Dumping gay marriage prop in California is getting intense

[??????????]

Because it won't be accepted by most Americans NEVER.  You know that, and why keep pushing this upon others?

Because this way works the best :

http://www.mounthopechurch.org/uploads/110908-Press-Release-update-b.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl9ISptDcMA

[Alcon]

Because it won't be accepted by most Americans NEVER.  You know that, and why keep pushing this upon others?

I disagree.  And I don't just say that because I support gay marriage.  I say that because the long-term trends indicate it's true, and the majority of young people do support gay marriage.  Why do you think it will never be accepted?  Why would this trend reserve itself?  It hasn't shown any indication of doing that in other countries, or ours.  That doesn't make the position any more or less right, though.

And how is supporting gay marriage "pushing it upon others"?  Aren't you pushing your views on others by supporting its prohibition?  Using loaded words doesn't really make one especially different from the other.  Any governmental policy is going to be "forced upon" someone.  But I don't support forcing any church to marriage a couple they don't want to.  And, if there's a moral double standard involved (like -- not to beat this drum too much -- with minority racial rights), why should the offense of the majority matter?

[Alcon]

Because it won't be accepted by most Americans NEVER.  You know that, and why keep pushing this upon others?

Because this way works the best :

http://www.mounthopechurch.org/uploads/110908-Press-Release-update-b.pdf

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wl9ISptDcMA

States, do you seriously think we couldn't find examples of vicious homophobia and 'hate crimes'?  Do you think that's the majority of people who support gay marriage there?  If not, why do you keep bringing it up?

I have no interest in demonizing those who oppose gay marriage, since it's a piss-poor substitute for actually discussing the morality involved in the issue.

[Sbane]

The people for gay marriage are missing the point here and are not being considerate of facts.
They are not willing to find common ground, but instead wanting to force this issue.  Like I said before in this post - homosexual marriage will  NEVER BE ACCPECTED.  By forcing this without taking a step back and maybe reevaluate the issue, or finding common ground will not help the case for gay rights. 

The young in California overwhelmingly voted against prop 8 and the only demographic to vote for it was the 65+ crowd. The rest of the electorate was about 50-50. By just looking at this I can guarantee California will have gay marriage within the next 5-10 years, if not earlier. I agree it might take longer in the deep south, but it will happen within 30 years or so.

[Earth]

Because it won't be accepted by most Americans NEVER.  You know that, and why keep pushing this upon others?

And you know this as fact? The fact that prop 8 was so contested, and the support for gay rights are at an all time high tells me they'll be able to gain what they're looking for. And your accusation that I'm "pushing this upon others" is crap. No straight man or woman is effected by gays gaining the right to marry. People get too emotionally wrapped up in this.

[MK]

I believe that civil partnerships open to same-sex couples should be legally recognized, and that the partners  of same-sex should be entitled to the same benefits and protection of the law in all 50 states. 

Thats where I stand and this is only fair.

I do not believe that we should change the definition of marriage to include same-sex couples. My reasons go to the nature of marriage as the societal institution that represents,  and protects the inherently reproductive human relationship.  I believe that if we break this you will open the flood gates and redefine marriage as anything goes, therefore dismantling that societal institution of marriage. 

If the argument is civil rights and the same benefits that hetero- sex couples have, then whats wrong with civil unions?   

[Brittain33]

If the argument is civil rights and the same benefits that hetero- sex couples have, then whats wrong with civil unions?   

This was what I've read about the problems experienced in N.J. with creating a separate-but-equal legal structure. Even if it sounds like a good compromise, it has inherent problems.

https://uselectionatlas.org/FORUM/index.php?topic=86293.msg1822281#msg1822281

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The people for gay marriage are missing the point here and are not being considerate of facts.
They are not willing to find common ground, but instead wanting to force this issue.  Like I said before in this post - homosexual marriage will  NEVER BE ACCPECTED.  By forcing this without taking a step back and maybe reevaluate the issue, or finding common ground will not help the case for gay rights. 

Like Miscegination? Or Abolitionism?

Come on, that arguement makes no logical sense whatsoever.

Other than that, this thread has got 18 pages. Why do topics relating only to Sex and occasionally Drugs get this much attention? (Actually DON'T Answer, because I think I know why already, but if you think I'm wrong then go ahead...)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Civil Partnerships seem to have worked out all right here, for what that's worth (of course I'm totally unaware as to how the Civil Unions in New Jersey have been structured).

[Swing low, sweet chariot. Comin' for to carry me home.]

obviously, I didn't start lying on the first day of my life, but I inherited a sinful nature that predisposed me to sin. 

No, you didn't. You were born free of sin.

I might not have sinned while I was an infant, but that doesn't mean I wasn't born ingrained with a sinful nature:

Psa 51:5 "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."

So, then, we can conclude that we were born with a sinful nature, but we don't sin as infants (as you stated)...but at some point in our early lives, the sinful nature awakens and we become condemned:

Rom 7:9 "Sin sprang to life and I died"

[CARLHAYDEN]

Marriage is a legal institution whose primary purpose is the protection of children who may issue as a consequence of the consummation of the union,

Does marriage protect the children who may be adopted by the couple in that union? How about children conceived through medical means and not actual consummation?

I know what the answer is legally and for most people, even those who oppose same-sex marriage; was wondering if you're going to stand on principle and disagree, or revise your answer.

As I previously noted, should people in a civil union subsequently become parents of minor children, then the relationship should automatically devolve into marriage.  This would be true for adoption as for children conceived through special means.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

obviously, I didn't start lying on the first day of my life, but I inherited a sinful nature that predisposed me to sin. 

No, you didn't. You were born free of sin.

I might not have sinned while I was an infant, but that doesn't mean I wasn't born ingrained with a sinful nature:

Psa 51:5 "Behold, I was shapen in iniquity; and in sin did my mother conceive me."

So, then, we can conclude that we were born with a sinful nature, but we don't sin as infants (as you stated)...but at some point in our early lives, the sinful nature awakens and we become condemned:

Rom 7:9 "Sin sprang to life and I died"

Jmfcst, what you fail to realize is that nobody here cares.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I realize it is hard for you to remember and understand what I have previously posted, so I will try to simplify it for you.

Marriage is a legal institution whose primary purpose is the protection of children who may issue as a consequence of the consummation of the union,

Homosexuals couples cannot naturally conceive children.

I have no problem with adults who wish to have a legal relationship while cohabiting but for whom children are not involved, to have the protection of a 'civil union.'

So, the distinction is quite clear.

OK.  So, let me get this straight:

1. You have a distinction between heterosexual versus homosexual marriage -- procreation -- and that is a fundamental bedrock belief of yours.

2. You have a distinction between heterosexual AND homosexual marriage versus polygamy -- exclusivity (and/or practicality of governmental enforcement being sufficient to not justify limitation) -- but this is analogous to being prejudiced against one race but not another.

um?

And I'll note that you didn't offer any apology for, or recognition of, the fact that you totally misrepresented my clearly-stated opinion.  I mean, I would note it, but I'm not sure you genuinely care.

Alcon,

It is not procreation alone, but rather the legal custody of children which is involved in marriage versus civil union.  In most cases, custody is the result of procreation.  The primary purpose of marriage, as opposed to civil union, is the protection of the rights of children.  Don't know how to make that any plainer.

Second, while I realize that you are in favor of 'gay marriage,' but opposed to plural marriages either because you are bigoted in favor of homosexuals and against plural marriages or because you pragmatically believe that 'gay marriage' can be imposed, but not multiple marriage.  You seem to bounce back and forth in the two positions.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

The idea that marriage has a "primary purpose" is ridiculous and smacks of the worst sort of popular sociology, 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.)

[Alcon]

Alcon,

It is not procreation alone, but rather the legal custody of children which is involved in marriage versus civil union.  In most cases, custody is the result of procreation.  The primary purpose of marriage, as opposed to civil union, is the protection of the rights of children.  Don't know how to make that any plainer.

Which is not really even the historical purpose of marriage, which is economic.  It's just, as far as I can tell, an arbitrary definition you've assigned it.  Which is fine.  But don't think it's any less arbitrary than "two people who love each other and consent."

Second, while I realize that you are in favor of 'gay marriage,' but opposed to plural marriages either because you are bigoted in favor of homosexuals and against plural marriages or because you pragmatically believe that 'gay marriage' can be imposed, but not multiple marriage.  You seem to bounce back and forth in the two positions.

CARL, my friend:

I was just pointing out that you were botching his argument, not endorsing it one way or the other.

I was just pointing out that you were botching his argument, not endorsing it one way or the other.

I was just pointing out that you were botching his argument, not endorsing it one way or the other.

I was just pointing out that you were botching his argument, not endorsing it one way or the other.

I was just pointing out that you were botching his argument, not endorsing it one way or the other.

(Just to make sure you read it)

I personally feel, as I've already said, that government should provide a civil union to any consenting persons.  I think "marriage" should be up to churches, and individuals, not a government bureaucracy.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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).

[CARLHAYDEN]

Marriage is a legal institution whose primary purpose is the protection of children who may issue as a consequence of the consummation of the union,

Does marriage protect the children who may be adopted by the couple in that union? How about children conceived through medical means and not actual consummation?

I know what the answer is legally and for most people, even those who oppose same-sex marriage; was wondering if you're going to stand on principle and disagree, or revise your answer.

That's another good point.  CARL, you criticized britain for putting pragmatism before philosophical purity.  Why are you not clamoring to revoke the marriages of infertile couples, or those who have no interest in having children, etc.?

Or do you support that actively?

It seems to me that for legal simplification, persons involved in a legal intimate relationship which does n9ot infove children should have the status of civil partnership, for purposes of simplification.

Now, seperate divisions of family law courts (in my state, superior court) can be set up if this process is emplaced, and the courts could expeditiously handle resolution of civil union matters as many of the procedures involved in marriages with children would not need to be included.

Currently, dissolution of marriages in my state with children involved require additional procedural steps not required for dissolution of marriages without minor children.

The state of Louisania adopted a couple of years ago a two tier marriage scheme.

Now, it seems to me that an understanding to make the changes I have proposed could implemented after the loonies stop trying to impose 'gay marriage.'

[Tetro Kornbluth]

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.)

[Filuwaúrdjan]

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.

[Alcon]

It seems to me that for legal simplification, persons involved in a legal intimate relationship which does n9ot infove children should have the status of civil partnership, for purposes of simplification.

Now, seperate divisions of family law courts (in my state, superior court) can be set up if this process is emplaced, and the courts could expeditiously handle resolution of civil union matters as many of the procedures involved in marriages with children would not need to be included.

What if a heterosexual couple is dishonest in obtaining marriage, just for the extra benefits (assuming there are any)?  Are they prosecuted for fraud, or what?  You were arguing for ideological consistency and zealousness in the enforcement thereof, after all.

This all just seems like extra government bureaucracy to me.  Why even have government in marriage?

And why haven't I seen you beat the drum for revoking marriages of those who are too old to procreate?  Why is that not "loony"?

Now, it seems to me that an understanding to make the changes I have proposed could implemented after the loonies stop trying to impose 'gay marriage.'

Yes, I understand.  People who disagree with you are crazy.  Gotcha.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

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?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Marriage is a legal institution whose primary purpose is the protection of children who may issue as a consequence of the consummation of the union,

That is not the primary purpose of marriage. The number of aristocratic bastards born out of wedlock who were treated well and enobled 400 years ago shows that even then children could be provided for. Providing you have money, or if not that then you actually give a sh-t about your own children.

Moving on to today, marriage can also be the worst environment for children who have an abusive parent or parents. A divorce can, in such cases, be of the greatest benefit.

And finally, regardles of marital status, the children have hereditary rights. They have, under current laws (and I am speaking of Scots Law here) the right to inherit, or contest the inheritance of a deceased parent. The biological parent of a child is entitled by law to be supported financially by that parent. Whether or not one parent is married to another is irrelevant under current law, that child will still have rights to contest the estate of the decased and for the state to demand financial support and security.

Sorry Fleitch, but you keep changing the subject.

I really don't care what the situation is "under Scots law."

As I pointed out earlier, the primary purpose of Marriage in the United States, as distinguished from civil unions, is the protection or the rights of children.  I cited that this is the largest area covered under family law (in my state) other than procedureal matters.

Now, I realize and understand that "Scots law," has extensive application to children born out of wedlock.  I won't even speculate as to the reasons for that.

Finally, if you look at the titling of the thread, it has to do with 'gay marriage' in California.   Arizona, shares the common law marriage and community property provisions of family law that apply in California (which is in the same Circuit as Arizona).

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Why does no-one ever read my posts?

[Alcon]

Why does no-one ever read my posts?

I did, and I agree, but I'm kind of going for the more-objective stuff now, because subjective's gonna get shot down real quick, trust me. 

[Tetro Kornbluth]

Why does no-one ever read my posts?

I did, and I agree, but I'm kind of going for the more-objective stuff now, because subjective's gonna get shot down real quick, trust me. 

Sorry, what? My posts are at least as subjective as CARLHAYDEN's, at least I'm not hypocritical to use "pseudo-objective" language.