Dumping gay marriage prop in California is getting intense

[Alcon]

The latest Field Poll shows some drastic tightening, from 55-38 no (which was almost certainly an outlier) to 49-44.  This race is going to rattle my nerves more than any other one next Tuesday.  I'm getting pass vibes.  Gay marriage this is an actual Bradley Effect, or Brad Effect, or whatever.  bah.

Don't disappoint me, California!

[Alcon]

The latest Field Poll shows some drastic tightening, from 55-38 no (which was almost certainly an outlier) to 49-44.  This race is going to rattle my nerves more than any other one next Tuesday.  I'm getting pass vibes.  Gay marriage this is an actual Bradley Effect, or Brad Effect, or whatever.  bah.

Don't disappoint me, California!

Didn't the Field Poll in 2000 underestimate the proposition's support by like 10% or so?

I have no idea, but despite a healthy Yes campaign, I also doubt this thing has swung 13 points in a month.  Initiatives are so hard to poll that I'm not sure comparing it to 2000 (unless it had super-similar wording) is that worthwhile.

But I have trouble seeing 54-46...

[Alcon]

Massive protests at UC San Diego today.

Well welcome to the world of democracy.

The people have already spoken.

These loser protesters are not happy with the outcome, so now they think by their irrational and childish behaviior they can subvert the will of the people.

To the protesters, shut up and go home.   

Is it any more fair that you are blanket-stereotyping them as "irrational" and "childish" than they are blanket-stereotyping gay marriage opponents as bigots?

Peaceful demonstrations may not do so much, but they are an integral part of our democracy.  Many of these are decent people.  You should not call them all "losers."  You're right that some of them are jerks.  But don't be a hypocrite about this.

[Alcon]

Demonstrations may be an integral part of our democracy, as you say, however, the time to demonstrate is before the people have spoken.

Once the people have spoken, and the people of California (as well as two other states on this issue, in the 2008 election, loud and clear banning gay marriage), then after the people have spoken, the will of the people must be respected, not derided.

After the people have spoken, it is up to those who believe in democracy to accept the result.  Evidently, these protesters do not believe in democracy, therefore, they are protesting the expressed will of the people.  If they truly believed in democracy, they would accept the results, and move on.

I did not support Barack Obama for President, but he won a free election.  I now support him as President, because the people have spoken, and he won the election.  I am not running around protesting the fact that he won the election.  Unlike these protesters, I accept the expressed will of the people.

Considering that there is the possibility of an eventual re-vote, protesting after-the-fact does not seem objectionable to me.  If there were a law that restricted your right to practice your religion, for instance, would you object to people protesting it after the "will of the people" was expressed?

Barack Obama, by the way, opposes same sex marriage.

Which is a shame, as far as I'm concerned.

I oppose same sex marriage, and I don't care who knows it.  I do, however, support extending full legal rights and financial benefits to same sex couples that heterosexual couples have.

Same sex couples do not have a right, as they put it, to be married.

Marriage is a privilege, not a right, a privilege enjoyed by one man and one woman.

The truth is that the radical gay movement has hijacked the civil rights movement, and are trying to manipulate it to achieve their own self serving agenda. 

If you would like to actually debate this with me instead of providing talking points, I would be happy to.  Would you like to?  This is an issue I feel strongly about too, but just reasserting our positions in different wording is going to do nothing.

[Alcon]

Kind of difficult when it doesn't exist.

Surprisingly untrue, depending on the area.  Black churches in rapidly-gentrifying areas, some of which exist in L.A., oftentimes take accepting stances on gay rights.

[Alcon]

Well, that's a fair answer, but say there is something that you felt morally passionate about yet was not constitutionally protected.  You saw it trampled upon.  You would still object to peaceful protest in its honor, a show of solidarity and eventual potential revival for the cause?

I can understand disagreeing with those who protest the rights of Californians to make such a decision.  But if that's not the implication, what's the harm?

Thank you for the invitation, however, what's to debate?  We clearly disagree on this issue, and will not convince the other otherwise.  But I fully respect your right to your views, and think no less of you as an individual because you have these firmly held views in this matter.

You should respect me less if I firmly hold my views in light of a superior argument.  That is, I hope, the point of such of a debate.  It seems a lot more fruitful to just saying what we believe.  There is no honor in foolish consistency, or whatever some dead guy said.

[Alcon]

Thank you for the invitation, however, what's to debate?  We clearly disagree on this issue, and will not convince the other otherwise.  But I fully respect your right to your views, and think no less of you as an individual because you have these firmly held views in this matter.

You should respect me less if I firmly hold my views in light of a superior argument.  That is, I hope, the point of such of a debate.  It seems a lot more fruitful to just saying what we believe.  There is no honor in foolish consistency, or whatever some dead guy said.

     The problem with that is that a debate is fruitless unless the two people debating share a fair amount of common ground already. CARL & I tried to debate the matter, but we were unable to convince each other simply because we held completely different attitudes towards the question of how it should be decided who can marry.

I'm a little more hopeful when it comes to people who are not CARL. 

Glad I live in SC on these types of issues and not CA.

I would be upset if Prop 8 gets over turned in a way.

South Carolina does not have sham marriages?

[Alcon]

The examples you are using are, to be polite, ridiculous, in relation to the same sex marriage issue.

Obviously I fully support racial equality and obviously I fully support minority rights.

I really wish proponents of same sex marriage would stop equating same sex marriage with minority rights or with racial equality.

It is like comparing apples and oranges.

Extending marriage to same sex couples is nothing at all like extending the vote to blacks, for example.  Voting is a right.  Marriage is not a right, nor has it ever been meant to be a right in the sense that voting is a right.  Marriage is an institution, a union of one man and one woman.  The same sex marriage issue  has been exploited by the radical gay movement  and has been used as a political football by them.

Let me be clear, same sex marriage has nothing at all to do with minority rights or with equality.

Miscegenation laws, then?  What about that?  It's not a right, after all.  Would that morally justify laws against that?

The reason you get so many comparisons is that many supporters of gay marriage see the differentiation between minority rights and gay rights as tenuous.  You're entitled to disagree.  But there is, essentially, a logically consistent argument for almost everything.  The fact that you can point to a few distinctions doesn't necessarily mean that the parallels are wholly invalid.  As I'm sure you're aware, advocates for anti-miscegenation laws probably did roughly the same thing.  (I'm not going for guilt by association there, so please don't assume I am.)

I don't really think marriage is a right, per se, but this offends my moral sense for other reasons...

[Alcon]

Clearly, there can be no justification for anti-miscegenation laws, morally or otherwise.  But anti-miscegenation laws were based on race, whereas, obviously, anti-same sex marriage legislation or initiatives, if you want to call them that, are not based on race, nor are they based on minority rights.   

So I do not agree that same sex marriage and anti-miscegenation laws are related, tenuously or otherwise.

The gay movement is always trying to relate same sex marriage to racial or minority causes of the past, but the relationship is simply not realistic and is certainly not accurate. 

You didn't really answer my question.  Here are some of the parallels:

1. Anti-miscegenation laws allowed everyone to do the same thing:  Marry someone of their own race.

2. They were oftentimes supported with Biblical quotations.

3. It was argued that eliminating them would destroy the tradition and sanctity of Biblical marriage.

4. It was considered to be against tradition, moral family values, etc.

What is "tenuous" about that all?  There are folks who would have supported those laws using the exact same logic you're using now to oppose gay marriage.  Are you entirely so sure that it's not your differentiations that are "tenuous"?  I think it's impressive that almost all folks who see opposing gay marriage as a black-and-white issue can simultaneously be on the polar opposite side of the miscegenation issue (at least in retrospect) despite the abundant parallels.

[Alcon]

You point out some interesting facts and details regarding these archaic laws of the past, and I see where you are going with this line of thought, biblical quotations, sanctity of marriage.

Nevertheless, the basis of anti-miscegenation laws was race, whereas the basis of same sex marriage has nothing at all to do with race.

I do not draw any pertinent parallels between these old laws and same sex marriage. 

The only significant differentiation you've made is that race and sexual orientation are different things.  You've failed to explain why that distinction makes one OK, and the other abhorrent.  I'm going to venture a presumption here:  You may personally feel that homosexuality is a moral wrong.  Correct me if I'm wrong; that's just the only distinction in your argument I've seen so far.

But what if, like many in our society, you did not feel that way?  Then, you would have no distinction left -- for all intents and purposes, you would be doing something functionally equivalent to the anti-miscegenation laws that I imagine you find abhorrent.  These are the very same miscegenation laws that, decades ago, were lauded by decent, well-meaning Christian people as traditional, value-based and Bible-supported.

You're wondering why people are in the streets?  That's why.  I'm sure you can understand that.

[Alcon]

Alcon, you continue to compare issues of race to issues of sexual orientation.  One does not choose their race.  One does choose their sexual orientation.  Sexual orientation is a lifestyle.  I know some do not believe that sexual orientation is a choice, rather something they were born with, however, that is a whole other issue, which I will not be getting into, at all.

There is absolutely no contradiction in condemning race related injustices from another era, while at the same time defending marriage as the union of one man and one woman.

Just because these laws derived from race from another generation were enacted and were not justiafiable has no bearing whatsoever on the fact that same sex marriage is not justifiable.

If these protesters have a problem with Christian beliefs and biblical teachings, that is to their detrement.  The reason these protesters are in the streets, quite frankly, is because they believe the whole country should cow tow to their agenda.

Yes, I did continue to compare the two, because until now, you hadn't made a distinction other than that discriminating based on race is bad and sexual orientation is OK.  Now you've made a distinction.  I think it's a weak one, but we'll get to that.

I will point out, though:  In my parallels, "it isn't a choice" would hardly pacify proponents of miscegenation laws.  Every parallel I made would still be valid.  You could ask opponents of miscegenation laws, and they would say, "so what if it isn't a choice?  That's what the Bible and tradition says."  Not saying that makes you as bad.  I think that position and yours are both immoral, but I'm making a larger point about the validity of parallels.

I don't personally agree that homosexuality is a choice, but if it were scientifically proven to not be, would you support gay marriage?  After all, there is nothing in the Bible that says, "homosexuality is a lifestyle choice."  So, what leads you to believe that it is?  And once you have "it's a choice" removed from your differentiation, what does that leave you with?  Anti-miscegenation activists sure had their internally consistent reasons, too.  The only reason it's hard to be an apologist for anti-miscegenation laws right now is because society has deemed them unacceptable.

In either case, I was trying to present you the reason why people (including me) feel great moral offense at the issue.  Put yourself in our shoes.  Assume for a moment it is a mix of environmental and genetic effects, because I don't think that's a remotely unreasonable conclusion.  With that consideration, to us there is no moral difference between this and the anti-miscegenation laws.  Which makes it not hijacking, as you claim, but the highlighting of an analogous issue, from our perspective.

And, unless you think that believing that homosexuality probably isn't a choice, is a ludicrous position (why?), I think you should feel some degree of human empathy for that -- even if you disagree with it.

[Alcon]

CARL, would you like to provide foundation for your supposition?

/seppuku

[Alcon]

CARL,

I didn't necessarily claim it's intrinsic, but what is your evidence that it is a "lifestyle choice"?  Being that most psychological study has shown sexual orientation as being a product of environment/nurture at best, I think the burden here is on you.

I mean, I'm not sure being straight was intrinsic for me, but I certainly didn't actively pick it.  Maybe your adolescence was a lot more, uh, tempting than mine, or something.

[Alcon]

If it is genetic and their were a test to prove that would you support abortions if the women did it for that reason? I would still say HELL NO of course, but just curious as to what the pro-infanticide folks think.

I don't understand why we're bringing abortion into this topic, other than maybe to play Moral One-Up or something?

[Alcon]

CARL, can you point out where I challenged that heterosexuality was part of the human race's survival mechanism?

You've also now changed your assertion from "lifestyle choice" to "environmentally caused."  Since the relevant debate was that race is not a choice, while homosexuality is, "environmentally caused" does not sufficiently back up Winfield's point.

Finally, are you asserting that the only reason homosexuals exist is because they're heterosexuals who are just desperate for sex?  And you reach this conclusion because sexually-deprived prisoners may engage in homosexual sex acts?

Someone brought up the silly notion that homosexuality was genetic.

I don't see what that has to do with your comment, and again, the debate is not "genetic" but "choice or not."  Winfield claimed that it was not comparable to racial rights because homosexuality is a "lifestyle choice."

[Alcon]

CARL,

I see what's going on.  We're debating two parallel issues, which was unapparent of your mis-phrasing.  I was responding to Winfield, who argued:

Alcon, you continue to compare issues of race to issues of sexual orientation.  One does not choose their race.  One does choose their sexual orientation.  Sexual orientation is a lifestyle.  I know some do not believe that sexual orientation is a choice, rather something they were born with, however, that is a whole other issue, which I will not be getting into, at all.

...a statement that, for some reason, he apparently refuses to substantiate, even though it's central the moral distinction he's forwarding.

It appeared that you agreed with him because you echoed his exact phrasing:

Once again, Alcon indulges in presumption.

There is a difference between intrinsic characteristics and choices of 'lifestyle.'

I see now that you are backing up on your previous statements.  However, your contributions are now not relevant responses to the points I was making to Winfield.  He was arguing choice; you are arguing genetics.

Third, you really twist things out of shape.  I pointed out (as evidence that homosexuality is NOT intrinsic)  that the rate of homosexual acts in prison is higher than among the general population.  No reasonable person (I guess that excludes Alcon) would try to interpret that as an assertion that all homosexuals acts are exclusively or primarily a result of imprisonment.

My question was, and I'll repeat it:  Why did you bring up the higher rates of homosexual sex acts among prisoners?  What were you trying to imply?

I was asking you what you meant, which you failed to answer, not dictating to you what you meant.  If I had been dictating what you were implying, the only way I could "twist [it] out of shape," it would not have been in the form of a non-rhetorical question.

[Alcon]

Alcon,

While you are often devious, an ignorant of essential points, I have never alledged you are stupid.

I don't know how to dumb it down any further,

The rate of homosexual acts is dependent upon environmental factors, not intrinsic orientation.

The example I cited is classic.

Nothing in my post indicated any confusion about what you were arguing, or any desire for clarification.  The only confusion, which has been resolved, resulted because you used "lifestyle choice" when you apparently meant neither "lifestyle" nor "choice."  You backtracked, which made your comments irrelevant to the exchange I was having with Winfield.

I'm not sure I agree that your example is a particularly good one (I don't think sexual orientation identity and sexual arousal are really the same thing, and neither do most people in fields related to psychology of sexuality, but whatever) but it doesn't contradict anything I've said.

I'm glad that you find me devious, by the way.  That's so cool.

[Alcon]

Alcon, clearly the reason I did not choose to elaborate on sexual orientation and lifestyle, was because I did not want this discussion about same sex marriage to get sidetracked into a protracted discussion about born gay, chose gay, etc.

My instincts proved to be correct, as that is exactly what has happened.

But you've said it's the foundation of how you defend the morality of your position.  It's not a sidetrack.  You said that the anti-miscegenation laws were unacceptable because race is not a choice, but sexual orientation is.

The abortion thing certainly was a distraction, but let's get this thing back on the rails.

[Alcon]

Whether one chooses the gay life style, or, in the view of some, whether one comes to the conclusion that they are gay, then they should be prepared to accept the realities that go along with the gay life style, one of those realities being that gay marriage is not a legal entity in 48 of the 50 states.

Quit crying about it, and live with it.

Just be happy that in some jurisdictions gays can be granted civil unions, with the same legal and financial rights afforded to opposite sex marriages.

The entire nation should not have to cow tow to the radical gay agenda.

Why are you soapboxing instead of responding to my unaddressed questions about the internal consistency of your moral construct?

You got real offended that I compared your anti-gay marriage views to anti-miscegenation views.  But you seem to be totally unable to provide a practical distinction, beyond that one is race and one is sexual orientation -- which, being arbitrary and undefined, is no real distinction.

You said the difference is choice, but now you seem to be backtracking on it.  Apparently, even if it isn't a choice, we should "stop crying about it."  You're back to providing no meaningful distinction.  Just, it almost seems to me, "get over your beliefs, and stop questioning mine."  And you wonder why gay marriage supporters are seeing parallels.  Could it be because you (and others) are failing to offer meaningful distinctions?  Could it be because you've offered no reason to believe you wouldn't have supported anti-miscegenation laws had you been of a different generation?

By the way -- I hope you, as a religious person, do not really believe that we should "stop crying about" our moral beliefs.  I'm not demanding you abandon your moral beliefs, let alone taunting and demeaning them.  Do I not deserve the same respect?

[Alcon]

I actually think CARL's position is totally reasonable and does not require twisting oneself into a pretzel just to make the moral underpinning cogent.

I'll make three points though:

1. I'd vastly prefer civil unions for all, regardless of child-rearing intent.  I think the idea of using government as an agent to judge who is, and isn't going to have children, is bureaucracy waiting to happen.  It just seems like a "more government" solution for something where there's an equally reasonable "less government" fix.

2. I don't see what stops the potential for gay adoption here qualifying for marriage (maybe a side debate, one I'd be happy to engage you in on the side CARL, but I do want to continue with Winfield in this topic)

3. I don't really know many gay folks who support gay marriage to spite anti-gay heterosexuals ("in-your-face").  Some definitely support it because they feel its an implicit statement that their relationship is inferior, certainly, but that's virtually the opposite of spite to me.  Some are spiteful, but that seems to be a pretty common ugly human tendency whenever someone feels wronged.

[Alcon]

And Alcon, please get off your soap box, and don't give me this sob story about taunting and demeaning anyone's beliefs.  That has always been something I will not tolerate.  My reference to quit crying about it was obviously to the specific fact that same sex marriages are not legal in 48 of the 50 states.  I respect anyone's right to lead their life the way they see fit.    I think nothing less of them as a person if they are gay.  I do not agree with their chosen lifestyle, but I respect their right to lead their life in the way they have chosen, providing they do not attempt to impose their lifestyle on others.

But you're telling people to "stop crying about" sincere moral beliefs.  How is that anything but a schoolyard taunt?  You resented it a lot when people mocked Mormon religious beliefs a few months ago.

Now, you're essentially telling me to "stop crying about" it when I feel like mine are being stomped on.  why?

You seem confused.  You seem to be totally incapable of distinguishing the difference between race and sexual orientation.  Please stop making them interchangeable.  They are not.  They are as distinct as night and day.  

OK.  Basically, you're in a situation where you're trying to differentiate your position on gay marriage (a clear-cut no to you) and inter-racial (a clear-cut yes)

You keep repeating that one is race, and one is sexual orientation.  That is a difference.  But unless you can establish a contrasting quality involved beyond that, it's a meaningless one.  Choice is a contrasting quality, too, but you have to establish its validity.  So, in sum, that means you have to establish three things, as anyone would in this circumstance.  They are:

1. That the contrast (choice) is meaningful to the moral decision, enough to justify the difference in standard between the two situations;

2. That there is a justification (if the contrast alone does not provide one, as it does not in this case) for the moral decision;

3. And that there is, in fact, a difference in the contrast (choice) here.

Examples (skip unless the above was unclear):

- Without #1, you reach absurdity.  You can just establish an arbitrary difference: "it's OK to hate Asians because they're shorter"

- Without #2 you do too.  You can establish a meaningful difference, but if there's no logical reason for one to be wrong, what's the point?  E.g., "it's a choice to square dance, so we should ban it"

- Without #3, you could make a claim with no basis.  E.g., "being black is a choice, and on that basis and the fact that they're more likely to be criminals, racism is OK"

Not equating the positions -- I'm just showing why all three elements are necessary to a logical construct.

You have #1 and #2.  Yet you are refusing to substantiate it or enter a scientific debate on #3, for some reason.  Are you so familiar with the existing scientific study that you could never change your mind?  Because I'm certainly open to changing my mind on #3, if the evidence really does disagree.

Why aren't you?

[Alcon]

Lunar muses if the desire for interracial relations could also be adequately described as a lifestyle choice.

Y'know, I spend like 15-20 minutes thinking through to make sure my posits are logically consistent...and I don't think of that even once.

the human brain is a funny thing.

or maybe mine is just unusually dense.

[Alcon]

OK, beyond all the sound and fury, signifying nothing, why do we care we about the nomenclature of gay legal relationships, inasmuch as civil unions attend all the legal rights and duties as marriage, except with respect to social security under Federal law?  Is it the appelation, the appelation, is the thing, which is the ultimate trump card, and are we just jacking off about this?

I fully admit that it's nomenclature to me.  In practical terms I'd never turn down the opportunity for a civil union pass, maybe probably over gay marriage, because I think that's more sustainable for this generation.  But I do give the nomenclature more import than it deserves.  I guess it puts me in the funny position of being philosophically "militant"

[Alcon]

Another good point:  Why do we ban incestuous marriages in the first place?  Unless the answer to that question also applies to gay marriage, the slippery slope isn't really greased, if you know what I mean. 

Yes, considering gay marriage could make people question their belief on that kind of thing.  But it's not like accepting gay marriage brings us any closer to accepting "incest marriage is OK" arguments than straight marriage does.  The only thing gay marriage and incestuous marriage share, that straight marriage doesn't, is tradition.  And, again, harkening back to miscegenation laws, obviously removing the "tradition" there didn't seriously bring incestuous marriage onto the horizon.

It's not like it's conceding a point in the anti-incest argue, other than "tradition can be wrong sometimes."  Which the elimination of anti-miscegenation laws already conceded...

[Alcon]

Let me repeat a more plausible example.  On what basis do we ban plural marriages (accepted throughout much of the world today, and in history) if we accept 'gay marriage.'

I think this is the best slippery-slope argument, much better than "people could marry their dogs!"  It's also part of why I think the government should get out of the marriage business.  De facto plural marriages obviously already exist in spades, so I'm not sure the arguments that it would encourage the practice (and thereby abuse or something) are especially valid.  I don't really have moral issues with it, if it's consenting adults.

My main qualms are in the potential for contract abuse, and in this situation I know little of the legal circumstances.  I know others have more meaningful definitions of "marriage."  My idea of "marriage" is certainly between two people.  This is a lot of the reason I support getting government out of definitions it doesn't need to define.