Dumping gay marriage prop in California is getting intense

[Lunar]

That's a good way of phrasing it.

I mean, there's a common societal perception that homosexuality is bad for society.  I would, however, like to separate homosexuality from the issue of same-sex marriage as much as possible, for the reasons above, haha.

anyone seeking to respond to my points: please respond to Alcon's posts in the page before this before you try.

[Lunar]

Yes, but I'm also against government involvement in any marriage -- I think the government should only give out civil unions and the churches should dispense marriages based on their own individual definitions (and the government can recognize them as legitimate civil unions).

I sometimes like to argue against my own point of view sometimes, haha.

[Associate Justice PiT]

Yes, but I'm also against government involvement in any marriage -- I think the government should only give out civil unions and the churches should dispense marriages based on their own individual definitions (and the government can recognize them as legitimate civil unions).

     I remember that I floated that idea as the best possible compromise.

[Lunar]

So should we not have redefined marriage a century ago to remove race from its classic definition for that exact same reason?  Because once we allowed whites to marry blacks, we'd be forced to allow all kinds of other people to marry?

I think the Bible is fine -- in my universe where the term "marriage" is no longer a government-enforced item.  Marriage is intrinsically linked with a lot of Christian doctrine in our culture and I would fully support the rights of individual churches to refuse issue same-sex marriage.  Just like the Mormon church should have, as it used to, the right to refuse African-Americans from its priesthood.

[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...

[CARLHAYDEN]

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...

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.'

[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.

[afleitch]

The 'where does it stop' argument is based on a false premise. Namely that making one change to the law in one direction will set about changes in the law in all other possible directions (known of course as the 'slippery slope') The answer to 'where does it stop?' is simply wherever the state chooses to 'stop' it.

I remember reading a wonderful letter in The Times  IIRC written by people 'of authority' who were against changing the law in the 1970's here in Britain which lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. 'But where will it stop?' they cried 'children being given the vote?'. Well nearly 40 years later that hasn't happened. It was never going to happen. There are calls for the vote to be given to 16 year olds, given that they can legally marry, serve in the armed forces and most importantly pay taxes which is unreasonable and...suprise suprise...we are now warned 'where will it stop, children being given the vote?'

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

Secondly on the issue of sexuality being a 'conscious choice.' Now I have time for the subconscious choice argument, as subconscious choices do not require direct thinking and can often be driven by intimate desires, chemical factors and genetic predisposition. But a conscious choice? No.

A choice means exactly that; choosing between one and another/others or choosing over one and another/others (or perhaps, choosing both). This means, if you believe it is a conscious decision, that at some point gay people made a conscious decision of that nature.  So therefore, I (and I will speak for myself here) must have made that choice if you are correct. By a similar measure, you too must have made that choice (whatever sexuality you are) and it would help your argument if you explained to us how and when you believe that you made that choice.

Personally, I certainly don't remember doing so but as I remember being attracted to men at the age of 12 and before I had had any sexual contact with anyone of either sex. It would have been a little odd to consciously choose one over the other without having experienced either sexually.Nor do I consciously remember willing or instructing my penis to become aroused at the sight, notion or thought of the male body and sexual contact.

When I was bullied (and this isn't meant to be a 'sob story' simply an example) surely knowing what the alternative could be, i.e choosing to be straight and to stop physical violence, then surely I would have made the conscious choice to switch? It is not in my nature to be much of a 'masochist'!

When a gay person says 'I didn't choose' they are not being defensive or lying, they are simply stating a personal truth. Even if I [i[had[/i] made a conscious choice, it would not be something I would be ashamed of or reluctant to share. Nor would it mean that certain rights should be denied on that basis. It would simply put us on a level pegging with religion. Choosing to follow a religion is a conscious choice made either for us as babies or children or for ourselves as adults. Yet we rightfully afford protection to those who are religious. The fact that I am Catholic because my family chose to have me baptised as one when I was 2 months old (and therefore was not a choice I made...unless you count my confirmation) should not elevate me above an adult who makes that choice and is baptised into the Church.

[afleitch]

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...

Yes it will.

Look if you say well its Ok for the homosexuals in CA to have theres, then what about the other forms of marriages that people may want?

Lets say a 58 yearold father who wants to marry his 18 yearold daughter?
 
  Some wacko wants to marry a Great Dane?

You are saying lets open the gates to let these few in, but we will cut it off after that.


Why don't we just make civil unions or domestic partnerships recognized by all 50 states?   That seems to be the problem. I would support that, but I want to keep the definition of marriage as between a man and woman.

See below

The 'where does it stop' argument is based on a false premise. Namely that making one change to the law in one direction will set about changes in the law in all other possible directions (known of course as the 'slippery slope') The answer to 'where does it stop?' is simply wherever the state chooses to 'stop' it.

I remember reading a wonderful letter in The Times  IIRC written by people 'of authority' who were against changing the law in the 1970's here in Britain which lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. 'But where will it stop?' they cried 'children being given the vote?'. Well nearly 40 years later that hasn't happened. It was never going to happen. There are calls for the vote to be given to 16 year olds, given that they can legally marry, serve in the armed forces and most importantly pay taxes which is unreasonable and...suprise suprise...we are now warned 'where will it stop, children being given the vote?'

Having or not having gay marriage will still make some people want to marry their daughter or their dog. You can't change that. But it ain't gonna happen because the state won't let it.

[Brittain33]

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?

Because, in practice in New Jersey, civil unions have proven unworkable. There are thousands of service workers who are trained in treating marriages a certain way and non-married relationships another way, and when someone comes up and says "civil union," they get confused or get it wrong or use it as an excuse to play dumb. You would think they would all know, and they should have gotten some memos from their employers, but it doesn't work that way. Corporations which, one would think, we compelled to treat civil unions the same as marriages are lawyering up to prevent actually doing so and are looking for loopholes to avoid giving the same benefits. This has happened over and over again and causes innumerable problems to same-sex couples in order to provide... what benefit? Avoiding hurting the sensibilities of people who aren't directly affected and who choose not to observe a distinction between civil law and religious institutions?

Civil unions aren't just a nomenclature difference. By distinguishing between the names, the states inadvertently created a new legal structure. People who have a lifetime of experience dealing with existing legal structures of marriage don't know what to do or don't care, and the lawyers are swarming in to poke at every crack and rotten board to knock it apart. "Separate but equal" is just not working. As with Jim Crow, it becomes an excuse for people who don't or can't accept it to make it unequal.

Believe me, if it could work out and give same-sex couples the same rights without offending traditionalists, I wouldn't care as much. Unfortunately that's just not how it's working out and this imposes a burden on same-sex people. It's not mental masturbation.

[Brittain33]

You could marry a dog ... just make sure its a female LOL.

Dogs can't give consent, and consent is essential to contract law and civil marriage. I don't think anyone would dispute that.

(The best rejoinder I've heard for this is, how does one have non-consensual relations with a rottweiler?)

[Brittain33]

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.

It is fine if no agreement is reached, I would just like to hear you articulate what conscious choice I made, in your view, that led me to being in a same-sex relationship with a man instead of in an alternative state, and what alternative state you think I could have chosen.

You are writing as if you have clearly thought this through, so if you want me to accept that you have, you will be able to explain this.

I write this because I honestly do not understand what conscious choice I could have made other than to be celibate and loveless. If that's what you're referring to--and I have given many opportunities for you to agree with that--I sort of understand. If not, I am very confused, and it disturbs me to think that I could be so oblivious to an essential part of my life and its experience. I'd like to think I'm a self-aware person. Please help me understand what you see that I am missing.

[Brittain33]

Answer me this.... Why has every healthy human society, through thousands of examples and years, restricted the special status of marriage to heterosexual pairs/ man and woman?

"Healthy society" leads to the "no true Scotsman" fallacy. You're going to exclude the many cultures that have a more encompassing view of marriage, including polygamy (Islam, anyone?) and incest (Polynesians, Egyptian royalty, the Habsburgs, although none of them ended well), as well as those much more common examples which defined marriage as a pairing of two people of the same religion, bound within the same church or synagogue. I don't even have to go to race, which has been raised before.

The big break from tradition is not the divorce from gender but the divorce from religion, frankly. Civil marriage is a recent invention in most societies and possibly the biggest perversion of the religious origins of marriage as an institution.

But since most heterosexual people could imagine themselves or a family member marrying someone of a different denomination or possibly religion, and since that's not grounds for putting their children in legal limbo, they don't pay attention to that distinction.

Do you think a Jew and a Catholic, of opposite sex and raising children together, should be denied legal recognition of their parental rights because the ancient and established Catholic Church would never recognize their union? If so, why do you think that you can ignore 2,000 years of history and redefine marriage?

[Brittain33]

I use to believe that you are not born gay, however in recent years after research and being around some gay folks I now believe you are born gay.

Yeah. I don't know if I was born gay or it comes from environment (I was not molested, thank you very much, in response to another poster) or whatnot, but whatever it is, it was clearly a physical manifestation and is nothing I ever had any say in.

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

I use to believe that you are not born gay, however in recent years after research and being around some gay folks I now believe you are born gay.

Yeah. I don't know if I was born gay or it comes from environment (I was not molested, thank you very much, in response to another poster) or whatnot, but whatever it is, it was clearly a physical manifestation and is nothing I ever had any say in.

well, I was also born a liar...so what does being born that way have to with it?

[Brittain33]

We are never going to agree on this.

Quite possibly not. For me, this discussion is about airing our views and everyone thinking through what others say. I do think that if people feel strongly about the legal definition of my relationship, they should be able to defend their arguments and listen to mine. I recognize that you could just as easily say "why bother," and many do, and appreciate the chance to talk through it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

ON EDIT: I see I misunderstood this in my response.


I like it, too. I think it's a good thing overall. I raise the issue because not long ago, it was a radical suggestion, and it redefined marriage in a dramatic way.

People can argue that redefining marriage to include same-sex couples is unacceptable for reasons X, Y, and Z, and that may be a case where we never see eye to eye. However, I must reject the idea that such a redefinition is unprecedented, or that it's even as significant and long-reaching as the big changes we've seen in the past. The idea that marriage is what it always has been and always will be is an obstacle to legal recognition of same-sex marriage, and an unfair one, so I must poke at it.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I understand what you are saying, and I do know there are lots of people who will not recognize same-sex marriage, and in some parts of the country they form a very large majority. I know that acceptance of same-sex marriage is a minority view. However, I also see a clear trajectory into the future on this issue, based on the polling, my personal experience, and an assessment of how this plays out.

I'm not particularly old. I'm only in my early 30s. However, in my lifetime, I've seen some dramatic changes in gay rights that no one foresaw as possible. As recently as five years ago, sodomy laws were still on the books and stubbornly defended. Several years ago, the city of Cambridge, Massachusetts was unable to offer domestic partner benefits to city workers because the conservative Democrat in charge of the legislature refused to consider a home rule bill. How far we've come to even have domestic partner benefits considered a neutral position.

It may seem strange to the young people here, but gay people were invisible on television when I was in high school in the early 90s. It was a big deal when someone was on. I remember staying up to watch Tales of the City on PBS after my mother went to sleep because that was the only exposure to gay culture I had, living in the suburbs. This was not the 1950s or the 1970s, but the 1990s, AFTER years of AIDS coverage and awareness, and after Bill Clinton was elected. The Internet has transformed things as well.

We have many people voting on these referenda who grew up in a time when homosexuality was invisible and considered a disgusting crime. We have many people who have lived their lives without knowing a gay person, or who only knew "of" one or two bizarre individuals in their community who never felt equal. We have many baby boomers who grew up sort of knowing about gays but feeling it was something to be embarrassed about. We still have young people growing up today who think it is icky and wrong, but more and more of them are going to schools and communities where they meet gay people their own age. This is all new and will continue to ripple out through society.

The reason same-sex marriage is taking off is not because of gays like me, but because of the many gay couples who are quietly and successfully raising children all over the country and who do so under terrible legal handicaps. It is their work that makes it clear that something must be done in the long term.

As far as civil unions vs. marriage, I talked about that issue above in a response to Torie. I'd be interested in hearing your thoughts more.

[Brittain33]

well, I was also born a liar...so what does being born that way have to with it?

I believe I know your views on homosexuality. To be clear, what choices do you believe I should have made differently?

[CARLHAYDEN]

The 'where does it stop' argument is based on a false premise. Namely that making one change to the law in one direction will set about changes in the law in all other possible directions (known of course as the 'slippery slope') The answer to 'where does it stop?' is simply wherever the state chooses to 'stop' it.

I remember reading a wonderful letter in The Times  IIRC written by people 'of authority' who were against changing the law in the 1970's here in Britain which lowered the voting age from 21 to 18. 'But where will it stop?' they cried 'children being given the vote?'. Well nearly 40 years later that hasn't happened. It was never going to happen. There are calls for the vote to be given to 16 year olds, given that they can legally marry, serve in the armed forces and most importantly pay taxes which is unreasonable and...suprise suprise...we are now warned 'where will it stop, children being given the vote?'

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

Secondly on the issue of sexuality being a 'conscious choice.' Now I have time for the subconscious choice argument, as subconscious choices do not require direct thinking and can often be driven by intimate desires, chemical factors and genetic predisposition. But a conscious choice? No.

A choice means exactly that; choosing between one and another/others or choosing over one and another/others (or perhaps, choosing both). This means, if you believe it is a conscious decision, that at some point gay people made a conscious decision of that nature.  So therefore, I (and I will speak for myself here) must have made that choice if you are correct. By a similar measure, you too must have made that choice (whatever sexuality you are) and it would help your argument if you explained to us how and when you believe that you made that choice.

Personally, I certainly don't remember doing so but as I remember being attracted to men at the age of 12 and before I had had any sexual contact with anyone of either sex. It would have been a little odd to consciously choose one over the other without having experienced either sexually.Nor do I consciously remember willing or instructing my penis to become aroused at the sight, notion or thought of the male body and sexual contact.

When I was bullied (and this isn't meant to be a 'sob story' simply an example) surely knowing what the alternative could be, i.e choosing to be straight and to stop physical violence, then surely I would have made the conscious choice to switch? It is not in my nature to be much of a 'masochist'!

When a gay person says 'I didn't choose' they are not being defensive or lying, they are simply stating a personal truth. Even if I [i[had[/i] made a conscious choice, it would not be something I would be ashamed of or reluctant to share. Nor would it mean that certain rights should be denied on that basis. It would simply put us on a level pegging with religion. Choosing to follow a religion is a conscious choice made either for us as babies or children or for ourselves as adults. Yet we rightfully afford protection to those who are religious. The fact that I am Catholic because my family chose to have me baptised as one when I was 2 months old (and therefore was not a choice I made...unless you count my confirmation) should not elevate me above an adult who makes that choice and is baptised into the Church.

Let me deal with the first issue.

What principle is it that says homosexuals should be allowed to marry but plural marriages should not be allowed?

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

well, I was also born a liar...so what does being born that way have to with it?

I believe I know your views on homosexuality. To be clear, what choices do you believe I should have made differently?

We were all born with a sinful nature, the only way not to be controlled by it is through the power of the Holy Spirit.  

Sadly, I don't know how to give instructions on how to receive the Holy Spirit, it's simply a gift that has to be received by faith.  The instruction Peter gives in Acts 2:38 is to "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and you will receive the Holy Spirit"...but, there are examples in the book of Acts of people who received the Holy Spirit prior to baptism (as I did), and people who were baptized yet didn't receive the Holy Spirit.

For me, I had never been taught about the concept of receiving the Holy Spirit, I just received it while reading the bible one night in my apartment.  I wasn't even part of a church at the time (which probably made my path to Christ easier!), God just stepped into my life.  Who knows, if I had been trying to receive the Holy Spirit, I might not have received it.  Rather I simply had made up my mind to see what the bible had to say because the girl I was dating was troubled because she wanted obey her church which in her case meant she shouldn't date anyone outside of her church.  I had many friends who went to her church, but I decided to read the bible and let the chips fall where they may

So, I guess my “search for truth” was in response to my heart subconsciously wanting to find truth, even though I wasn’t aware I was seeking God.  I was simply thinking, “All these different churches can’t be all correct, so I’ll just read the bible and go with the church that bests matches what the bible says.”.  (Luckily, I hadn't been brainwashed into believing the bible wasn't meant to be interpreted by anyone outside the leadership of the church).

I more or less walked into a trap God had set for me, which made it very easy for me to find Christ.  Therefore, to answer your question, the only conscience choice I made was to seek truth.

[Brittain33]

Thanks for your answer. It sounds as if receiving the Holy Spirit is the first step and everything else doesn't really matter unless and until that is right. Would that be accurate? (Although I'm sure it's not ok for me to murder, rob etc. even in an unsaved state.)

[Brittain33]

What principle is it that says homosexuals should be allowed to marry but plural marriages should not be allowed?

I would say it is a pragmatic argument. We have a structure of contract and marriage law that is framed around the idea of two parents with rights to property and children, and we have many same-sex couples leading lives parallel to those of opposite-sex couples but without those legal protections for our families. Extending that umbrella to include same-sex couples is a simple change because it only involves making the laws blind to gender, which has been an ongoing process anyway. Considering evolving assumptions about custody and alimony which shouldn't be determined solely or even largely by gender, but on an individual basis. Consider, too, how historically marriage meant that women signed over all their property and even legal identities to their husbands, and how anachronistic that would seem today.

Plural marriages have two obstacles. One, they're just very rare and only found in isolated communities, so  there isn't the perception that society has moved out ahead of the law into a void that needs to be filled. Secondly, we'd have to change our contract law and legal framework for families to go from two parents to more, and that creates a whole lot of dilemmas and practical situations that no one knows how to answer, in part because we have so few models of families living this life to indicate a possible new framework. It's a much more complex fix and there's far fewer people in need of it.

I'm sure one could argue that it's all about principle and if it's good for the half-million same-sex families  raising children it should be good for a much smaller population or even one, but that's not how law works, IMO.

[Redefeatbush04]

(slaps jmfcst in the ass)

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

Thanks for your answer. It sounds as if receiving the Holy Spirit is the first step and everything else doesn't really matter unless and until that is right. Would that be accurate? (Although I'm sure it's not ok for me to murder, rob etc. even in an unsaved state.)

that was very well put - finding Christ is not the end of life, it's simply the beginning of life

[opebo]

well, I was also born a liar...so what does being born that way have to with it?

I believe I know your views on homosexuality. To be clear, what choices do you believe I should have made differently?

We were all born with a sinful nature, the only way not to be controlled by it is through the power of the Holy Spirit.  

Sadly, I don't know how to give instructions on how to receive the Holy Spirit, it's simply a gift that has to be received by faith.  The instruction Peter gives in Acts 2:38 is to "repent and be baptized in the name of Jesus Christ, and you will receive the Holy Spirit"...but, there are examples in the book of Acts of people who received the Holy Spirit prior to baptism (as I did), and people who were baptized yet didn't receive the Holy Spirit.

For me, I had never been taught about the concept of receiving the Holy Spirit, I just received it while reading the bible one night in my apartment.  I wasn't even part of a church at the time (which probably made my path to Christ easier!), God just stepped into my life.  Who knows, if I had been trying to receive the Holy Spirit, I might not have received it.  Rather I simply had made up my mind to see what the bible had to say because the girl I was dating was troubled because she wanted obey her church which in her case meant she shouldn't date anyone outside of her church.  I had many friends who went to her church, but I decided to read the bible and let the chips fall where they may

So, I guess my “search for truth” was in response to my heart subconsciously wanting to find truth, even though I wasn’t aware I was seeking God.  I was simply thinking, “All these different churches can’t be all correct, so I’ll just read the bible and go with the church that bests matches what the bible says.”.  (Luckily, I hadn't been brainwashed into believing the bible wasn't meant to be interpreted by anyone outside the leadership of the church).

I more or less walked into a trap God had set for me, which made it very easy for me to find Christ.  Therefore, to answer your question, the only conscience choice I made was to seek truth.

I'm curious - did you hate a gay before Christ entered you, or only after?

[Brittain33]

I'm curious - did you hate a gay before Christ entered you, or only after?

Please don't.