Dumping gay marriage prop in California is getting intense

[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?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Wow… This is a pretty heated discussion, ha ha.

Not that anything I say will matter, but I of course don’t really see the problem with Gay marriage. And I don’t see how anyone can argue that it’s a conscious choice. It’s only so much  a choice in that you chose to act on your true sexual desires or not. But that’s really no choice at all, as I believe Britain already brought up. We’re not asexuals, we want and crave relationships and all that that definition entails just like everybody else. Now, as to what causes it, I tend to believe it differs from person to person. Without getting too personal, I’ve had a bit of traumatic sexual experience in my past. It was nothing severe or even particularly scaring, but could that have “pushed” me into homosexuality? Sure, I guess. But I also know many gay people who had perfectly normal childhoods, grew up in loving Christian homes with devoted parents and were filled with absolute self loathing when they started to feel an attraction to the same gender. So I really don’t understand from my admittedly biased point of view how anyone could be thought to consciously chose a “lifestyle” that in many cases will give them nothing but scorn and hatred from the majority.  Not to mention the obvious argument as to how it is that a straight person can’t choose to become aroused by fooling around with the same sex yet somehow we’re supposed to be able to choose to be gay. It boggles the mind.

But as for the subject at hand, I suppose I see this, reluctantly, as a case where the tyranny of the majority needs to be overturned. I’d prefer for there to be public support for gay marriage, certainly. Indeed, if we just go ahead and legalize it now, it might create more problems in the long run, what with the resentment a court overturning the voters might cause. But there are times when the public need to be pushed forward, and I think this is one of them. But again I’m biased, so I might be missing a compelling argument the other side has. I’ve just not heard any of them yet.

You make a number of good points, but:

1.) can you see the difference between tolerance and endorsement?

Like many people, I have no interest in the activities of consenting adults in private, and have even supported 'civil unions' for couples (whether heterosexual of homosexual) who desire a legal bonding which does not involve children.

It seems to me that the insistence on 'gay marriage' is not to gain tangible benefits, but rather an 'in your face,' attempt to force endorsement of  homosexuality.

2.) do the people have the right to overrule a court by amending the constitution?

If the courts can simply make things up (now be honest, do you really believe that the architects of the provisions of the state constitutions really believed they were supporting 'gay marriage.'?)

If the constitution has no intrinsic meaning, but simply means whatever a particular set of judges wants it to mean, what is it other than a blank check for judicial tyranny?

And if the constitution cannot be amended to overturn court rulings, what about the federal income tax? 

[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.

[CARLHAYDEN]

One of the problems with this issue is that pro-gay marriage advocates frequently jump to conclusions as to the rationale for opposing 'gay marriage,' and then often engage in rather vicious ad hominem attacks, without bothering to carefully examine a very complex situation.

To cite just one example, in many states, there exists a legal construction known as common law marriage.  In this situation, an adult man and woman who have cohabited for a certain period of time are presumed to be 'married.'  This gives certain legal rights (particularly to property) for each of the cohabiters.

I suspect that a significant percentage of the homosexual population might object to such a practice being applied to them.

Hmm.

Second, a simple way to apply the civil union/marriage distinction in the approach I have proposed would be to have couples (homosexual/heterosexual) complete the form in the Clerk of the Court (or whatever office is used in your jurisdictions) in which, among other things, they are asked if there are in minor children of either of the parties to which they have custody?  If the answer if no, then a civil union certificate/license is issued, and if the answer is yes, then a marriage certificate/license is issued.  In the event that children subsequently issue from the union, then it automatically (by law) becomes a marriage.

Third, while I'll acknowledge that the "in your face" nut cases are in the minority in the homosexual community, it seems to me that not only do they repel average people, but I am surprised that there is no effort that I can see among homosexuals to denounce these nuts and their tactics.  The silence in this area is deafening.

[Хahar 🤔]

I suspect that a significant percentage of the homosexual population might object to such a practice being applied to them.

What makes you say this?

[afleitch]

I suspect that a significant percentage of the homosexual population might object to such a practice being applied to them.

What makes you say this?

I am intrigued by this too. I don't understand who you are actualy referring to. Is it gays you know?

I do not have the right or responsibilty to 'police' the gay 'community' and apologise for the wackos in the same way I don't feel I have to constantly apologise for whackos in my my Christian community or in my local community. Besides it's not as if I know or associate with every one of them!

Nor do I ask you Carl or anyone else on here to apologise for those other straights (if you are) who would like to see gays locked away or worse. People are ultimately accountable for themselves and their attitudes and actions.

[CARLHAYDEN]

You mean you don't know of gays who own small businesses and cohabit with partners without understanding that such a practice may result in the event of the termination of the relationship with them losing half their assets, if current marriage laws were applied to homosexuals?

[afleitch]

You mean you don't know of gays who own small businesses and cohabit with partners without understanding that such a practice may result in the event of the termination of the relationship with them losing half their assets, if current marriage laws were applied to homosexuals?

No. I don't know anyone who owns a small business. Most gay couples I know understand that if you have a civil partnership under Scots Law, and you go through divorce proceedings your estate can be divided. They don't ask for any exemption from that because such laws are designed to ensure that after dissolution of a partnership each individual has financial security based on their contribution, material or otherwise to the shared estate of the couple.

EDIT: Just for information Common Law Marriage has never been recognised under Scots Law as far as I am aware. In 2006/7 laws were brought in place to ensure that long term couples were given rights to financial protection in the same way that married and civil partnership couples received.

[CARLHAYDEN]

You mean you don't know of gays who own small businesses and cohabit with partners without understanding that such a practice may result in the event of the termination of the relationship with them losing half their assets, if current marriage laws were applied to homosexuals?

No. I don't know anyone who owns a small business. Most gay couples I know understand that if you have a civil partnership under Scots Law, and you go through divorce proceedings your estate can be divided. They don't ask for any exemption from that because such laws are designed to ensure that after dissolution of a partnership each individual has financial security based on their contribution, material or otherwise to the shared estate of the couple.

EDIT: Just for information Common Law Marriage has never been recognised under Scots Law as far as I am aware. In 2006/7 laws were brought in place to ensure that long term couples were given rights to financial protection in the same way that married and civil partnership couples received.

First, I'm not suprised you don't know anyone who owns a small business.

Second, much of the United States does have common law marriage.

Third, under common law/community property law, the property is evenly divided.

Oh, and yes, I do know several gays who own and operate small businesses.

My point is that there are a lot of factors which haven't been given adequate consideration in this subject.

[Lincoln Republican]

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, don't get too excited.  I am not back tracking on anything.  I still contend that homosexuality is a choice consciously made.  

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.  

Let me be as clear as I can.  Race is what you are born with.  You cannot control what race you are.  Sexual orientation, on the other hand, is a conscious choice made by the individual.  

I have always believed that laws based on race are an injustice.  

Obviously, some laws on the books even now could be an injustice, however, laws against same sex marriage are not among them.

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.

Bresides, I know some gay people, and consider them to be among my friends.

    

[Brittain33]

 I still contend that homosexuality is a choice consciously made.      

I contend that you are a persian cat. It doesn't make it true, nor do I have the authority to make the claim for you.

I don't understand. Where do you get the confidence to argue such an irrational point?

[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.

[Lincoln Republican]

 I still contend that homosexuality is a choice consciously made.      

I contend that you are a persian cat. It doesn't make it true, nor do I have the authority to make the claim for you.

I don't understand. Where do you get the confidence to argue such an irrational point?

I said some time ago in this thread that I was not going to get into this issue.  It is a subject that could be discussed for a year, and still no agreement reached.

However, I believe when one is born, they are basically a blank slate, learning as one grows.  I also believe that one has the freedom to choose, and that , ultimately, no one else can choose for them which paths they will follow.  They are, obviously, taught and encouraged, but, ultimately, the decision, the choice if you will, is theirs.

[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?

[Lunar]

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

[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.

[Torie]

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?

[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"

[Lunar]

Well, I suppose a pro-gay marriage type would argue that our society has constructed marriage as the ultimate expression of love and family.

The nomenclature argument works both ways of course too.

[Lunar]

the right to marry is not defined by RACE, its defined as between man/woman like I already pointed out. 

It used to be but then it changed.

All of your arguments could have been used to argue in favor of anti-miscegenation laws a hundred years ago.

In fact, the "it's defined as this so keep the status quo" argument could have been used against Prop 8 too.

[jamestroll]

lol @ these gayz in California.. it is that attitude which causes results like this.

[Lunar]

the right to marry is not defined by RACE, its defined as between man/woman like I already pointed out. 

It used to be but then it changed.

All of your arguments could have been used to argue in favor of anti-miscegenation laws a hundred years ago.

In fact, the "it's defined as this so keep the status quo" argument could have been used against Prop 8 too.

Where does it end if you allow gay marriage?   

There's a valid argument hidden behind what you're saying in that there needs to be a line drawn in the sand somewhere unless you're willing to let family members marry.  I think I have a substantive problem with the entire concept of a "right to marriage" (and a number of other "rights" that prevent compromise).

But I'm cynically asking if that same argument "Where does it end!" could have been used a hundred years ago against the redefinition of marriage to allow miscegenation.

[Associate Justice PiT]

the right to marry is not defined by RACE, its defined as between man/woman like I already pointed out. 

It used to be but then it changed.

All of your arguments could have been used to argue in favor of anti-miscegenation laws a hundred years ago.

In fact, the "it's defined as this so keep the status quo" argument could have been used against Prop 8 too.

Where does it end if you allow gay marriage?   

There's a valid argument hidden behind what you're saying in that there needs to be a line drawn in the sand somewhere unless you're willing to let family members marry.  I think I have a substantive problem with the entire concept of a "right to marriage" (and a number of other "rights" that prevent compromise).

But I'm cynically asking if that same argument "Where does it end!" could have been used a hundred years ago against the redefinition of marriage to allow miscegenation.

     Not only that, but as far as I know there hasn't been a surge in demand of marrying siblings/animals/toasters in MA since they started marrying gays in 2003. As such, it's rather presumptuous to think that gay marriage would likely lead to other groups gaining the ability to marry.

[Lunar]

I mean, he's right though in a way.  If we have an inherent "right to marry" who we want -- why should familial relations (something that we're born with) stand in the way?  I'm trying to think of the counterargument to this -- I suppose a gay marriage activist might argue that there is an inherent negative, rational, scientific (etc) reason why incest is bad.  So, for example, the right to freedom of movement is inherent, in the interests of society we're allowed to put people in jail.   I'm not sure on this one.  A counter-counter argument would argue all of the reasons why homosexuality is bad for societal cohesion but I'm not sure if that crosses the same scientific/rationalist threshold that incest does.

His argument, however, is sort of historically self-defeating.  Traditionally marriage used to be only within races and this was sorta Biblically supported.  I think more people need to frame this entire debate in terms of sex rather than homosexuality.  Because miscegenation laws are discriminatory because of RACE.  The desire for interracial sex is something completely different (but I think is totally awesome).  Female-male only laws are discriminatory because of SEX -- homosexuality is something completely different.

Sex is something we're born with.  Race is something we're born with.  I'm totally conceding that homosexuality is a choice with this argument and it has zero impact on this justification for gay marriage.

Again, though, working withing the framework of "government sanctioned marriage" and "the right to marriage" is a framework that I fundamentally disagree with and find inherently hypocritical and arbitrary no matter what the end conclusion is.

[Associate Justice PiT]

     I find rather dubious that we have an inherent right to marry. Rather, I would suggest that it is a privilege (one with powerful normative effects) that should be extended to any healthy couple in order to form a happier society.

     As such, gay couples are generally speaking relatively likely to be in a healthy relationship, while incest is by definition unhealthy, due to the effect of making it easier to pass on genetic defects.