Dumping gay marriage prop in California is getting intense

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Yes, many young people of a more liberal bent do become more conservative as they get older.

People who were socialists in their 20s' suddenly find themselves raising children and paying bills and realise a 65% tax rate doesn't really work.

But this is different - the annecdotal evdience is that people tend to become more economically conservative - but I don't see why they would make a 180 on their social views.

My thinking is - one key problem with this thread is how you actually view this scenario. Personally I see it as a civil right issue - and on that front the youth generally were WAY ahead of the general population on race rights, gender equality etc etc. I don't see why this issue is any different.

Look at the exit polling.
                     Y       N
18-24 (11%) 36% 64%       
25-29 (9%) 41% 59%       
30-39 (17%) 52% 48%

Average of people between 18 and 39 is 57% No.

Curious why is it that sexuality cannot be seen as anything  besides the sexual act? Are you really that dense.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I think Reluctant illustrates the point well.

Obviously is a CHOICE to engage in homosexual Acts - no more than it is for a straight person to CHOOSE to sleep with a person of the opposite sex. If sexuality is only about the Act. But sexuality is about what drives you to want to make those choices, not only who you do it with. 

So you're cheaping all sexualities to lower it to only "get in, get off, get out". 

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

The problem is that STILL the incapability of separating sexuality from sex is continuing.

You can be gay AND celibate you know.

But of course when you approach an issue from a particular standpoint - where there is a "default" person - bit like the concept of original sin. If you are not the way "intended" you chose it. It equally presumes that human beings are not animals like any other on this planet. Of course people of a particular religious bent do believe that man was created in God's image - and given that homosexuals must be a dangerous abberation or defective or doing by choice.

Since I live in the world where religion and biology co-exist, homosexuality is VERY common in the animal kingdom. I don't see why it should be such a shock that humans - being animals - are somehow without this trait.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I doubt much people who get married think they do so for the sake of whatever children they may have.

(If they so, it is much higher now than say, 50 years ago.)

Well, a lot of people (in Britain anyway, I don't know about elsewhere) these days marry after they've had their first child, so it might be a factor in those (just an assumption really).

Ah, but that suggests a response (to me anyway) that is due to convention or an ideal view of marriage itself rather than "we must have a better structure to look after the kids". (Which probably suggests that people who do marry after their first children have on average put more thought into looking after their children then those that don't, ergo it will probably end up being a more stable relationship.)

Probably, yeah. It's also an example of how marriage, as a cultural and social institution, is always changing. You just didn't get that sort of thing fifty years ago.

Which is my point (and that and the whatever marriage "means" to anyone person getting married might "mean" - if it means anything at all, goddamn functionalism - something completely different to another individual. Even if these individuals are the bride and groom.) Thus its stooopid to argue "OMG GAY MARRIAGE TO DESTROY OUR SOCIETY!!1111112" and so on.

EDIT: Why does this thread have 19 pages?

Because it's two sides screeching at the wind?

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I doubt much people who get married think they do so for the sake of whatever children they may have.

(If they so, it is much higher now than say, 50 years ago.)

Well, a lot of people (in Britain anyway, I don't know about elsewhere) these days marry after they've had their first child, so it might be a factor in those (just an assumption really).

Ah, but that suggests a response (to me anyway) that is due to convention or an ideal view of marriage itself rather than "we must have a better structure to look after the kids". (Which probably suggests that people who do marry after their first children have on average put more thought into looking after their children then those that don't, ergo it will probably end up being a more stable relationship.)

Probably, yeah. It's also an example of how marriage, as a cultural and social institution, is always changing. You just didn't get that sort of thing fifty years ago.

Which is my point (and that and the whatever marriage "means" to anyone person getting married might "mean" - if it means anything at all, goddamn functionalism - something completely different to another individual. Even if these individuals are the bride and groom.) Thus its stooopid to argue "OMG GAY MARRIAGE TO DESTROY OUR SOCIETY!!1111112" and so on.

EDIT: Why does this thread have 19 pages?

Because it's two sides screeching at the wind?

And we like that because...?

you've been here how long?

I know I've contributed to this one - but yeah -

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

Because it's two sides screeching at the wind?

Oh, come on. The CARL HAYDEN content is still a minority of the posts, and I think we're getting some good discussion in the rest.

I agree to a certain extent.

Discussion is fine, just as long as no conclusion is expected.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I agree to a certain extent.

Discussion is fine, just as long as no conclusion is expected.

I don't expect anyone to say "oh, you're right." I'm just glad I have an opportunity to talk about the issue in depth and deal with some complex arguments instead of just "it's wrong" and "equality now." It's an issue a lot of people have thought about at a basic level, but not one where different policies and implications have really been hashed out.

Right, good deal.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

You know, for all the "this isn't like civil rights" etc etc

The arguments against gay marriage - weakens the institution, "won't somebody think of the children!!!???" arent' disimilar from the anti black/white marriage laws.

The same arguments about gays in the miltary - were used against blacks in favour of segregation of units. Breaking unit morale...

If it isn't a biblical issue - and your concern is for the institution.... what argument can you give apart from marriage was designed for a man and a woman.... (that would lead to some follow ups)? That suggests that institutional standards cannot change with society - when in fact there have already been marked changes in the nature of the institution.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

I'm not running from anybody and Iam not losing any argument.

You guys are being offensive with your race bating.

*%#(%#!

I'm not "race-baiting."  The only relevance of the racial component is that you find it offensive.  The point is that you DON'T support miscegenation laws, so your argument shouldn't be able to directly support miscegenation laws.  Otherwise, it's obviously not an accurate representation of your beliefs -- or there's an inconsistency.

Do you understand what logical consistency is?

Do you understand why you can't support an argument with something like "it's traditional," make no fundamental secular distinction between gay civil rights and racial rights, and then arbitrarily maintain that racial rights are just different?

It's not race-baiting.  It's taking your philosophical positions and applying that to other situations.  If you think that the result is "race-baiting," your philosophical positions are intellectually inconsistent.

I'm sorry to bold stuff, and I don't mean to condescend, but do you get what we're doing now?

That's because they are different.  You and your pals on the far left want to use the African American civil rights movement as a club against blacks, and others who oppose gay marriages.  You know damn well that marriage was never intended for same sex. Yes back 100 years ago people like my mom and dad wouldn't have been allowed to marry, but it was segregation back then just like alot of things were.  Homosexuals are not being segregated against. The basic premise of marriage has always been between a man and woman from day 1.  I understand fully what you are trying to do.  You want to make the argument of "our case is just like theirs" - NO its not.  Blacks could marry eachother back then.  When I say protect marriage as a socital institution, i really believe that marriage between a man and woman and therefore raising children leads to healthy society. This has been proven, just look at the differences in the white community and black community... whats the common theme?   That's my view and argument of why we should protect the institution of marriage and also no, I'm not running away from the "floodgate" arguments because it actually ties into what I just said.  But the more I have been into this debate and thinking about it... its not really about two men wanting to marry.  Its more about the progressives wanting the victory of secular issues onto the public. I actually admire the debate, but the use of my history and the civil rights movement being used as door buster is pissing me off.   

Disagree or call names as you must.

A few points - I'm going to g through them one by one.

You mistakenly believe that this issue only resides in the realm of concern of the far-left. Ok CA is a pretty bad example, however, yes 78% of 'liberals' voted No, but also 53% of so called moderates - 64% of Democrats and 54% of independents. What REALLY sank this was 85% of conservatives and 82% of Republicans who vote for this. So a good portion of moderate/centreist people went against this - it was only due to the overwheming support from conservatives/Republicans.

Marriage is an interesting issue in itself. I get your point, said ad nauseum, that marriage has always been between a man and a woman. Very often people in the lower-classes rarely got legally married, and up until the middle-ages, those who got married were the wealthy who required such legal protection. Because remember it should come as no surprise that 'marriage' as it is now, became more common during a time when the Church was all-powerful, controlled education, the law, the nobility and the rulers. So to have that relationship acknowledged and protected by the Church became good practical sense. Yes, marriage certainly did exisit before modern Churches, but it was still primarily a legal proceding.

Hmmm, again you wade into the murky waters of marriage/child-rearing. Many straight couples and single parents have raised healthy children without being married, equally married couples have raised some complete screw-ups. You can cite studies up the ya-ya, but equally I can show real evidence that what makes a difference to a child and what kind of person they'll be is the kind of parents they have, not the parent's legal status as a couple.

I notice this term again and again... 'secular'. You seemed earlier to be at pains to say this has nothing to do with the bible or religion... if it isnt.... Why suggest an attack from secular progressives?

This is really the height of paranoia if you see a hidden plot to bring down religion in society. I read this time and time again from people who see this idea as an attack on "traditional values" or "faith". I know people who are gay, and have a great personal faith in the Christian God. Does that religion agree with them... mostly no, but they don't care. You have to be careful in painting all with one brush. Equally I know religious people who wholeheartedly support gay marriage. I've even read suggestions that somehow this will force Churches to marry gay couples against it's will. Nobody is talking about that, but it helps to scare their supporters.

You're free to see this as an attack or a threat or even a War. But from what I see, this really is about gays and lesbians being complete members of society.

[Fmr President & Senator Polnut]

This is the difficult situation that they put themselves in.

OK - Who said that marriage ONLY had to between a man and a woman... who said the institutional could not adapt to changing societies?

A religious answer totally negates any other point - since as you point out, and have many others - it's not about religious marriage. Religious marriage and civil marriage are NOT the same thing. A Church has every right to not marry whomever they like. Remember even only a few years ago many churches wouldn't even marry a divorced person - some still won't. But society changes, the definitions change. A change doesn't have to be a threat.