Dumping gay marriage prop in California is getting intense

[afleitch]

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.

The first thing we need to do is throw the idea of a marriage 'tradition' right out of the window. The fact that so many people believe that marriage and family norms effectively created in the immediate post-war era (and fragmented a few decades later) are 'tradition' rather than an invention is always slightly amusing.

Marriage is whatever society wants it to be. Whether it's the marriage of one to another, or to several others, or to one or several others of the same race, or only to people of the same faith or to people of the same caste, or for adults, or for children, or for a child and an adult, or arranged, or forced, or for property, or for hereditary purposes, or to deflect attention from your sexuality, or for convenience..or even to the bloody sea.

Marriage has only been about 'love' for a blink of an eye in the human timescale and is only for love for the select few who have a comfortable exisitence free from heavy work, or from the kitchen or social pressures. Saying marriage between a man and woman only and in set terms is 'tradition' is nonsense. It is not for the government to uphold 'tradition' whether ancient or constructed and that fact that the government has allowed or disallowed some of the marriages above (to the best of it's legal capacity) proves that what constitutes a marriage has and can change.

Saying it's purely and exclusively religious is elitist - who's religion? Pagans and tribesfolk around the world probably look in horror at the western marriage tradition - probably in the same way as many here may be uncomfortable with Muslim or Hindu arranged marriages and 'child' brides which for many of them are culturally acceptable.

Now I'm not a fan of 'cultural relativism', however can we hold up our heterosexual one man, one woman marriage as an ideal? Particularly when divorce rates are high, partners cheat and many people get married more than once. It is, quite frankly, a rather 'cheap' ideal. Unless it is based on love and commitment alone. That's what gay people want to sure. And sure, many will divroce and cheat and do what everyone else does, but the strong marriages based on love will survive as they always do.

[Lincoln Republican]

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.

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. 

[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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Once again, Alcon indulges in presumption.

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

[Lincoln Republican]

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, 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.

[Lunar]

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.

A few things interest me about this example.

1) People who fooled around with the other race were considered immoral in many of the same ways. Yadda yadda
2) We have to assume that miscegenation laws were discriminatory based on race.  That's because if a black man and a white man loved the same woman, only one of them would be able to marry her, the determinant variable being race.  In the case of gay marriage, if a man and a woman love the same woman, only one of them would be able to marry her, the determinant variable being sex.  Sex is not a lifestyle choice - prohibiting same-sex marriage is a form of gender-based discrimination.  Taken in this view, sexual orientation has nothing to do with the discrimination* - as someone who is gay has the same rights as someone who is straight regardless of the status of same-sex marriage.

*In the same way that interracial desires had little to do with the actual discrimination back then

[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.

[Brittain33]

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

My being gay is an intrinsic condition.

I suppose your reponse is that I could choose to be celibate my whole life and not have a lifelong loving companion, but then you might want to justify why, outside of the compulsion of a religion I'm not part of, the state should encourage that.

[Brittain33]

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. 

What did I choose? Do you mean the choice to not live a life minus love or sex? Would you ever willingly make that "choice" for yourself?

I suppose in that sense, being left-handed is a lifestyle choice, because you could choose not to write or use a fork.

Homosexuality is an intrinsic condition that manifests itself through behavior. That does not make it "a choice" in the sense the word is normally used.

[Brittain33]

The reason these protesters are in the streets, quite frankly, is because they believe the whole country should cow tow to their agenda.

It's because we are "gay fascists," according to Newt Gingrich.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/11/pansy_division.php

Gay marriage is fascist. Wow.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The reason these protesters are in the streets, quite frankly, is because they believe the whole country should cow tow to their agenda.

It's because we are "gay fascists," according to Newt Gingrich.

http://yglesias.thinkprogress.org/archives/2008/11/pansy_division.php

Gay marriage is fascist. Wow.

Surely "fascist" from the mouth of Gingrich is meant as a complement?

[CARLHAYDEN]

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

My being gay is an intrinsic condition.

I suppose your reponse is that I could choose to be celibate my whole life and not have a lifelong loving companion, but then you might want to justify why, outside of the compulsion of a religion I'm not part of, the state should encourage that.

No its not!

[Brittain33]

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

My being gay is an intrinsic condition.

I suppose your reponse is that I could choose to be celibate my whole life and not have a lifelong loving companion, but then you might want to justify why, outside of the compulsion of a religion I'm not part of, the state should encourage that.

No its not!

...

wow.

[CARLHAYDEN]

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

My being gay is an intrinsic condition.

I suppose your reponse is that I could choose to be celibate my whole life and not have a lifelong loving companion, but then you might want to justify why, outside of the compulsion of a religion I'm not part of, the state should encourage that.

No its not!

...

wow.

Also, you really need to stop making unfounded suppositions.

[Alcon]

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

/seppuku

[CARLHAYDEN]

The first thing we need to do is throw the idea of a marriage 'tradition' right out of the window. The fact that so many people believe that marriage and family norms effectively created in the immediate post-war era (and fragmented a few decades later) are 'tradition' rather than an invention is always slightly amusing.

Marriage is whatever society wants it to be. Whether it's the marriage of one to another, or to several others, or to one or several others of the same race, or only to people of the same faith or to people of the same caste, or for adults, or for children, or for a child and an adult, or arranged, or forced, or for property, or for hereditary purposes, or to deflect attention from your sexuality, or for convenience..or even to the bloody sea.

Marriage has only been about 'love' for a blink of an eye in the human timescale and is only for love for the select few who have a comfortable exisitence free from heavy work, or from the kitchen or social pressures. Saying marriage between a man and woman only and in set terms is 'tradition' is nonsense. It is not for the government to uphold 'tradition' whether ancient or constructed and that fact that the government has allowed or disallowed some of the marriages above (to the best of it's legal capacity) proves that what constitutes a marriage has and can change.

Saying it's purely and exclusively religious is elitist - who's religion? Pagans and tribesfolk around the world probably look in horror at the western marriage tradition - probably in the same way as many here may be uncomfortable with Muslim or Hindu arranged marriages and 'child' brides which for many of them are culturally acceptable.

Now I'm not a fan of 'cultural relativism', however can we hold up our heterosexual one man, one woman marriage as an ideal? Particularly when divorce rates are high, partners cheat and many people get married more than once. It is, quite frankly, a rather 'cheap' ideal. Unless it is based on love and commitment alone. That's what gay people want to sure. And sure, many will divroce and cheat and do what everyone else does, but the strong marriages based on love will survive as they always do.

Very interesting.

First, a self-styled British 'Conservative' who states that "(I)t is not for government to uphold 'tradition," and that the marriage tradition should be thrown out of the window, I am at a loss to understand the difference between the 'Conservative' and 'Labour' parties.

Second, you are quite correct that plural marriage, arranged marriages and child marriages are both widespread practices around the world and throughout history.  So, should those practices be legalized or should they remain illegal whilst 'gay marriage' is legalized?

Third, returning to tradition, I hope you'll recognize that marriage in the western world has been a tradition for a few thousand years, and I can not recall any real example of 'gay' marriage being part of that tradition.  Perhaps you can cite such an extended tradition?

Fourth, do you comprehend that much of the legal status of marriage has to do with the status of children conceived as a result of consummation of the union?  If so, why not have 'civil unions' for those who cannot naturally conceive children?

[CARLHAYDEN]

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

/seppuku

There is NO valid evidence to support the allegation that homosexuality is intrinsic.

There have been phony allegations of of a homosexual gene, which has never been proven.

Now, there is evidence that hair color, eye color, height, etc. are "intrinsic," but there is valid evidence that homosexuality is "intrinsic."

Oh, and BTW, the burden of proof is on those who allege that homosexuality is "intrinsic."

[Sbane]

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

/seppuku

There is NO valid evidence to support the allegation that homosexuality is intrinsic.

There have been phony allegations of of a homosexual gene, which has never been proven.

Now, there is evidence that hair color, eye color, height, etc. are "intrinsic," but there is valid evidence that homosexuality is "intrinsic."

Oh, and BTW, the burden of proof is on those who allege that homosexuality is "intrinsic."

I tend to believe gay people when they say homosexuality is intrinsic. I for one know I never "chose" to be gay or straight. When puberty hit I liked women and that was it. Nobody had to tell me that since it came naturally. Now Carl when did you choose to be straight?

[Brittain33]

Oh, and BTW, the burden of proof is on those who allege that homosexuality is "intrinsic."

I haven't seen someone moot this point in quite some time. You're saying, essentially, that I am lying.

I don't know whether it's intrinsic from biology or nurture or whatever, and it doesn't really matter. The point is, it's been my reality since I hit puberty. If you're going to accuse me of lying, you can put forth an argument as to how I really did become gay that has nothing to do with my description of my own experiences. I would like to hear it.

[Earth]

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

/seppuku

Oh, and BTW, the burden of proof is on those who allege that homosexuality is "intrinsic."

Well, if you want to defend your view that being homosexual is a "lifestyle choice" against now commonly accepted ideas of it being biological, then the burden is on you.

[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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Alcon and Brittain,

Perhaps you missed your biology courses, but, whereas some primitive life form propagate asexually, more advanced life forms propagate sexually, with there being two different sexes necessary for the propagation.

Heterosexuality is intrinsically part of the survival mechanism for the human race.  There are a number of treatises which will explain this is more detail.

Now Brittain, I don't know what environmental factors may have induced you to your choice, and, frankly, really don't care. (although, I hope you were not molested as a child).  Its your life. 

[afleitch]

Alcon and Brittain,

Perhaps you missed your biology courses, but, whereas some primitive life form propagate asexually, more advanced life forms propagate sexually, with there being two different sexes necessary for the propagation.

Heterosexuality is intrinsically part of the survival mechanism for the human race.  There are a number of treatises which will explain this is more detail.

Now Brittain, I don't know what environmental factors may have induced you to your choice, and, frankly, really don't care. (although, I hope you were not molested as a child).  Its your life. 

Carl, perhaps you missed yours. Please explain the prevailance of homosexuality in material human society and in the 'dog eat dog' animal kingdom from whales to hedgehogs. Please explain why homosexuality has not died out in humans in the past few hundred thousand years or in crocodiles for the past few hundred million.

A never make an pass remark about child molestation, whether real or imagined in any context on this forum at any time.

[Brittain33]

Heterosexuality is intrinsically part of the survival mechanism for the human race.

No sh**t. What does that have to do with being gay? I'm very happy that lots of people aren't gay. I'm glad my brother and sisters are having kids. I've seen  _Children of Men_ and that is not really the goal of the gay marriage movement, in my view. One could posit evolutionary arguments why I didn't get made that way, or one doesn't have to, but it doesn't matter, because it is how I was made and it's the only way I can lead my life without being an emotional cripple.

I feel like I have to make the anti-gay-marriage arguments on your behalf, because you're floundering around on such a low level. Yes, heterosexual intercourse is important for human survival. The next argument made is that this is why marriage is important--to make sure people have kids. This argument goes before courts, and it fails because a) lots of people get married who don't or can't have kids, and b) same-sex couples are raising children through adoption, artificial insemination, and step-parenting and it hurts those kids for their adoptive parents not to have legal protections. Try proposing a law that bans marriage for people who can not have children because of age or medical sterility--do you think that's a good idea?

Maybe you're opposed to adoption in general because "they aren't real parents", but God, I hope not, because I want to have some respect for your humanity.

[Brittain33]

Now Brittain, I don't know what environmental factors may have induced you to your choice

Again, what "choice" did I make? Please explain. I want to learn from you. Thanks.