligated to endorse gender identity malfunctions.

Diest TKO wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:

You cannot argue that people are being denied a right before you demonstrate that what they are being denied is a right. Now, present an argument that gay marriage is a right.

You can't argue that marriage straight or gay is a right. But when you choose to discriminate a minority like this does, you must defend why one group deserves it and another does not.

You laid out "history" and "science" as your justification. Both angles disagree with you. Now you won't defend it.

Stop trying so hard. Just say what we both know: You have no real reason to object to homosexuals getting married beyond simply not wanting them to. You don't approve of homosexuality, and your disapproval in your mind has more merit to you than any amount of fact contrary. You simply just don't want it to happen.

T
K
O

I'm not arguing that marrige of any kind is a right - DL is. I was merely responding. You cannot argue that the practice of permitting only opposite sex marriages discriminates, since everyone is given precisely the same right - to marry in accordance with the traditional understanding of marriage.
Brandon9000
 
  2  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 07:41 am
@Diest TKO,
Diest TKO wrote:

BUMP, now stop dodging.
Diest TKO wrote:

9000,

History disagrees with you, ancient societies had homosexuals living quite openly. Homosexuality became largely criminal when Rome adopted Christianity. Additionally, groups like the druids etc had the practice of same sex marriage. I only bring that up because Christians are attempting to define something that has been around longer than Christianity. Further, this proposition actually hurts religious freedom because not all religious views define marriage this way.

Science disagrees with you to. Homosexuality exists in many pack animals as well, and while it brings no inherent breeding benefit, pack animals all benefit from defending each other etc. Additionally, you argument is one about procreation and not civil interaction. If gays aren't privilege to marriage, then why are heterosexuals privilege to it? You don't have to be married to breed right?

Your argument is full of holes-made of holes.

T
K
O


You're making a false claim that I'm dodging something, merely because I choose to respond to some of your arguments before I respond to others. This is a false claim, which you apparently feel enhances your credibility. If someone posts several separate arguments, it is normal for the person on the other side of the debate to respond to the parts he considers most salient. Now I will respond to this particular argument.

First of all, the question of whether homosexuals can live openly in their chosen lifestyle or with others of the same gender is not being discussed, at least not by me, because I am not trying to, and have never tried to, restrict this. I'm discussing only the issuance of marriage licenses. The fact that homosexuality exists in other species doesn't diminish my argument that evolution appears to have created genders in order to facilitate reproduction, and that, therefore, attraction to one's own gender is a malfunction of the biology involved. Society is under no obligation to endorse a malfunction as normal by issuing licenses for gay marriage.

Finally, a continuation of the historical definition of marriage appears to be desired by the voters.
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 07:55 am
@Brandon9000,
By acknowledging that the Greeks, druids or Japanese didn't need marriage licenses you validate my point. The definition of marriage as being exclusively a man and a woman came after homosexuality. This is not the chicken and the egg. History does not support your argument.

It's been pointed out BTW now twice that it's irrelevant that a lesbian can marry a male, and the courts agree. That is not equal.

Marriage isn't a right, but the problem is now that states have found a way to make it a privilege to heterosexual couples exclusively. You are only allowed to marry the person you love if you are heterosexual. That's ethically shallow.

T
K
O
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 08:17 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

BUMP, now stop dodging.
Diest TKO wrote:

9000,

History disagrees with you, ancient societies had homosexuals living quite openly. Homosexuality became largely criminal when Rome adopted Christianity. Additionally, groups like the druids etc had the practice of same sex marriage. I only bring that up because Christians are attempting to define something that has been around longer than Christianity. Further, this proposition actually hurts religious freedom because not all religious views define marriage this way.

Science disagrees with you to. Homosexuality exists in many pack animals as well, and while it brings no inherent breeding benefit, pack animals all benefit from defending each other etc. Additionally, you argument is one about procreation and not civil interaction. If gays aren't privilege to marriage, then why are heterosexuals privilege to it? You don't have to be married to breed right?

Your argument is full of holes-made of holes.

T
K
O


You're making a false claim that I'm dodging something, merely because I choose to respond to some of your arguments before I respond to others. This is a false claim, which you apparently feel enhances your credibility. If someone posts several separate arguments, it is normal for the person on the other side of the debate to respond to the parts he considers most salient. Now I will respond to this particular argument.

First of all, the question of whether homosexuals can live openly in their chosen lifestyle or with others of the same gender is not being discussed, at least not by me, because I am not trying to, and have never tried to, restrict this. I'm discussing only the issuance of marriage licenses. The fact that homosexuality exists in other species doesn't diminish my argument that evolution appears to have created genders in order to facilitate reproduction, and that, therefore, attraction to one's own gender is a malfunction of the biology involved. Society is under no obligation to endorse a malfunction as normal by issuing licenses for gay marriage.

Finally, a continuation of the historical definition of marriage appears to be desired by the voters.


That's BS 9000, and you are still trying to dodge.

Allowing gays to marry is not an endorsement. That's a dumb claim. As if issuing a marriage license is in any way an endorsement of any couple.

As for biology. Species that breed asexually produce the greatest number of offspring. You've established no such evidence to call homosexuality a malfunction. The fact that you make a argument claiming that it's a malfunction and therefore must no be "endorsed" is a slippery slope you don't want to walk on considering all the real malfunctions that people endure and can be married. A blind man certainly has a biological "malfunction." You don't wanna go there.

If you think that a marriage license is tantamount to an "endorsement," how is a civil union any less an "endorsement?"

Further since you acknowledge that marriage is not a right at all (even for straight couples) then you've pretty much sunk your own ship.

What purpose is there to condemn gay marriage? The majority voting to discriminate against the minority, in a system that has protections for the minority. Something has got to give, be it this year or a decade (or whenever) from now, gays will be able to marry in the US.

The irony here is that a straight majority voted to "protect the family" or "protect marriage" by forbidding gay couples to be married, and creating parallel institutions such as civil unions which they claim to be an equal establishment of rights yet acknowledge it is not the same. By doing so they actually hurt the establishment of marriage. The value of civil unions doesn't go up, the value of marriage goes down. Irony like this is lost on people such as you.

Save us both the time 9000, just say what you mean: You think you're better than homosexuals, and you hate the idea of them being recognized as equal to you.

T
K
O
Diest TKO
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 08:24 am
@Brandon9000,
Brandon9000 wrote:
Finally, a continuation of the historical definition of marriage appears to be desired by the voters.


It was not previously legally defined in CA's constitution, how is this a historical definition? If by "historical" you are referring to all cultures of th history of man, you're simply wrong. The establishment of a definition is what was talking place, not the defense of a previous definition. You, your father, your grandfather and all your lineage may have defined it this way, but CA, as an entity, has only had this definition since November 4th. Hardly historic.

The proposition was not a defense of marriage, it was an attack on gays. period.

T
K
O
BillRM
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 09:50 am
@Eorl,
Well it is the business of society as a whole as it is the society that license marriages and set up rules and conditions and grants rights.

I am not coming at it from a religious aspects but from a logical aspect of why society would care to license such private relationships in the first place for anyone and does it made sense to add gays to this license class of people.

Now from my understanding the society as a whole have an interest in promoting long term and stable heterosexual relationships and setting up rules when and if those relationships come apart due to our desire to have our next generation raise in stable two parents households.

Why would we transfer wealth from single people by way of our tax laws to gay couples for example, when they are not in the whole doing the hard job of raising the next generation?

Society opinion for now that such relationships is as good as are heterosexual relationships for raising children is also not there.

Only when the percent of children in gay households come somewhat near that contain in the average straight households and when society decide that having two parents of the same sex is the equal of having children raise by a man and a woman would it made any kind of sense for the society by way of our laws to add gays as a class of people that we license and grant rights and benefit to in this manner.

Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 10:16 am
@Diest TKO,
Diest TKO wrote:

By acknowledging that the Greeks, druids or Japanese didn't need marriage licenses you validate my point. The definition of marriage as being exclusively a man and a woman came after homosexuality. This is not the chicken and the egg. History does not support your argument.

I haid said:

Brandon9000 wrote:
... whether something which has been forbidden in every society on Earth since the dawn of the human race....

I was referring only to marriage. You said that this was false. In response, I asked you to give me a counter-example, specifically to tell me a country which has allowed marriage of same sex couples prior to 50 years ago. If it is false, then you should be able to give me a counter-example. If you cannot give me a counter-example, then my assertion would seem to be true.

Diest TKO wrote:
It's been pointed out BTW now twice that it's irrelevant that a lesbian can marry a male, and the courts agree. That is not equal.

Marriage isn't a right, but the problem is now that states have found a way to make it a privilege to heterosexual couples exclusively. You are only allowed to marry the person you love if you are heterosexual. That's ethically shallow.

T
K
O

You and others claim that legal discrimination is occurring. This is false. The law allows exactly the same thing to everyone. What you want is a change in the definition of marriage. Most of the people don't want that.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 10:30 am
@Diest TKO,
Diest TKO wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:

Diest TKO wrote:

BUMP, now stop dodging.
Diest TKO wrote:

9000,

History disagrees with you, ancient societies had homosexuals living quite openly. Homosexuality became largely criminal when Rome adopted Christianity. Additionally, groups like the druids etc had the practice of same sex marriage. I only bring that up because Christians are attempting to define something that has been around longer than Christianity. Further, this proposition actually hurts religious freedom because not all religious views define marriage this way.

Science disagrees with you to. Homosexuality exists in many pack animals as well, and while it brings no inherent breeding benefit, pack animals all benefit from defending each other etc. Additionally, you argument is one about procreation and not civil interaction. If gays aren't privilege to marriage, then why are heterosexuals privilege to it? You don't have to be married to breed right?

Your argument is full of holes-made of holes.

T
K
O


You're making a false claim that I'm dodging something, merely because I choose to respond to some of your arguments before I respond to others. This is a false claim, which you apparently feel enhances your credibility. If someone posts several separate arguments, it is normal for the person on the other side of the debate to respond to the parts he considers most salient. Now I will respond to this particular argument.

First of all, the question of whether homosexuals can live openly in their chosen lifestyle or with others of the same gender is not being discussed, at least not by me, because I am not trying to, and have never tried to, restrict this. I'm discussing only the issuance of marriage licenses. The fact that homosexuality exists in other species doesn't diminish my argument that evolution appears to have created genders in order to facilitate reproduction, and that, therefore, attraction to one's own gender is a malfunction of the biology involved. Society is under no obligation to endorse a malfunction as normal by issuing licenses for gay marriage.

Finally, a continuation of the historical definition of marriage appears to be desired by the voters.

That's BS 9000, and you are still trying to dodge.

Allowing gays to marry is not an endorsement. That's a dumb claim. As if issuing a marriage license is in any way an endorsement of any couple.

As for biology. Species that breed asexually produce the greatest number of offspring. You've established no such evidence to call homosexuality a malfunction. The fact that you make a argument claiming that it's a malfunction and therefore must no be "endorsed" is a slippery slope you don't want to walk on considering all the real malfunctions that people endure and can be married. A blind man certainly has a biological "malfunction." You don't wanna go there.

If you think that a marriage license is tantamount to an "endorsement," how is a civil union any less an "endorsement?"

What I said was that evolution developed gender as a means by which many species including our reproduces. That is the function which gender and sexual attraction were designed to serve. Therefore, attraction to one's own gender is a malfunction of the machine, and contrary to the intention of the design. Like all people, gay people should be able to lead whatever lifestyle they want to, but the government is not obligated to endorse gender identity problems, and issuing licenses is endorsement.

Diest TKO wrote:
Further since you acknowledge that marriage is not a right at all (even for straight couples) then you've pretty much sunk your own ship.

I didn't say that. I offerred no opinion about it at all.

Diest TKO wrote:
What purpose is there to condemn gay marriage? The majority voting to discriminate against the minority, in a system that has protections for the minority. Something has got to give, be it this year or a decade (or whenever) from now, gays will be able to marry in the US.

The irony here is that a straight majority voted to "protect the family" or "protect marriage" by forbidding gay couples to be married, and creating parallel institutions such as civil unions which they claim to be an equal establishment of rights yet acknowledge it is not the same. By doing so they actually hurt the establishment of marriage. The value of civil unions doesn't go up, the value of marriage goes down. Irony like this is lost on people such as you.

Actually, rather than saying that the voters have forbidden gay couples to be married, it would be more accurate to say that they have declined to lift a prohibition which is as old as history.

Diest TKO wrote:
Save us both the time 9000, just say what you mean: You think you're better than homosexuals, and you hate the idea of them being recognized as equal to you.

T
K
O

I'm not saying that because it's not what I believe. I believe that all people are equal. You've sunk pretty far if you are now arguing by claiming that I believe things I've never stated. You can win all the arguments when you put words in someone else's mouth. Why must your defense of your opinion depend on misstating mine? A new low for you.
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 10:35 am
@Diest TKO,
Diest TKO wrote:

Brandon9000 wrote:
Finally, a continuation of the historical definition of marriage appears to be desired by the voters.


It was not previously legally defined in CA's constitution, how is this a historical definition? If by "historical" you are referring to all cultures of th history of man, you're simply wrong. The establishment of a definition is what was talking place, not the defense of a previous definition. You, your father, your grandfather and all your lineage may have defined it this way, but CA, as an entity, has only had this definition since November 4th. Hardly historic.

The proposition was not a defense of marriage, it was an attack on gays. period.

T
K
O

The recent adoption in CA and other states of a definition of marriage as being between a man and woman certainly was a defense of an historical definition. Since the marriages which have occurred historically have been only between men and women, it is obvious that this is the historical definition. It wasn't put into the law before, because no one ever believed it needed to be defended before.
0 Replies
 
Shapeless
 
  2  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 02:01 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
I asked you to give me a counter-example, specifically to tell me a country which has allowed marriage of same sex couples prior to 50 years ago. If it is false, then you should be able to give me a counter-example. If you cannot give me a counter-example, then my assertion would seem to be true.


A very cursory introduction to historical same-sex unions can be found here. More thorough overviews can be found in a number of books, including Vern Bullough's Sexual Variance in Society and History and John Boswell's Christianity, Social Tolerance, and Homosexuality.
0 Replies
 
Shapeless
 
  2  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 02:09 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
rather than saying that the voters have forbidden gay couples to be married, it would be more accurate to say that they have declined to lift a prohibition which is as old as history.


When history is studied from an intellectually honest point of view, then no, it would in fact be more accurate to put it the first way.
0 Replies
 
Shapeless
 
  4  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 02:28 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Everyone is allowed to marry another person of the opposite sex and no one is allowed to marry someone of the same sex. There is no group which is allowed by law to do something which another group is denied.


That's pure sophistry. Though you chose not to phrase it this way, what you're saying is that everyone is entitled to a heterosexual union but no one is entitled to a homosexual union. The feeble distinction you're trying to make is no different from the one that once barred non-Christians from voting since, according to your logic, everyone was free to vote as a Christian and nobody was allowed to vote as a non-Christian; therefore the law treated everyone equally. Shifting the focus toward what the law grants and away from the requirements for inclusion in that law is simply begging the question.

Quote:
Marriage has always been defined like this... This definition was motivated by the apparent design of gender and sexual attraction to enable reproduction.


Again, if the definition of marriage rests on a biological basis, then why is that basis applied selectively? If it is indeed true that marriage is defined in accordance with the "apparent design" that gender and sexual attraction enable reproduction, and if homosexuality is to be excluded from marriage because it does not conform to that design, then why are other marriage practices that also deviate from that design legally recognized? Marriages that produce no children, or marriages of convenience, do not conform to the apparent design. Yet homosexuality is the only "malfunction" singled out for exclusion. That's discrimination, any way you slice it.
Diest TKO
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 03:45 pm
@Shapeless,
Well put, but I think at this point it's wasted on 9000. He's not interested in investigating his own prejudice on this matter.

T
K
O
majikal
 
  2  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 04:34 pm
@Brandon9000,
Quote:
Everyone is allowed to marry another person of the opposite sex and no one is allowed to marry someone of the same sex. There is no group which is allowed by law to do something which another group is denied.


In the CA Supreme Court case Perez v Sharp...

"...The right to marry is the right to join in marriage with the
person of one's choice"
majikal
 
  1  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 05:08 pm
@BillRM,
BillRM wrote:

Well it is the business of society as a whole as it is the society that license marriages and set up rules and conditions and grants rights.

I am not coming at it from a religious aspects but from a logical aspect of why society would care to license such private relationships in the first place for anyone and does it made sense to add gays to this license class of people.

Now from my understanding the society as a whole have an interest in promoting long term and stable heterosexual relationships and setting up rules when and if those relationships come apart due to our desire to have our next generation raise in stable two parents households.

Why would we transfer wealth from single people by way of our tax laws to gay couples for example, when they are not in the whole doing the hard job of raising the next generation?

Society opinion for now that such relationships is as good as are heterosexual relationships for raising children is also not there.

Only when the percent of children in gay households come somewhat near that contain in the average straight households and when society decide that having two parents of the same sex is the equal of having children raise by a man and a woman would it made any kind of sense for the society by way of our laws to add gays as a class of people that we license and grant rights and benefit to in this manner.


This is a flawed argument, again Bill...typical from what I've seen of you here. What about the couples who are 60+ that get married? What about the couples who get married and can't reproduce? What about the families where one parent dies, or leaves? It seems to me that you're saying the point of marriage is to have reproduce, and raise children in a hetero household, but rarely is it picture perfect. If all these fucked up hetero couples can marry and have kids, why can't gays?
0 Replies
 
Copper Seth
 
  0  
Reply Sat 8 Nov, 2008 07:40 pm
The reason that I voted yes on prop 8 has nothing to do with how I feel about gays and gay couples. My vote is as objective of an analysis of the system as best as I can provide. I don’t really care what people do in their own private lives and I don’t care to judge anyone for being gay anymore than I judge someone for being straight. It’s just not what I care to do. My vote largely has to do with the legality of the circumstances surrounding it. To begin, I think that the Supreme Court was wrong to overrule the prop 22 initiative from four years ago. The reason that I say that is because the right to the same rights as everyone else and the right to what is traditionally known as marriage are completely different things.

I wholeheartedly believe that no one should be denied the same rights as anyone else, no matter your sexual orientation, race…anything. As best as I know (and please let me know if I am wrong because a lot rides on this basis) that marriage is not a right as enumerated or specifically mentioned in the constitution or law, despite the appeal for it as a human right. Marriage, until recent years and technically still today, is an institution that is completely separate from the government. It started as a product of traditionally religious events. The institution of marriage was started by people who believed that marriage as a term and institution was defined by a man and a woman making a lifelong commitment to each other. The government, both federal and state, long ago decided to endorse or acknowledge the institution of marriage as a beneficial institution for society (for whatever reason) and subsequently has offered benefits to married couples, largely of tax and other financial benefits.

The issue that I have with prop 8 and other similar movements is that it is not the place of the government in any branch to force it’s will onto those of an institution that is not government run or backed. I’m skipping ahead a little bit but I believe that providing incentives for married persons does not constitute “backing” and that’s just a personal perception. The role of the government is to uphold the law and make sure that the rights of people are not being abridged. The fact that gay (and when I say gay I mean gay and lesbian) couples marriage is not recognized by the government is not marriage as an institution’s problem as they are separate. As is stated in the constitution of the United States, there shall be a separation of church and state. That does not mean that the US or state government may not recognize and give incentives to the church or any institution (in this case, marriage) that it wishes to in order to promote anything that it believes beneficial to the American public. The way that I see it, it means that the processes of the state (state meaning any government) shall not be contingent upon church approval, and or headed by members of the church. The state gives billions of dollars every year to private charities and the red cross (a private institution) because it acknowledges and believes the institutions to be beneficial to the society as a whole. Along those lines, I don’t see the problem with using the church or any other institution as a basis because if people disagree with the basis they are fully able to vote in new legislation and policies. As such I believe that anything that the people don’t want, religious in origin or not, they should vote out of law. As the institutions of marriage and state are separate, the state has no right to redefine an institution that it has no authority in. All the same, if the people or state disagrees with the institution of marriage enough then it has the option to no longer recognize it and offer the incentives and more rather rewards that it currently offers. That as far as I can tell will not happen anytime soon. I fully believe in one of the founding principles of this country that the rights of the few shall not be abridged by those of the many, however, I question the basis of this as a platform as marriage is not a right. Equal rights are equal rights. Getting back to how it is the role of the government to make sure that each individual has the same rights and equalities as others, it has an obligation to acknowledge as with marriage (i.e. straight marriages) an institution (a new institution) that would allow gay people the same access to the benefits reaped by their straight counterparts.

On one side of the table I see the “no-on-8 side” saying that they are not getting the same opportunities in life as allotted to straight people. On the other side of the table you have the “yes-on-8 side” saying that it marriage is between a man and a woman. The sides are arguing completely different points. And both sides are correct. The “no” side is not getting equal rights and I would vote for anything that aptly brought the gay community to the same level of recognition as the straight community. However, denying the “yes” side the right to set its own terms of its own institution is not right either. It is no more an abridgment of people’s rights to deny gay people the same access, opportunities and privileges of marriage as it is to take away people’s sovereign rights to run non-government institutions however they want. In contrast to the founding principle of the small not being trampled by the many, just as true is how the desires of the few shall not (or should not, rather) abridge the rights of the many. Gay couples wanting to be accepted by marriage as an institution is baseless. The institution may do it anyways, but is not obligated to. The KKK can have its meetings and create effigies and burn crosses legally all they want as long as they are not abridging other people’s rights to not be killed for being black, threatened, etc.

A real world example is that of the Boy Scouts. The government acknowledged the organization as a beneficial private part of society and such it backed it. When the Boy Scouts refused to allow gay people in to the organization on the basis that it violated the religious beliefs inherent in the boy scouts, the government withdrew the vast majority of the support from the boy scouts because it violated the law in that there shall not be government backing of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. It did not make the boy scouts take on gay members as it has no authority to do so. In a similar example, the government came under fire a few years ago for a huge disproportionate disparity on the per capita funding of boy scouts to girl scouts. That is that the government was spending more on supporting each boy scout than it was in supporting each girl scout. Upon review the government changed its stance and began equally funding each girl scout. It was not the boy scouts fault that the government was spending more money on them than the girl scouts. The last example of scouting is in the last few years a girl wanted to join a boy scout troop and boy scouts said no. The girl sued and it went all the way to the supreme court on the basis that discrimination on the basis of sex (not orientation) in a government supported organization. The supreme court upheld the boy scouts decision that she could not be in the troop because there was ample opportunity for the girl to join a girl scout troop that received the same per capita support from the state as the boy scouts. A large part of her complaint was that the girl scouts did not do the things like rock climbing and canoeing that she wanted to do. Again, it was not the boy scouts fault for any of this other than having a boys only regulation in response to an equal opportunity to an equally supported organization of the government, despite the fact that they are different organizations. It’s the same thing as high school sports. Girls can play on the men’s soccer team if there is no girls team. The solution, obviously to me at least, is to create a girls team if people are vehemently against boys and girls playing together.

I believe that the best solution is to create a new institution that would in every way provide gay couples the equal access and benefits of a straight marriage. The final goal is to get state acknowledgement of which it the state is obliged to comply with as it has the option to support people who have been disenfranchised by the state. I personally would not think any less of a “gay marriage” for lack of a better term. And it is my belief (not personal attitude) and consensus that the wording of “marriage” is the hang up for most people who oppose “gay marriage.” I have no suggestions for terms but I believe that is over 90% of the debate. Of course there are going to be the groups of people who will appeal on the moral grounds that it is wrong. I don’t, like I said, I’m not one to judge people because while I do not think that people should do whatever makes them happy in any case, I think that two people who make each other happy and make their children (children of gay parents) happy is fine with me. I want to see equal rights for gay couples. I am aware just as much of anyone of the injustices that are taking place against the national gay community and I want it to stop as well. I just think that prop 8 was the wrong way of going about it. I want the same all of the good things that prop 8 would have brought but I saw too many things wrong with it to vote no on it.
 

Related Topics

 
  1. Forums
  2. » Prop 8?
  3. » Page 4
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 06/22/2021 at 08:20:11