Dumping gay marriage prop in California is getting intense

[MK]

A right that they already have in the form of  Civil Unions.

In like five states.

I don't think any gay marriage proponents are arguing for gay marriage or nothing.  I'd prefer gay marriage because I think it's essentially "separate but equal" and I don't care for that.  I'd much prefer the state out of marriage, which I think would probably make both of us happy, but that's not happening.

But I think you can understand why some people see "separate but equal" status as a coded insult.

Its not a insult to homosexuals at all.  If the argument is having the same rights that are afforded to hetero sexual, then whats wrong with a Civil union cough* cough* civil Marriage?     

"In like 5 states"  Sir you are right on the money, and that's why during the course of this thread Ive repeatedly said  mandate it in all 50 states as a civil right.

The other side are not willing to find common ground, but instead force the issue on those who oppose redefining marriage.

[Alcon]

Its not a insult to homosexuals at all.  If the argument is having the same rights that are afforded to hetero sexual, then whats wrong with a Civil union cough* cough* civil Marriage? 

It's separate, but equal.  The very fact that you take offense at the inclusion of homosexual marriages makes the implication that they're inferior.  I find a societally-enforced, governmentally-enforced implication of inferiority like that to be wrong.

Can you kind of see the parallel to, like, black/white water fountains?  Black/white bus positions?  Even if you don't see the parallels as strong (for what reason don't you?) I imagine you can see why it's uncomfortably close.

The other side are not willing to find common ground, but instead force the issue on those who oppose redefining marriage.

Well, yeah, but aren't you kind of forcing us to accept your definition too?  That's sort of the thrust-and-perry of this issue.  Your definition being the traditional/status quo doesn't mean it's immoral to force ours on you, but moral vice-versa.

[Earth]

Rights are invented out of "thin air". We're talking about civil rights pertaining to gays, the rights granted by the state.

A right that they already have in the form of  Civil Unions.

Civil unions don't have the same benefits as marriage. A civil union isn't recognized federally, and only a handful of states have civil unions available to it's citizens. They aren't binding if the couple moves out of state. Couples in a civil union can't file joint tax returns, they can't sponsor their spouse in the case of immigration. Ending a civil union requires residence in the state where it's recognized for at least a year, whereas married couples can divorce anywhere in the country. Civil unions are hardly a solution.

[Mint]

Since gay marriage is banned, it only makes sense that fat people shouldn't marry either.

Argument 1:

Fat sex is just as gross as gay sex.

Argument 2:

Fat people will have fat children. It will ruin society.

Argument 3:

It will work out in the long run since it will motivate them to lose weight.

You win the thread.

....?

The slippery slope arguments I hear the homophobes and knee jerk social conservatives trotting out routinely sound just as ludicrous as that. Aizen got it right, again.

[Earth]

Aizen was kidding, guys.

[MK]

This debate much like the drugs debate never gets anywhere, because both sides will always stick to their guns.

My ideal on Civil Unions( if anybody pays attention) is kinda playing to both sides.

I even said "Civil Marriage"

[Mint]

No, it's still not enough. Besides not guaranteeing the same tax benefits and privileges that marriage grants it sends the message that gay relationships as still outside of the legal and cultural norm. Plus gay marriage bans don't really have any rational basis. Unless you can explain why gays are the same as people who are closely related, attempting to marry multiple spouses, etc. I'm not going to say that people should be allowed to marry whoever they want to because that's ridiculous, but let's be honest it all boils down to people not feeling comfortable about it. Nothing else.

[afleitch]

No, it's still not enough. Besides not guaranteeing the same tax benefits and privileges that marriage grants it sends the message that gay relationships as still outside of the legal and cultural norm. Plus gay marriage bans don't really have any rational basis. Unless you can explain why gays are the same as people who are closely related, attempting to marry multiple spouses, etc. I'm not going to say that people should be allowed to marry whoever they want to because that's ridiculous, but let's be honest it all boils down to people not feeling comfortable about it. Nothing else.

Civil unions effectively create a new and exclusive institution. 'Marriage for the straights not the gays and civil unions for the gays not the straights'. Which is just silly.

[Mint]

That too, it is an exercise in pointlessness. Besides, the states that have legalized gay marriage haven't seen any serious changes. In fact they have the lowest divorce rates in the country. Unless there's an epidemic of man on dog sex here that I'm unaware of.

[Alcon]

This debate much like the drugs debate never gets anywhere, because both sides will always stick to their guns.

Well, are you going to reply to what I said...?  I mean, if you don't have an answer/countereffect to something, why are you "sticking to your guns"?

My ideal on Civil Unions( if anybody pays attention) is kinda playing to both sides.

I appreciate that but let's not commit an appeal to moderation fallacy.

I even said "Civil Marriage"

So, you don't mind redefining marriage, just as long as churches have the say on whom to marry as a religious marriage?  That is, as far as I know, what the gay marriage legislation in MA & CT says...

[Matt Damon™]

why should the perspectives of religious people affect the legal rights of consenting adults to marriage?

[Alcon]

why should the perspectives of religious people affect the legal rights of consenting adults to marriage?

oh c'mon man, this is why the debate REALLY never gets anywhere:  sentences addressed to the ether.

Of course their opinion is valid.  There's a debate on whether it's acceptable to enforce religious morals governmentally, and aside of that, they can have secular logic too.

[Matt Damon™]

their opinion is valid but why should their opinion outweigh considerations like equal rights or secular governance?

[Alcon]

their opinion is valid but why should their opinion outweigh considerations like equal rights or secular governance?

I don't think they should.

But since Mike Keller has already conceded that he's willing to give governmental unions to gay couples, he's obviously not arguing the "we can't have society endorse homosexuality" argument.  So basically we've established that he doesn't think he should be able to completely enforce his religious views by governmental edict.  You're arguing against a strawman.

[Matt Damon™]

fair enough but i still do not see why governments shouldn't just step out of marriage entirely(everyone would get civil unions but churches would have full say on who can marry)

what benefit is there to having marriage be a legal concept and not just a church sacrament?

[Mint]

Other than that it's pointless because it will never happen? Marriage affords certain rights that civil unions or domestic partnerships don't. Besides, that also sends the message that people who aren't religious aren't 'really' married.

[Earth]

what benefit is there to having marriage be a legal concept and not just a church sacrament?

There are millions who couldn't care less about the religious aspect, the legal aspects are more important.

[Verily]

what benefit is there to having marriage be a legal concept and not just a church sacrament?

There are millions who couldn't care less about the religious aspect, the legal aspects are more important.

Much more importantly, marriage is already a legal concept; it's not "just a church sacrament". Personally, I'd be okay with making marriage have no legal benefits and therefore no ties to the state, but that's not the status quo.

[Earth]

Civil Unions would work if done right.

How so?

[Sbane]

in that case:  none of the founders of the federal or state constitutions would have imagined same-sex marriages under the governments they established...so you're inventing "rights" out of thin air.

Rights are invented out of "thin air". We're talking about civil rights pertaining to gays, the rights granted by the state.

A right that they already have in the form of  Civil Unions.

I say we bring back plessy vs ferguson too!!!!!   I would be ok with civil unions if and only if everybody gets them. It can't be straights getting married and gays getting civil unions. The government should not be in the business of discriminating. I think the government giving civil unions( aka civil marriage) is acceptable and then churches can decide who they want to let marry in their church.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

A right that they already have in the form of  Civil Unions.

I say we bring back plessy vs ferguson too!!!!!

I don't think that that comparision is terribly appropriate. Unless you're comparing what is, "objectively", a minor difference between two forms of, er, officially sanctioned relationships, with the legal justification for turning a group of people into fifth or perhaps sixth class citizens and generally ruining the lives of millions of people (who hadn't long been released from slavery) for about a century or so.

[Sbane]

A right that they already have in the form of  Civil Unions.

I say we bring back plessy vs ferguson too!!!!!

I don't think that that comparision is terribly appropriate. Unless you're comparing what is, "objectively", a minor difference between two forms of, er, officially sanctioned relationships, with the legal justification for turning a group of people into fifth or perhaps sixth class citizens and generally ruining the lives of millions of people (who hadn't long been released from slavery) for about a century or so.

I am not talking about the magnitude of the two situations, which I agree is totally different. I am just saying that civil unions are basically a "separate but equal" institution to marriage. I don't see any reason for gays to have a separate institution to get civil marriage rights. Either everyone gets civil unions or everyone gets "married".

[afleitch]

A right that they already have in the form of  Civil Unions.

I say we bring back plessy vs ferguson too!!!!!

I don't think that that comparision is terribly appropriate. Unless you're comparing what is, "objectively", a minor difference between two forms of, er, officially sanctioned relationships, with the legal justification for turning a group of people into fifth or perhaps sixth class citizens and generally ruining the lives of millions of people (who hadn't long been released from slavery) for about a century or so.

I am not talking about the magnitude of the two situations, which I agree is totally different. I am just saying that civil unions are basically a "separate but equal" institution to marriage. I don't see any reason for gays to have a separate institution to get civil marriage rights. Either everyone gets civil unions or everyone gets "married".

That's pretty much my postion. And while I would support that in principle, effectively annuling the marriages of millions of straight couples to grant them civil unions, is just as wrong as the annulment of gay marriages in California to do exactly the same thing. The only alternative is to allow people to marry or have civil partnerships. However that means you now have to purposely differentiate between the two in law.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I am not talking about the magnitude of the two situations, which I agree is totally different.

I would argue that it isn't just the magnitude that's different (Jim Crow was was based on a theory (that of "race") that has become totally, utterly and irrevocably discredited. You can't really claim that of this issue; the difference between homosexual relationships and "normal" ones is real enough. Whether that's important or not is a very different question, obviously) but even if we assume that it is, by even bringing up Plessy v Ferguson you (or anyone else who does the same thing) quite clearly imply that the magnitude is close enough for a comparision to be anything other than... well... a little obscene, frankly.

Though the reason for bringing it up is obvious; as Jim Crow is the ultimate symbol of domestic political evil in the United States, comparing any modern argument to arguments in favour of it is an attempt to discredit the argument in question by calling it, basically, evil. Attitudes like that don't exactly help... and neither does the response that it doesn't matter how extreme the language is, we'll win anyway because all the old bastards will be dead soon anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, interestingly enough, is "gay marriage". You could (and presumably will) argue that legally it wouldn't be or isn't, but that's only on part of it. Socially and culturally, it would be (and, where it exists it is) a seperate institution for a long time, probably. Though that's more of a random observation than an argument. In any case, legally speaking the only real difference between marriage and civil unions should be the name.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Politics is a very good reason. Civil partnerships were passed over here without much of a fuss (less so than lowering the age of (male) homosexual consent) after all. You could argue that that's the result of a more liberal political culture or political culture never seriously infected by culture wars (the second one, in particular, is a valid point) but, nonetheless, if an attempt had been made to legalise "gay marriage" outright and if this language of rights and of evil had been used to justify it, things would have been just a little less civil, even if it would never have gotten so bad as it has in America.

Btw, I would have voted "no" on this proposition in California if I lived there. Not that you'd ever be able to get me do to move to Calfornia, lol.

[Sbane]

I am not talking about the magnitude of the two situations, which I agree is totally different.

I would argue that it isn't just the magnitude that's different (Jim Crow was was based on a theory (that of "race") that has become totally, utterly and irrevocably discredited. You can't really claim that of this issue; the difference between homosexual relationships and "normal" ones is real enough. Whether that's important or not is a very different question, obviously) but even if we assume that it is, by even bringing up Plessy v Ferguson you (or anyone else who does the same thing) quite clearly imply that the magnitude is close enough for a comparision to be anything other than... well... a little obscene, frankly.

Though the reason for bringing it up is obvious; as Jim Crow is the ultimate symbol of domestic political evil in the United States, comparing any modern argument to arguments in favour of it is an attempt to discredit the argument in question by calling it, basically, evil. Attitudes like that don't exactly help... and neither does the response that it doesn't matter how extreme the language is, we'll win anyway because all the old bastards will be dead soon anyway.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

So, interestingly enough, is "gay marriage". You could (and presumably will) argue that legally it wouldn't be or isn't, but that's only on part of it. Socially and culturally, it would be (and, where it exists it is) a seperate institution for a long time, probably. Though that's more of a random observation than an argument. In any case, legally speaking the only real difference between marriage and civil unions should be the name.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Politics is a very good reason. Civil partnerships were passed over here without much of a fuss (less so than lowering the age of (male) homosexual consent) after all. You could argue that that's the result of a more liberal political culture or political culture never seriously infected by culture wars (the second one, in particular, is a valid point) but, nonetheless, if an attempt had been made to legalise "gay marriage" outright and if this language of rights and of evil had been used to justify it, things would have been just a little less civil, even if it would never have gotten so bad as it has in America.

Btw, I would have voted "no" on this proposition in California if I lived there. Not that you'd ever be able to get me do to move to Calfornia, lol.

May I ask you what is the difference between a homosexual and heterosexual relationship? Aren't they just two people who like each other and want to be with each other? And shouldn't a gay couple have exactly the same right to be able to officially register their relationship with the state as straight couples do? If we were to have civil unions for gays and marriage for straights, it will be "separate but equal" all over again. That is why I used plessy v ferguson, not to equate gay marriage opponents with evil. I already feel these gay marriage initiatives are "evil" so I don't have to equate it with anything. I feel this is the civil rights issue of our generation and I am disappointed my state will always go down as a bigoted state in history. And no I don't feel like I have to find any common ground on this issue. Let the old people die out is what I say.