Prop 8?

@Diest TKO,

You're asking personal questions that anyone would skirt around on a public forum. They will continue to white wash and remain essentially non-committal about their feelings as it would reveal too much about their core beliefs. Even then, they won't answer any questions of bigotry with any real sincerity. Some of the comments are from those who need to be committed.

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

I will take it on faith that you are trying to be amicable and truly want to understand. So, in the name of understanding, I'll try again.

First, I'll stir the pot and answer the questions I missed.

Quote:

Do you believe that you are entitled to more because you are straight?
Did you have to ask for permission to use the term married?

The answer to both questions is no. In the first question, I am entitled to be treated by the society I live in exactly as everyone else. So are gays. And, in the matter of marriage, we are treated exactly the same. Marriage has always and forever been a covenant between a man and a woman. If you want to put a religious spin on it, then I could say that it has been that way since God put the first man and woman on earth and created them in such a way that they would complement each other. Marriage is what it is. I can marry anyone of the opposite sex. So can you. So can everyone else in this country. My objection to gay marriage is that one group is taking a covenant between a man and woman and twisting it to mean whatever they want it to mean. If they can do that, then what is the sense of defining marriage as anything at all. Let's go all out and eliminate all laws concerning who can and cannot marry. Why not, since it has no meaning.

As for your hypothetical, again I don't think I can answer something to your satisfaction that I have no understanding of. Friendship is a bond that I do not take lightly. Ones views on any subject would never be a basis for me to end a friendship, or as you state it, would never be a basis to force me to make a choice. If there were not a multitude of common ground between myself and someone else, then we would more than likely not be friends in the way I think of friendship. Why in the name of sense would I choose not to be friends with someone I have much in common with simply because we have a vastly different view on one or two subjects, even something as dividing as gay marriage can be. It makes no sense. So I guess what I'm saying in my own convoluted way, is that I believe a person can choose both the friendship and still maintain their belief.

Quote:

You as a Christian, are in no way threatened or abused by what another couple (gay or straight) calls their relationship. So why make yourself an obstruction? Why deny gays the right to have their union recognized by the state as a marriage?

I am exercising my right as a citizen in this country to mold the society we live in to what I believe is best. This is no different than someone who pushes for any change in how we live as a society.

Quote:

Returning to the Catholics, do you think that the state should not recognized remarried people because it does not fall into their views of marriage?

The state should recognize any marriage between a man and a woman. As I have repeatedly stated, that is what marriage is.

Quote:

Do you think that you deserve that title more than a gay couple? If so, why? I want to know why? I want to understand what this phantom threat is.

It has nothing to do with what I deserve or don't deserve. It has everything to do with the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman. There is no phantom threat in the way most would define a threat.

I hope I have now covered everything. I hope this will answer you somewhat satisfactorily. I'm sure you will still not fully understand my objections and may feel I am absolutely and unconditionally wrong. And that's fine. I think you are wrong for thinking the way you do on this subject. Big deal. Doesn't mean we must begin to hate each other or call each other names. Just means we have different beliefs.

Again, I'll repeat that I have no issue with those in a gay relationship wanting the same governmental protections that a married couple enjoys. Rights of inheritance, medical decision making, health benefits, pension rights, etc. are all things they deserve. You won't get any resistance on those things from me.

If you have any further specific questions that I've missed or that you have, I'll gladly try to answer them. But I think the above should pretty much summarize my objections. And yes, it is based mostly on what I believe is God's design for mankind.

2 Replies

@CoastalRat,

CR, I'm sorry to say that you have not answered the main question, which is:

As nobody is asking YOU to be gay or to marry someone else who is, what is your objection to others doing so? Specifically, not generally! How does it harm you or anyone else to allow gays to marry? Specifically!

Also, you stated this -

Quote:

And, in the matter of marriage, we are treated exactly the same. Marriage has always and forever been a covenant between a man and a woman.

Both of these sentences are demonstrably false.

Quote:

I am exercising my right as a citizen in this country to mold the society we live in to what I believe is best. This is no different than someone who pushes for any change in how we live as a society.

You are willing to push, to keep groups of people who aren't harming anyone, from having happy lives? Why? Specifically!

See, none of this stuff makes sense on the larger level, unless you have a belief inside that it is necessary to be punitive towards those you disagree with.

Do you believe it is your, or society's, job to outlaw sin? To try and legislate people away from behavior you consider bad, but isn't directly harmful to others? I would point out that the same belief set which denies homosexuality denies many other things we enjoy in modern life, yet we see very little action on the part of religious folks to get those things outlawed.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@CoastalRat,

Thank you for the reply. I think I understand better now.

False premises cannot lead to correct conclusions CR, and you stated this as fact:

Coastal Rat wrote:

Marriage has always and forever been a covenant between a man and a woman.

This is not true. See Ancient Rome, See Druids, See Native Americans, and other examples of ancient cultures. Let it be a lesson on using absolute language.

You stated, and this was of some concern that:

Coastal Rat wrote:

My objection to gay marriage is that one group is taking a covenant between a man and woman and twisting it to mean whatever they want it to mean.

I don't think this is a problem. If gays didn't think that marriage had meaning, they wouldn't be fighting so hard for it. To many both gay and straight, to say that you are married means love and commitment.

You made two statements which are very contrary to each other.

Coastal Rat wrote:

I am exercising my right as a citizen in this country to mold the society we live in to what I believe is best.

Coastal Rat wrote:

There is no phantom threat in the way most would define a threat.

What is "best" assumes there is some sort of effect, and yet you admit there is no threat. You have a right not only to influence society for the best, but also for the worst. I can clearly articulate how inequity in gay rights and privileges to their fellow straight citizen hurts and who it hurts. I'm asking you to match that standard.

If there is a threat that the few (as opposed to "most" as you put it) would define as a threat what is that?

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I have answered the main question over and over again. Doing so once more will not penetrate your blindness to what I've said.

Quote:

Do you believe it is your, or society's, job to outlaw sin?

No, but I believe it is my right to urge my society toward what I think is best for my society. My objections to gay marriage are no more different than a person fighting to eliminate the death penalty. They would prefer living in a society without the death penalty. I would prefer to live in a society that recognizes that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman. Simple as that.

Quote:

Both of these sentences are demonstrably false.

That seems to be the gist of the argument that your side continually makes. So I never had any doubt you would believe that. I cannot help the fact that you believe something that is not true. Wink

Quote:

You are willing to push, to keep groups of people who aren't harming anyone, from having happy lives?

I have no inherent power to keep anyone from having a happy life. Nor do we have the power to make someone's life happy. Your life is happy if you make it happy. I am simply voicing a desire that marriage be exactly what it is, the union of a man and a wife. If someone claims there life is unhappy because of my belief, then they have problems.

2 Replies

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

I have no inherent power to keep anyone from having a happy life.

You could live pretty happy in a world where gays could marry then.

CoastalRat wrote:

Nor do we have the power to make someone's life happy.

I 100% do not believe this statement is true or thought out. You don't believe this.

CoastalRat wrote:

Your life is happy if you make it happy.

You probably were happy when you got married. I guess by your logic, you could be just as happy with your wife/family without that marriage then.

CoastalRat wrote:

I am simply voicing a desire that marriage be exactly what it is, the union of a man and a wife. If someone claims there life is unhappy because of my belief, then they have problems.

exactly "what it is" has never been exact. To suggest such a static definition, is false.

Your words on happiness remind me of a song by the White Stripes - Cause and Effect.

Jack White wrote:

I guess you have to have a problem
If you want to invent a contraption
First you cause a train wreck
Then you put me in traction

Well, first came an action
And then a reaction
But you can't switch around
For your own satisfaction
Well, you put my house down, then got mad
At my reaction

Well, in every complicated situation
You're the human relation
Makin' sense of it all
Take a whole lot a concentration

Well, you can blame my baby
For her pregnant ma
And if there's one of these
On the order for laws
It's that you just can't take the effect
And make it the cause

Well, you can't take the effect
And make it the cause
I didn't rob a bank
Because you made up a law
When you people robbin' Peter
Don't you blame Paul
Can't take the effect
And make it the cause

I ain't the reason that you gave me no reason to return your call
You built a house of cards and got shocked when you saw them fall
Well are you sayin' I'm innocent?
In fact the reverse
But if you're headin' to the grave
You don't blame the hearse
You're like a little girl yellin' at her brother
'Cause you lost his ball

Well you keep blamin' me for what you did
And that ain't all
The way you clean up a wreck
Is enough to get one pause
You seem to forget
Just how this song started
I'm reactin' to you because you left me broken-hearted
See, you just can't take the effect
And make it the cause

Can't take the effect
And make it the cause
I didn't rob a bank
Because you made up a law
Blame people robbin' Peter
Don't you blame Paul
Can't take the effect
And make it the cause

BONUS!

T
K
O

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Quote:

This is not true. See Ancient Rome, See Druids, See Native Americans, and other examples of ancient cultures. Let it be a lesson on using absolute language.

I stand corrected. There have been societies that have at one time or another seen fit to recognize gay marriages. There have also been societies that have recognized child sacrifice, polygamy, cannibalism and what not. This in and of itself does not make it right. (Don't misunderstand, I am not equating gay marriage to child sacrifice or cannibalism. Just making a point.)

Quote:

I don't think this is a problem. If gays didn't think that marriage had meaning, they wouldn't be fighting so hard for it. To many both gay and straight, to say that you are married means love and commitment.

That is the point. Marriage does have meaning. It is a covenant between a man and a woman.

You are exactly right that all of us have the ability to influence our society for the better or for the worse. I submit that adhereing to the traditional meaning of marriage is for the better. Others think differently. I won't even argue that believing otherwise is not going to spell the end of society as we know it (which I admit some people in this country seem to believe, thus answering your threat question.) I believe it is for the best. The problem is that we never really know what is for the best until we walk down the opposite path, and even then only after many years. I will probably never know whether I am right in my thinking or you are right in yours. We will both long be dead when historians can make that unbiased observation.

I'll get back to you when I have time on your post that got in there while I was answering this one. Have a good day.

1 Reply

@CoastalRat,

Quote:

No, but I believe it is my right to urge my society toward what I think is best for my society. My objections to gay marriage are no more different than a person fighting to eliminate the death penalty. They would prefer living in a society without the death penalty. I would prefer to live in a society that recognizes that marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman. Simple as that.

You're almost to the answer! Now: why do you believe this? Why would you prefer a society in which marriage is a covenant between a man and a woman? How does this benefit you and how would you be harmed by the converse?

See, that is the part that your side of the argument explains very poorly. I understand your argument. I just don't understand the underlying motivations, because they lack logic. Hopefully you can fill me in on the logic.

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

Both of these sentences are demonstrably false.

That seems to be the gist of the argument that your side continually makes. So I never had any doubt you would believe that. I cannot help the fact that you believe something that is not true.

But, both of your sentences were demonstrably false.

First, you are not treated the same as a gay person when it comes to marriage; you are allowed to marry the person you wish, and gays are not.

Second, marriage has not always been between a man and a woman. This is a common misconception held by your side. In fact, there are several examples of legally recognized same-sex couplings in ancient China, Japan, Greece, and Africa as well as Europe and Indonesia. Marriage has not always been between a man and a woman.

You ought to try doing even the slightest bit of research before making comments like this.

Quote:

I have no inherent power to keep anyone from having a happy life. Nor do we have the power to make someone's life happy. Your life is happy if you make it happy. I am simply voicing a desire that marriage be exactly what it is, the union of a man and a wife. If someone claims there life is unhappy because of my belief, then they have problems.

Oh really? Let us say then that I decided that clowns should not be able to marry. Not for any good reason, but simply b/c I don't like clowns and don't want to live in a society in which they can marry.

So I push and work and strive and vote in order to not only remove your right to marry, but to dissolve your pre-existing marriage if I can. And let's say I am successful. Are you going to tell me that I have no power to make your life happy or unhappy? My guess would be no.

You are claiming a Tautology as a fact - you wish for 'marriage to be exactly what it is.' That is a meaningless statement, b/c it relies on your interpretation of what marriage is as some sort of Absolute one. I don't think you have the right to make absolute definitions of social structures, as if said declaration was the end of the argument.

Most of all, I want you to explain, in depth, what your motivations are for denying happiness to others. WHY do you wish to have no gays married in society? How is that preferable to you? How does it affect you personally if they do marry? These are the important questions on this topic, and they go unanswered by you or anyone on your side.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

You look meanings of words up in a dictionary and all of them describe it basically the same unless it's been dredged up from mothballs and belonged to grandfather:

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 <the marriage of painting and poetry " J. T. Shawcross>

"When two people are under the influence of the most violent, most insane, most delusive, and most transient of passions, they are required to swear that they will remain in that excited, abnormal, and exhausting condition until death do them part." [G.B. Shaw]

0 Replies

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

Quote:
This is not true. See Ancient Rome, See Druids, See Native Americans, and other examples of ancient cultures. Let it be a lesson on using absolute language.

I stand corrected. There have been societies that have at one time or another seen fit to recognize gay marriages. There have also been societies that have recognized child sacrifice, polygamy, cannibalism and what not. This in and of itself does not make it right. (Don't misunderstand, I am not equating gay marriage to child sacrifice or cannibalism. Just making a point.)

Minus the canibal part (unless I'm not doing my research these days), biblical mythology is pretty well ornamented with killing children in the name of god and having lots and lots of wives.

Neither is of relevance however when discussing giving gays rights.

CoastalRat wrote:

Quote:
I don't think this is a problem. If gays didn't think that marriage had meaning, they wouldn't be fighting so hard for it. To many both gay and straight, to say that you are married means love and commitment.

That is the point. Marriage does have meaning. It is a covenant between a man and a woman.

Says who?

Says the same people that the divorced can't remarry perhaps?

CoastalRat wrote:

You are exactly right that all of us have the ability to influence our society for the better or for the worse. I submit that adhereing to the traditional meaning of marriage is for the better.

Not the "traditional" meaning of marriage, YOUR traditional understanding of it.

CoastalRat wrote:

Others think differently. I won't even argue that believing otherwise is not going to spell the end of society as we know it (which I admit some people in this country seem to believe, thus answering your threat question.) I believe it is for the best.

So you think that our society will be more successful without it? How? Specifically. Details.

CoastalRat wrote:

The problem is that we never really know what is for the best until we walk down the opposite path, and even then only after many years. I will probably never know whether I am right in my thinking or you are right in yours. We will both long be dead when historians can make that unbiased observation.

While you figure out if you're right or wrong, you don't have anything to lose. You've got nothing at risk. You're wrong by the way. We often know something is the wrong path without taking it. We do learn the wrong paths by taking them, sure. I think we've been on the wrong path about this for a VERY long time. So long, that it has become regarded as "tradition" at that. Those people that made these judgments on marriage a long time ago in long dead societies, WE ARE their historians.

T
K
O

1 Reply

Etymology of the words (notice it does not mention women)

derived from the Old French word mariage
derived from the Old French word marier
derived from the Latin word maritare (marry, give in marriage)
derived from the Latin word maritus (husband, married man; lover; nuptial; of marriage; married)
derived from the Latin word mas (male; male; masculine, of the male sex)

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

I think our society decided what was write when our founding document declared all men to be equal in rights and stature. It is simply taking humanity a long, long time to come to terms with the implications of this decision, because so much of history has been based in the concept of one group's superiority over another, for perfectly stupid reasons.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

First origin is French and it continues back the the Roman:

Compound Forms/Formes composées
broken marriage nm mariage brisé
by marriage par mariage
civil marriage mariage civil
common-law marriage nm concubinage (Juridique)
dissolution of marriage dissolution de mariage
forced marriage nm mariage forcé
homosexual marriage mariage homosexuel

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Quote:

Oh really? Let us say then that I decided that clowns should not be able to marry. Not for any good reason, but simply b/c I don't like clowns and don't want to live in a society in which they can marry.

Go for it. That's your right.

Quote:

So I push and work and strive and vote in order to not only remove your right to marry, but to dissolve your pre-existing marriage if I can. And let's say I am successful. Are you going to tell me that I have no power to make your life happy or unhappy? My guess would be no.

Your guess would be wrong. You have no power to affect my state of happiness one way or the other. I am happy because it makes no sense to be otherwise. I may wish my circumstance in life was different at times, but that does not affect my happiness.

Quote:

Most of all, I want you to explain, in depth, what your motivations are for denying happiness to others.

I have not the ability to deny happiness to anyone. You are giving me godlike powers that I do not possess. While I understand how you can become confused in granting me this power, I must humbly deny that I have it.

Quote:

WHY do you wish to have no gays married in society?

Asked and answered. I'm really beginning to question your reading comprehension skills my friend.

Quote:

How does it affect you personally if they do marry?

Why do you keep insisting I've not answered questions that I have answered? I will humor you and repeat what I have always stated. It does not personally affect me at all. This answer, like my others, will not change no matter if you ask it 1,000 times.

Quote:

These are the important questions on this topic, and they go unanswered by you or anyone on your side.

No they don't. You just refuse to accept the answers because you disagree with them. That is a normal human response that we must all strive to overcome.

1 Reply

@CoastalRat,

Quote:

Quote:

Quote:

WHY do you wish to have no gays married in society?

Asked and answered. I'm really beginning to question your reading comprehension skills my friend.

No, you haven't answered this. You haven't given the underlying reason why you think it would be better to keep gays from marrying, nor have you detailed what harm would be done to society if they were allowed to.

You have merely stated that you would prefer a society in which they wouldn't. You haven't explained why you would prefer such a society at all. You keep circling around to the same non-answers every time one of us asks the question.

What is the underlying reason you would prefer a society in which gays could not marry? Please don't appeal to tradition (ie, 'that's the way it's always been done), which is a Logical Fallacy; or appeal to Authority (God wants it that way), which would be another logical fallacy; but explain using logic and plain words.

If you feel you've already done this, fine; humor me and write two clear and incisive sentences which specifically detail both the harm that gay marriage would do to society and the reason you personally would prefer to keep it down. I won't ask again, if you will do this.

As for the happiness issue, I have a difficult time believing that your state of happiness is unaffected by the events of the world around you. Unless we are using a different definition of happiness, it has not been my experience that this is the way humans operate. I can understand maintaining an overall positive outlook in the face of adversity, but it seems foolish to me to claim that nothing could make you unhappy at all, because you have decided to be happy, and that's that. Injustices done to you or your family, I have little doubt, would cause unhappiness in your life, no matter what you claim on an internet message board.

Cycloptichorn

0 Replies

@CoastalRat,

CoastalRat wrote:

Never said it did. Again, based on Cy's and Debra's accusations, I decided to talk to her about it. Chalk it up to wanting to find out if she thought I was a bigot for believing differently than she does. We had an interesting chat and she assured me that while she wished I felt differently, she did not think I was in anyway bigoted. That's good enough for me. I only brought the conversation up to make a point.

You are fooling yourself, CoastalRat. In your previous post, you admitted that your friend believes that you are "closed minded." See your statement:

"She does believe that I am a bit close-minded when it comes to gay marriage since she would like to marry her partner and believes that right should be available to her. But she tells me she understands why I disagree and respects that opinion."

The only thing you have established is that your friend is tolerant and respectful of your "christian beliefs," but you do not extend to her the same tolerance and respect. In your friend's words, you are CLOSE-MINDED.

Your lesbian friend wants to marry her partner of 15 years. Your friend believes that right to marry her partner should be available to her. You disagree. You believe that homosexual relationships are immoral. You stated, based on your "christian beliefs," you will fight to prevent her from exercising the right to marry her partner of 15 years. You don't want to live in a society that allows gay people to marry the same-sex persons of their choice. Accordingly, due to your moral intolerance of your friend's choice of a marriage partner, you will fight to abuse the power of the state to IMPOSE your morals on her. You will fight to abuse the power of the state to prevent her from exercising her right to marry the person of her choice. You are advocating societal and governmental OPPRESSION of your "friend."

You need to learn the meaning of the words BIGOT and BIGOTRY:

big.ot [hypocrite, bigot]: one obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.

big.ot.ry: the state of mind of a bigot; also: behavior or beliefs ensuing from such a state of mind.

Those words describe YOU and what YOU'RE doing to your "friend."

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I think our society decided what was write when our founding document declared all men to be equal in rights and stature. It is simply taking humanity a long, long time to come to terms with the implications of this decision, because so much of history has been based in the concept of one group's superiority over another, for perfectly stupid reasons.

Cycloptichorn

Right on! This is exactly why these words from Lawrence v. Texas ought to resonate loudly throughout our society:

"Had those who drew and ratified the Due Process Clauses of the Fifth Amendment or the Fourteenth Amendment known the components of liberty in its manifold possibilities, they might have been more specific. They did not presume to have this insight. They knew times can blind us to certain truths and later generations can see that laws once thought necessary and proper in fact serve only to oppress. As the Constitution endures, persons in every generation can invoke its principles in their own search for greater freedom."

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/02-102.ZO.html

0 Replies

@Debra Law,

Debra Law wrote:

CoastalRat wrote:
Never said it did. Again, based on Cy's and Debra's accusations, I decided to talk to her about it. Chalk it up to wanting to find out if she thought I was a bigot for believing differently than she does. We had an interesting chat and she assured me that while she wished I felt differently, she did not think I was in anyway bigoted. That's good enough for me. I only brought the conversation up to make a point.

You are fooling yourself, CoastalRat. In your previous post, you admitted that your friend believes that you are "closed minded." See your statement:

"She does believe that I am a bit close-minded when it comes to gay marriage since she would like to marry her partner and believes that right should be available to her. But she tells me she understands why I disagree and respects that opinion."

The only thing you have established is that your friend is tolerant and respectful of your "christian beliefs," but you do not extend to her the same tolerance and respect. In your friend's words, you are CLOSE-MINDED.

Your lesbian friend wants to marry her partner of 15 years. Your friend believes that right to marry her partner should be available to her. You disagree. You believe that homosexual relationships are immoral. You stated, based on your "christian beliefs," you will fight to prevent her from exercising the right to marry her partner of 15 years. You don't want to live in a society that allows gay people to marry the same-sex persons of their choice. Accordingly, due to your moral intolerance of your friend's choice of a marriage partner, you will fight to abuse the power of the state to IMPOSE your morals on her. You will fight to abuse the power of the state to prevent her from exercising her right to marry the person of her choice. You are advocating societal and governmental OPPRESSION of your "friend."

You need to learn the meaning of the words BIGOT and BIGOTRY:

big.ot [hypocrite, bigot]: one obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his own church, party, belief, or opinion.

big.ot.ry: the state of mind of a bigot; also: behavior or beliefs ensuing from such a state of mind.

Those words describe YOU and what YOU'RE doing to your "friend."

See also:

close-mind·ed (klsmndd, klz-) or closed-mind·ed (klzd-)
adj.

Intolerant of the beliefs and opinions of others; stubbornly unreceptive to new ideas.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/close-minded

0 Replies

Well, now that Debbie has spoken up, we now know that cycloTKO are bigots just like they accuse everyone else of being. Yay! We can be one big happy bigoted family. So, what do you bigots have to say now?

2 Replies

@McGentrix,

McGentrix wrote:

Well, now that Debbie has spoken up, we now know that cycloTKO are bigots just like they accuse everyone else of being. Yay! We can be one big happy bigoted family. So, what do you bigots have to say now?

Didn't you just speak?

0 Replies

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know