California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

@Ceili,

Quote:

Marriage is a contract. Nothing more, nothing less...

Marriage is a great deal more than a contract between two people to most people, and always has been. We desire marriage to continue to be more than a contract between to people, and thus tend to resist calls to weaken marriage from its already weakened status.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

A relationship maybe more than a contract, but under the law marriage is a contract. The law doesn't give a damn about the lovey dovey stuff. You can desire all you want, but a duck is a duck is a duck.
If marriage is in a weakened state, it's married people who've done it. Not the law, not homosexuals, you've got nobody to blame but married people who have screwed up the institution.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

Old def "the intended life long commitment of mating between a man and a woman"

Intended new def " the intended life long commitment of mating between any two adults"

Funny, I still read it as being the same - 'a lifelong commitment of mating' because as I said in my original post... this doesn't change the definition of what a marriage is - 'a lifelong commitment of mating'- this just makes what by definition a marriage IS available to more people- instead of just between a man and a woman - it could be between two adults. Just like integrating the schools didn't change the definition of what a school is or does- it just diversified the student body.

Quote:

we always discriminate, we will always discriminate, we should always discriminate. What is missing is an honesty about the way we are, and any debate about what is appropriate discrimination. We are acting immature. We can fool our conscious minds into thinking that we do not discriminate, which drives the activity into the subconscious where we can not work with it, we should cut that out.

Okay - I've said this before but I'll say it again. I definitely think there is a difference in willingness in some people to be discriminating (as an adjective) as opposed to being willing to discriminate (a verb) against people.

If you want to discriminate and be discriminating in terms of your taste in wine or restaurants or partners - yes - fine. But to impose your taste or preferences on others and actively discriminate against people by limiting their rights to pursue their own version of health, security and happiness is wrong. Maybe some people believe it is their right to be discriminating in this way. I don't believe it is my right to discriminate in this way in the same way it is my right to be discriminating in my own personal choice of where I go to eat or who I choose to have sex with or marry.

Quote:

You were not aware that two people who are married have special rights and privileges, both social and legal??

Yes. But the fact that one is married does not make that person any more special than anyone else and doesn't imbue that person with the right to protect what they have from anyone else who wants the same.

You know what - everyone is responsible for the state of their own marriage. I don't think anything in the world can weaken anyone else's marriage except one or both of the two people involved in that specific marriage.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Quote:
Marriage is a contract. Nothing more, nothing less...

Marriage is a great deal more than a contract between two people to most people, and always has been. We desire marriage to continue to be more than a contract between to people, and thus tend to resist calls to weaken marriage from its already weakened status.

Weakened status? Who weakened marriage, homosexuals? No... heteros... Up to this point it is only heterosexuals who have had the right to marry . So heterosexuals have weakened marriage all by themselves... Maybe it is time to add a little competition and see if a few homosexuals can show heteros what monogamy and commitment truly is...

0 Replies

The catholic church already has gay marriage. Aren't most male priests married to Jesus Christ? Isn't the definition of marriage between a woman and a man? If gay marriage were to be made legal the catholic church would implode with all of the priests and nuns same sex marrying. YAY!

We can't have priests and nuns happy and fulfilled in their lives? Who would suffer for the church? (cynical)

Let my people go...

2 Replies

@RexRed,

No. Priests aren't married to Jesus Christ. Not even spiritually. The church leaves that to the ladies.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Only an idiot would not see that changing the definition of marriage would change what marriage is going forward, all marriages.

Then please explain exactly how gay people getting married changes my marriage or yours.

1 Reply

@RexRed,

RexRed wrote:

Let my people go...

clever...

T
K
O

0 Replies

@DrewDad,

Quote:

Then please explain exactly how gay people getting married changes my marriage or yours.

asked and answered: The definition of marriage in the West has always included the part "between one man and one woman". It used to include with God as well and then later with the state but we have dropped those parts. We are being asked to drop this part as well. We don't have to do it, the answer can be "no". The no answer can be enforced, which I would likely recommend. So far it is not clear that the majority would be with me, but this is not known for sure.

In any case we do need to deal with our Judicial system, it has gone rouge and needs to be reformed.

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

You're arguing in circles. "It changes the definition of marriage because the definition of marriage would be changed."

How exactly will it affect my marriage or yours?

Will you no longer be married? Are you afraid people will be confused about how to introduce you and your wife at formal functions? Are you afraid your wife will leave you for her lesbian lover? What?

2 Replies

@DrewDad,

it is none of your business what I think might change in my life. I am a stake holder in the institution of Marriage, I have an interest is such a major change in the definition of marriage and thus the right to object. If I can find a majority for the rejection of the change then I can be part of enforcing the rejection of the asked for change.

as of now the majority view is that gays should not be allowed to have their unions bestowed with the label of marriage, though we do think that they should have almost all or all of the rights of marriage. If this is not good enough for the gays rights promoters then **** them. If the courts continue to go against the majority then we need to fix their wagon as well. We can't allow our courts to go rouge.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

DrewDad wrote:

You're arguing in circles. "It changes the definition of marriage because the definition of marriage would be changed."

How exactly will it affect my marriage or yours?

Will you no longer be married? Are you afraid people will be confused about how to introduce you and your wife at formal functions? Are you afraid your wife will leave you for her lesbian lover? What?

Did he claim that his objection to gay marriage was based on a danger to his marriage? Your question implicitly attributes to him an opinion he has never enunciated.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

He stated it explicitly:

hawkeye10 wrote:

Only an idiot would not see that changing the definition of marriage would change what marriage is going forward, all marriages.

So if it changes "what marriage is", I expect him to be able to say how it changes it.

He can't.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

It is my business, actually. You're discussing continuing to deny a legal right (the right to make a private contract) to a subset of our population.

You need to have a compelling reason to do so. Without a compelling interest, it's nothing but tyranny of the majority.

So, what is your compelling interest in denying gay couples the ability to enter into a marriage contract with each other? It would have to have some material effect on you for you to have a compelling interest.

1 Reply

@DrewDad,

Quote:

So, what is your compelling interest in denying gay couples the ability to enter into a marriage contract with each other? It would have to have some material effect on you for you to have a compelling interest.

That what they want to do is not marriage, so truth telling demands that we don't call it marriage. I call upon the collective to support standards. It is not just a contract between two people, the collective supports marriage in many ways, some of which are financial. We get the right to choose what we support, if we don't support the change in the definition of marriage then the minority is going to need to suck it up and drive on. So long as they gain most of the rights of being married the courts have no justification for claiming the rights are being denied in a way that violates the constitution. This is a case of competing rights, if one side was to get everything that they wanted odds would be that an error has been made. Gays screaming their heads off that this position of the majority is so unfair indicates to me that the majority has it about right. This is in many ways a rerun of the abortion debate, where the majority has decided that abortion should be legal but not especially available and not highly used. The middle way, a fitting compromise.

3 Replies

@hawkeye10,

You have a much larger task of explaining why they must be denied these rights than they do to explain why they deserve these rights.

You don't have a compelling reason to deny them these rights.

You being married makes you a "stockholder" in the institution of marriage? If this was the case, then you would be denying gays the right to buy stock in the institution. No. You aren't a stock holder in a company, you're a customer. You don't own marriage.

T
K
O

1 Reply

@Ceili,

Quote:

"Called to consecrate themselves with undivided heart to the Lord and" things of the Lord "they give themselves entirely to God and men."

Comment: Consecrate here means "marry..." If priests marry God and Jesus is God, then priests marry Jesus too. "they give themselves entirely to God and men." THEY GIVE THEMSELVES? Sounds like marriage to me and isn't the church the bride? Aren't the priests and such "the church"? So a predominately male priestly order is the bride of both patriarchal male dominated father and the son deities as well as the holy spirit.

http://www.romancatholicresources.com/2009/10/why-can-not-catholic-priest-get-married-if-god-created-man-to-be-with-women/

0 Replies

@Diest TKO,

Diest TKO wrote:

You have a much larger task of explaining why they must be denied these rights than they do to explain why they deserve these rights.

You don't have a compelling reason to deny them these rights.

You being married makes you a "stockholder" in the institution of marriage? If this was the case, then you would be denying gays the right to buy stock in the institution. No. You aren't a stock holder in a company, you're a customer. You don't own marriage.

T
K
O

First of all, I object to your use of the word rights. Whether or not marriage is a right for gay people is exactly what the debate is about. It isn't a right except in the minds of people who want gays to be allowed to marry. That is nothing more than your position.

Second of all, you don't know whether or not he has a compelling reason to keep marriage something between a man and a woman. If it's important to him, then he does have a compelling reason from his point of view.

Finally, your implication that he as to prove it must be denied is ludicrous. You can't prove it should be granted. He doesn't have to prove anything beyond the fact that it strikes him as distasteful. Speaking for myself alone, I think marriage is a beautiful thing, because love between a man and a woman is a beautiful thing, and that that type of love - sexual love - between two people of the same sex represents an unpleasant corruption of it. If someone is born with that wiring, I'm sure he can't help it, and I wouldn't ever hold it against him, but I am not obligated to endorse it.

2 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

That what they want to do is not marriage, so truth telling demands that we don't call it marriage.

So... define what marriage is, without reference to gender, in such a way that it excludes homosexuals. Because if there is some fundamental piece of marriage that requires it to be a heterosexual couple, no one has identified it.

From where I sit, marriage is a contract between two people to support each other, and to join their lives together socially and economically.

I fail to see where any of that requires heterosexuality.

0 Replies

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

First of all, I object to your use of the word rights.

The right being discussed is the right to enter into a private marriage contract. A right that is granted to heterosexual couples, but denied to homosexual couples.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Second of all, you don't know whether or not he has a compelling reason to keep marriage something between a man and a woman. If it's important to him, then he does have a compelling reason from his point of view.

It might be his point of view, but whether his point of view has any merit is what is being discussed. If he didn't want his point of view discussed, he shouldn't have brought it up in a public forum.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Finally, your implication that he as to prove it must be denied is ludicrous. You can't prove it should be granted. He doesn't have to prove anything beyond the fact that it strikes him as distasteful.

I don't care if it is distasteful. I care whether it is morally and legally supportable.

Brandon9000 wrote:

Speaking for myself alone, I think marriage is a beautiful thing, because love between a man and a woman is a beautiful thing, and that that type of love - sexual love - between two people of the same sex represents an unpleasant corruption of it.

Er... what's being corrupted? And since when does marriage require love?

I assure you that nothing is corrupting the love, or marriage, between me and my wife.

0 Replies

California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know