Prop 8 Overturned!!

I don't know what you meant by the quote above. But in general I hear you saying if the word "marriage" had not been thrown in your face you would be less hostile. Is that correct?
If so, I can agree.

(I deleted a post due to some pretty sloppy writing on my part. I redid it).

I mean that until I am satisfied that gay unions do not throw gender confusion into the collective, and that kids raised in gay unions do fine, then I am not willing to sanctify these unions as marriage. Only now are we beginning to get studies of what happens when kids are raised in gay union for all of their childhood, it is too early to move on gay marriage. Gay unions with all of the rights of marriage but not marriage is better, because it would be easier to back track. Altogether I think that we have moved too fast, but I am on board the "marriage in everything but name" movement out of willingness to compromise.

hawk, You're confused! Words such as marriage, and how gays raise their natural or adopted children is no worse or better than heterosexually conceived children. Do you wish to do away with that word for heterosexuals too? How about incest from heterosexual couples?

You're confusing words with real life situations.

Sanctification is the difference. What you are saying is that a Saint was the same man before the Church made him a saint as he was after, and I agree, but the level of respect and importance that his life represents is not the same. I am all for giving gays the right to do everything that they want to do, everything that hetros can do, but I am not willing to say that their unions of commitment are worthy of the same level of importance and respect that hetro unions are afforded in Marriage. Maybe later. The gay claim that their rights and freedoms are infringed upon if they are awarded civil unions with all of the rights of marriage but not married is a crock. It is somewhat alarming that they have gotten away with such an obviously false claim. What they are demanding by being married is to be told by the collective that they are liked and respected as much as hetros, but individuals through the collective are in charge of their opinions and feelings, not the state. You can not use the law to make people like or respect you. To attempt to use the law this way diminishes the law.

If you think that good government is about majority opinion should always rule and minorities of no account then you have a point. And the intellect of a 9 year old.

hawk, You need to study our Constitution; you obviously don't understand it. Equal treatment under the laws should mean something to you.

Ya, it means that individuals are treated equally under the law. It does NOT mean that we must treat all activities and beliefs as equal under the law. Homosexuality was until very recently considered a disorder, it is a huge jump from that to saying that homosexuality is just as good as heterosexuality. We might or might not eventually decide that it is, but we have not yet, and the views of the people on such matters can not be ignored by the state or the laws without damaging the state and the laws.

Yeah, can't read the Constitution because he went through the public school system--clearly rule by majority is Constitutional. The queen that overturned Prop 8 obviously hasn't read it, either. Incidently, as a gay man, I can't help but feel sorry for other gay men and women who can't appreciate that legislating from the bench is the quickest way to a totalitarian police state and further degredation of the rights God has bestowed upon us and was given voice in the Constitution. Gimme a break. Certain members of "that" community need to stay out of the cruise bars trolling for sex and instead crack a book and read why this country is the only truly free country in the world--for now.

Only ignorant people declared homosexuality as a "disorder." It's natural; if it weren't so, most animals would not practice it.

Not all activities are legal. Beliefs have no legal constraints; only illegal actions do. There are federal and state laws that restrict some activities. Anyone can have any belief they wish to have; that's not illegal. No one is capable of arresting anyone with a "belief" under federal or state laws. Belief is in the mind of the believer; there is no possible way to know what anyone thinks or believes.

getahobby says:

It's constitutional only if it doesn't violate the Constitution. If it does, it's not legal and cannot be enforced. the judge found Prop. 8 violated the Constitution. That's one function of the federal courts. Not that I, or you, have any legal say in the matter, but I agree with him.

yes, I agree--I certainly didn't mean to imply that majority rule is Constitutional in itself--which of course is what I said. copy that

I was reading back, hawk, to see if there'd been movement on the case and I was curious about something you said. You voice sadness about "losing definitions" of family and marriage... I was wondering: Isn't it enough power in your life to define those things for yourself - does it really diminish your enjoyment of family to know that some kid who wound up living with a grandmother for whatever reason - and a cousin, and grandma's husband or long term lover - calls that loving group of people his family? How does that affect you and your family? If Grandma loves someone else's grandma - and they make a home together, why can't they signify that love and commitment by getting married? Who does it hurt?

I mean - you like to swing sexually...and smoke weed. You are into your freedom. Don't you think it's unsupportable to want to deny the basic human rights of other people? How do you reconcile defending your rights with impugning others'? Made any movement recently with that issue?

Bumpin for Hawk.

No man is an island....there is an interface between personal concepts/definitions and collective concepts/definitions. I was forged in the old way, and I can continue on in the old way mostly ignoring the new collective conceptualizations and definitions, but my kids cant. They much more than I can not escape from the current thinking of a family is what ever people want to say that it is, that their are no standards, and that no one has the right to comment negatively upon how others conduct the construction of their family unit.

Unless people who believe in standards as I do make a stand now when we die our approach and beliefs will die along with us. I think that this would be a travesty, because I believe that the "anything goes libertarian" approach to the basic building block of society (the family) is a road to certain disaster. There is no way that this goes anywhere but the continued breakdown of the family unit, and without the family strong enough to forge well the next generations there will be no way to produce individuals who are strong enough and capable enough to birth the follow on civilization to replace our currently deep into the death cycle civilization.

defining the family is not an individual human right, in fact it is not an individual right at at, it is a matter for the collective. The collective has decided to withdraw any definition for family, has decided to make the term meaningless, which is foolhardy in the extreme. We are like wall street that has lost all understanding of the value of standards and lost all ability to measure risk.

I am not impugning other peoples rights because I claim that others never had the right to define family for themselves in the first place. If we still had standards people could make up their own definitions for family but they would not be taken seriously, their personal choice of definition would have no effect upon others. Re my sexual freedom, I maintain that the state has no right to regulate my sexuality, therefor the laws making vast swatches of sexuality criminal are an abomination, this is however different than saying that the individual has the right to define proper sexuality. I believe that the collective has the right to define proper sexual conduct, and the penalize those who refuse to uphold those standards, but the collective does not have the right to use the state apparatus towards those goals. For damn sure minority players such as the rape feminists do not have the right to take over the state law making apparatus and thus coerce the rest of us into following their directions on proper sexual conduct using our own police and criminal justice system against us.....and they support this effort with our tax money to boot, through the VAWA as well as several other like programs.

The two bolded excerpts seem contradictory. How does the "collective" penalize? Refusing to allow gays to marry is surely the "collective" using government apparatus to enforce their views, yes?

Thank you for taking the time to clarify, btw.

As to what constitutes a family: for you, the requirement is a man, a woman, and children? Are you of the belief that if that man dies - the woman and the children should no longer be considered a family? If she re-marries, are they now a family again - or because he's not the biological father of the children - they wouldn't be rightfully considered a family, in your view?

(I do want you to know I understand your views about criminalizing certain sexual activity.)

depends upong what is ment by regulate...I claim that the collective has no right to write into law regulation and punishment for sexual expression, but that it does have the right to other forms that could be called regulation, such as shunning, condemnation and the like.

Yes, its views on what a marriage is, it is holding a standard still at the moment (pretty much our last standard togo overboard) , that some people will not meet. I dont believe that the government should regulate sex, and as such people can have as much gay sex as they want. This does not mean that to guys or two gals can get married.


It does not matter what my personal view is, because the collective decides what a family is, and we have decided that it means nothing. However, my view is a man and a woman who have children that they are legally responsible for and with whom they have a life long obligation to assist are a family. A couple of any composition with no kids is not a family, gays raising kids are not a family. Step parents with kids that they have not adopted is a gray area for me.


I did not see it before the bump. You are welcome.

Fortunately, we can change our collective mind. That is what is happening with regard to gay marriage.

This Catholic news agency seems to back up your statement DD.


http://www.uscatholic.org/news/2010/10/pew-survey-finds-more-americans-catholics-support-same-sex-marriage

Considering that marriage and the family is already mostly a waste land of destruction it gets a bit silly to try to protect the last standard standing. That, and we have so many other serious problems to deal with that have more immediate negative ramifications that worrying about the state of marriage and the family is not on hardly anyone's top ten list of things that need our attention.