Dear Lord, can we make this racist group disappear?

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: mary

The reason I don't have a right to murder someone, is because that is trumped by the other person's right to live.

The reason I don't have a right to rob someone, is because that is trumped by the other person's right to own property.

The reason I don't have the right to rape someone, is because that is trumped by the other person's right to...not be raped.


So who's rights are trumping my right to marry another female?

Who am I infringing upon?

There is a difference.

Whose rights are trumping your right to marry your sister? (Assuming you have a sister.)

[mary]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran

Whose rights are trumping your right to marry your sister? (Assuming you have a sister.)

Nobody's.

Should I take that as your acknowledgement that there is a difference?


And still, I can make a distinction between homosexuality and incest, as I believe most people can.

Okay, so that just goes to show that you draw the line at a different place in terms of what is and isn't morally acceptable. You are willing to accept "discrimination" against incestuous relationships, but not homosexual ones (and perhaps not polygamous ones).

A) I'm against discrimination that is without merit. To call back to U2's example, its okay to discriminate against terrorists, because they blow people up.

B) I'm not sure there is such a thing healthy, nourishing, incestuous relationship. In fact I would say that incestuous relationships are going to result in some sort of mental trauma, or psychological damage to one or both parties involved. That's why it is not a good analogy.

C) Gay people aren't trying to marry their sisters, brothers, children, or parents - just each other.

[chumdawg]

I'm about at my wit's end with the silly "legislating morality" cliche.

Most laws that we pass are attempts to legislate morality. Laws against everything from murder, robbery, rape, to incest and insider trading are attempts by society to legislate morality. This would be no different.

I guess now we're getting the heart of what bothers me. Why would a proponent of this amendment bristle at the suggestion that the amendment legislates morality? It's exactly what it does, and everyone knows it, but the proponents don't want to admit it.

That's why we have to have things like the "Defense of Marriage" Act. Oh, no, no, gay people. It's not that you are immoral. It's just that we want to keep our own morals nice and intact. We aren't trying to have a "Ban on Gay Marriage" Act. That would look too much like we were meddling in your lives, or that we want to tell you to share our own morals. You don't have to share our morals if you don't want to. But we're just saying that you can't have the same rights as we do if you don't.

When the proponents of this amendment get the balls to come out and call it what it is, I'll have a whole lot more respect for them and will go so far as to consider their point of view. But as long as they are draping their own moral evangelism in titles like "Defense of Marriage" and in wording like "identical or similar to marriage," I know where to place them in my mind.

At least the left will come out and tell you that they think you are immoral.

[dude1394]

Nope.. I do not want society to condone a deviant lifestyle. If folks want to engage in that deviant lifestyle, that's perfectly fine with me. But society does not have to condone it and shouldn't.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: kg_veteran
It reinforces the views of the VAST majority, not "some."

could be the "vast majority" of the voters.
I find the vote to be tough to predict. normally I'd say it would be a slam dunk to pass, but this clumsy proposal makes it less than that. This Amendment isn't needed, the current code prohibits same sex marriages. but then we texans do love to amend our consititution.
so far all the votes have been strongly in support of continued discrimination of homosexuals. those elections do not however make the practice just.

I've heard this argument several times. It's apples and oranges. Protecting the institution of marriage is different than protecting individual marriages. I am against divorce and am in favor of doing things to promote reconciliation instead of divorce as often as possible, but the divorce argument is nothing more than a red herring.

so then explain what that "institution" of marriage is if the couple's commitment is short term, able to terminated at will?

Sure, it is an attempt to discriminate against same sex couples, because the majority of the population believes such relationships to be immoral and doesn't want the relationships to receive the same legal and social status as heterosexual marriages. That's the bottom line. That doesn't make the majority wrong.

by that logic, if "society" deemed mixed race couples to be prohibited, that would be justified.
sorry, I see them as wrong.

What of the City of Dallas, who has provided to its employees the right to provide their partner- same sex or not- benefits of insurance. Under this Amendment that would not be allowed, as it specifically denies any governmental agency from providing the same benefits which could be viewed as "recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage".

I don't agree with you. If the city contracts for its group health insurance (and I'm quite certain it does), it can offer the benefits if it wants to do so.

not all of the legal minds agreee with you.

A logical extension of that prohibition could mandate that contractors engaged by a governmental agency not provide the same benefits to same sex couples which are provided to heterosexual couples.

No, that's not logical at all. You'd have to add language to the amendment that isn't there in order to come up with such a convoluted prohibition.

a case could be argued that the city is violating the amendment if any of its service providers have same sex benefits. the same

As long as there are benefits for married people, all citizens who are adults and who wish to enter into marriage should enjoy those benefits. It should matter not if those couples are of the same or of different sex, to deny one group the benefits that are provided to others is flat out discrimination. it is wrong.

Okay, fine, I agree with you. If a man wants to marry his mother, he should be allowed to do so. If a man wants to marry his brother, more power to him. And if a man wants to marry three women, that should be okay, too.

Right?

those examples, the son, the brother, and the mother, already enjoy rights under the family law that this amendment will deny to same sex couples.
they wouldn't need to get married.

as far as polygamy, I am aginst its prohibition. If a woman wants to be a second or third wife, let her.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: MavKikiNYC

Was Brown v. Topeka Board of Education a case of an activist group changing law by judicial fiat?

It was a reversal of the precedent set by Plessy v. Ferguson, but I get your point. Nonetheless, I think it's pretty easy to distinguish between the two issues. Also, it's worth noting that discrimination on the basis of skin color was ultimately put to an end by legislation (the Civil Rights Act of 1965), not Supreme Court decisions.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: mary
Whose rights are trumping your right to marry your sister? (Assuming you have a sister.)

Nobody's.

Should I take that as your acknowledgement that there is a difference? [/quote]

No, exactly the opposite. It is proof that there is no difference between "discrimination" against homosexual couples and discrimination against incestuous couples. You're okay with discriminating against one, but not the other. So you're really NOT against "discrimination", and that can't form the logical basis of your opposition to this amendment.

And still, I can make a distinction between homosexuality and incest, as I believe most people can.

Not a logical one based upon the rationale that two adults have the right to do what they want. You can make a distinction, but it's a distinction based upon your moral values, which means that you think it's okay for us to legislate your morals, but not mine.

A) I'm against discrimination that is without merit. To call back to U2's example, its okay to discriminate against terrorists, because they blow people up.

But see, now you're trying to be the one that gets to determine what "discrimination" is meritorious, which is the same thing as saying we should impose your morals, not mine. As long as we're going to legislate morality, the majority rules. That's the way our system works.

B) I'm not sure there is such a thing healthy, nourishing, incestuous relationship. In fact I would say that incestuous relationships are going to result in some sort of mental trauma, or psychological damage to one or both parties involved. That's why it is not a good analogy.

Again, that's legislation of morality. There are studies which suggest that homosexual relationships are not healthy, either, and many people are of the opinion that homosexuality is a deviant lifestyle.

C) Gay people aren't trying to marry their sisters, brothers, children, or parents - just each other.

Sure, but it still boils down to a question of morals, not "discrimination."

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: chumdawg
I guess now we're getting the heart of what bothers me. Why would a proponent of this amendment bristle at the suggestion that the amendment legislates morality? It's exactly what it does, and everyone knows it, but the proponents don't want to admit it.

Maybe I wasn't clear. I readily admit that the amendment is an attempt to legislate morality. You said you're at your wit's end with people trying to legislate their morality on others. My point was that most of our laws legislate morality on society. Make no mistake about it, Chum, the opponents of this amendment are out there trying to legislate their morality on us, too. Those that complain about their opponents "legislating morality" are just sore losers in the democratic process.

That's why we have to have things like the "Defense of Marriage" Act. Oh, no, no, gay people. It's not that you are immoral. It's just that we want to keep our own morals nice and intact. We aren't trying to have a "Ban on Gay Marriage" Act. That would look too much like we were meddling in your lives, or that we want to tell you to share our own morals. You don't have to share our morals if you don't want to. But we're just saying that you can't have the same rights as we do if you don't.

Again, I think it's precisely the opposite. Perhaps some proponents of DOMA and the various constitutional amendments in different states try to pretend that they aren't legislating morality, but that's certainly disingenuous. From what I've seen in Texas, people are honest about it. This is an attempt to legislate morality. But that doesn't make it wrong. In fact, that's the way our system works.

When the proponents of this amendment get the balls to come out and call it what it is, I'll have a whole lot more respect for them and will go so far as to consider their point of view.

Well then, you should start considering it, because I just did.

[u2sarajevo]

You know.... when I started this thread it was anti-racism. Not anti-homosexuality.

Maybe I should have kept my views private? And just linked to the story? Not posted it at all?

No one is convincing anyone differently.

Here's a proposition in a Utopia that we would vote on: Get rid of the KKK.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Mavdog
could be the "vast majority" of the voters.
I find the vote to be tough to predict. normally I'd say it would be a slam dunk to pass, but this clumsy proposal makes it less than that.

We'll revisit this on November 9, I guess.

This Amendment isn't needed, the current code prohibits same sex marriages. but then we texans do love to amend our consititution.

You make an accurate criticism about how frequently we amend our Constitution, but a statute can be overturned by a judge. A statute reinforced by a constitutional amendment can't. In that sense, if you want the law to be airtight, it is needed.

so far all the votes have been strongly in support of continued discrimination of homosexuals. those elections do not however make the practice just.

In your opinion. That's fair enough. As long as we agree on the main point, which is that such measures have been repeatedly and overwhelming supported.

so then explain what that "institution" of marriage is if the couple's commitment is short term, able to terminated at will?

Again, you're trying to point out individual cases where marriages go bad and suggest that we should therefore further weaken the institution.

by that logic, if "society" deemed mixed race couples to be prohibited, that would be justified.
sorry, I see them as wrong.

No, I said that the majority wasn't wrong simply because it can be termed "discrimination." I never said the majority was automatically right simply because it is the majority.

not all of the legal minds agreee with you.

Fair enough. You can't get all lawyers to agree about anything.

a case could be argued that the city is violating the amendment if any of its service providers have same sex benefits. the same

Not a very good case, but see my concession above.

those examples, the son, the brother, and the mother, already enjoy rights under the family law that this amendment will deny to same sex couples.
they wouldn't need to get married.

Wrong. They don't enjoy the same rights they would enjoy if they were married.

Look, marriage is not a benefits package. It is the institution that forms the basis of the family, which is the foundation of our civilized society. Trying to make it all about rights cheapens the notion of what a marriage and family is.

as far as polygamy, I am aginst its prohibition. If a woman wants to be a second or third wife, let her.

Hey, at least you're consistent in your logic.

[mary]

Look, marriage is not a benefits package. It is the institution that forms the basis of the family, which is the foundation of our civilized society. Trying to make it all about rights cheapens the notion of what a marriage and family is.

If that's the case, why isn't more being done to preserve the "instutition" to begin with? Besides, you know, the whole gay thing.

Is it more or less difficult to get married than it was 30 years ago?

Is it more or less difficult to get divorced than it was 30 years ago?

Is the divorce rate higher, or lower, than it was 30 years ago?

What about the frequency of marriages and divorces?


In other words, besides making sure gays don't defile marriage, is any legislation being put forth that is consistent with maintaining the overall sanctity of the institution from a more general standpoint?

If you believe its the government's role to preserve the institution of marriage, then shouldn't it be doing more?


Word to U2. Down with the KKK.

[mary]

But see, now you're trying to be the one that gets to determine what "discrimination" is meritorious, which is the same thing as saying we should impose your morals, not mine. As long as we're going to legislate morality, the majority rules. That's the way our system works.

No, I'm not actually. Because I don't think someones sexual preferences, race, or gender are issues of merit to begin with. There are still those that believe discrimination against Black Americans is meritous, and I suppose they were once in the majority. But they were still wrong.

Again, that's legislation of morality. There are studies which suggest that homosexual relationships are not healthy, either, and many people are of the opinion that homosexuality is a deviant lifestyle.

Some people are of the opinion that people who have tatoos, body piercings and listen to punk are leading deviant lifestyles. Furthermore, I'm certain this is not the type of lifestyle that some would consider consistent with Biblical teachings about treating one's body and mind as a temple, and somesuch. Yet, we don't direct legislation toward this group of people to deny them the right to marry (or procreate or mark up their bodies for that matter).

Sure, but it still boils down to a question of morals, not "discrimination."

I think its both. By making my point about religion earlier, I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't a moral issue - just not a religous one, since I don't see society as particularly religous at this point in time. (Afterall, religion's not meant to be a buffet for us to pick and choose our favorite entrees, and there's certainly no lack of what is considered "sexual immorality" among the majority). My third point had more to do with relevancy. The merits of incest have no real bearing on the merits of denying gay people the right to marry.

[chumdawg]

Maybe I wasn't clear. I readily admit that the amendment is an attempt to legislate morality. You said you're at your wit's end with people trying to legislate their morality on others. My point was that most of our laws legislate morality on society. Make no mistake about it, Chum, the opponents of this amendment are out there trying to legislate their morality on us, too. Those that complain about their opponents "legislating morality" are just sore losers in the democratic process.

I find it hard to understand your suggestion that the folks opposed to Prop 2 are trying to legislate their morality on the rest of us. I would be very interested in hearing your explanation of that claim.

I'm opposed to Prop 2, for the reason that I don't want other people legislating their morality on society as a whole. I'm not gay. I don't have a dog in this fight. Any more than any other straight person has a dog in this fight, I might add. I oppose those who don't have a dog in the fight getting into the fight. Make sense?

I'm sorry, but I just do not feel that the proponents of Prop 2 have made a strong enough cause for how they would be damaged if gay people were allowed to share in the sacred compact of marriage that they themselves share. In fact, I received a flier in support of Prop 2. It talked about all the benefits of marriage, how it led to reduced violent crime and all sorts of other stuff. My first inclination was to wonder: if it's so good, why are we trying to restrict the number of people who can participate in it?

I think that's a valid point, but again, the crux of my own problem with the bill is that the proponents have not demonstrated any real damages they would suffer if the bill weren't passed.

Will the "victims" just be sore losers in democracy? Interesting take on the matter. I hesitate to think what might be the ultimate effects on our society if the majority were simply able to have its rule. I'm here to tell you: blacks wouldn't enjoy what they now enjoy, in terms of freedoms and in terms of legs-up in affrimative action. Handicapped people wouldn't have the amenities that they have in all public places. If we put everything up to public opinion, no matter how right or wrong it was, things would look a whole lot different than they do today.

[Thespiralgoeson]

Originally posted by: chumdawg
I'm sorry, but I just do not feel that the proponents of Prop 2 have made a strong enough cause for how they would be damaged if gay people were allowed to share in the sacred compact of marriage that they themselves share. In fact, I received a flier in support of Prop 2. It talked about all the benefits of marriage, how it led to reduced violent crime and all sorts of other stuff. My first inclination was to wonder: if it's so good, why are we trying to restrict the number of people who can participate in it?

I think that's a valid point, but again, the crux of my own problem with the bill is that the proponents have not demonstrated any real damages they would suffer if the bill weren't passed.

Well said, Chum. Very well said.

[dude1394]

The crux of the argument is whether this amendment will be destructive to the institution of marriage or not. If you believe that it will then you will be inclined to vote for it if you do not believe this then you will be inclined to vote against it.

It would seem that the real life case of 70% out of marriage children in the black community and the terrible toll that is taking on black culture stands testament to how important marriage is to a society. If that is agreed to then the argument boils down to whether condoning gay marriage will be destructive or not. I see no evidence stated to the contrary. It would behoove the pro-gay marriage folks to bring in some long-term statistics from countries that promote gay-marriage for evidence.

[Mavdog]

Originally posted by: dude1394
The crux of the argument is whether this amendment will be destructive to the institution of marriage or not. If you believe that it will then you will be inclined to vote for it if you do not believe this then you will be inclined to vote against it.

It would seem that the real life case of 70% out of marriage children in the black community and the terrible toll that is taking on black culture stands testament to how important marriage is to a society. If that is agreed to then the argument boils down to whether condoning gay marriage will be destructive or not. I see no evidence stated to the contrary. It would behoove the pro-gay marriage folks to bring in some long-term statistics from countries that promote gay-marriage for evidence.

link (from San Fran, who would have guessed?)

[dalmations202]

I understand the religous objections to homesexuality, as cited by dalmations above. But I have my own doubts as to whether this is the REAL reason many Americans are against gay marriage, homesexuality...whatever way you want to put it.

First of all, I'm not convinced the majority of Americans are "religious" in the first place. I believe the majority of Americans believe in God, and consider themselves Christians, but don't necessarily follow a strict code of behavior, ceremonies and rules that are consistent with the teachings of Christianity.

Dal, my instincts tell me that when you cite Bible versus, you do so from your heart. But do you think the majority of Americans could cite those versus on their own? Do you think the majority of people voting "YES" in November have Levitcus 18:22 rolling around in their head?

And if its true the the majority rejects homesexuality based on Christian beliefs, then how come that same majority does not also adhere to OTHER Christian laws concercing sexual behavior and marriage.

If the majority of Americans are against homesexuality because they believe it is sexually immoral, does that imply that the majority of Americans today are sexually moral?

If I'm prejudiced against gays because of my religous beliefs, wouldn't you expect me to give equal attention to the sanctity of my own sexual behavior?

Sorry so late in my reply, but work is a little hectic right now.

Mary,
I do from the heart recite the verses. I guess the crux of my arguement and belief comes from this. Wrong is still Wrong.

#1 - Do you believe in God? If you do, then don't you believe that he makes the rules, instead of man. If you don't believe their is God, then you have to believe the big lie, that Man/no-One is in control of the universe, and all of the earth, stars, and universe just came from nothingness with no specific design.
If you don't believe in God, then nothing matters because the rules change with the power of the men in charge. So rape, murder (which is defined by law), and every other rule is strictly governed by man. Making right and wrong, not definitive, but arbitrary based upon when you live, and where you are, how much power you have, and who is in charge.
If you do believe in God, then you also have to believe that he put forth the "rules". Now, you don't have to obey the rules, just like you don't have to obey man's law, but there are consequences if you break God's rules -- just like there are consequences if you break the law. Only if you believe in God (or even that their is a God) then you have to believe in eternity, and if you believe in eternity, then hopefully no one wants to live it in eternally in hell.
So, yes, I believe in God, and if I am wrong, then I have lived a life trying to help the needy, and spreading the word of Jesus Christ and helping others. If I am correct, that their is a God, and that Jesus atoned for my sins, and you can be saved by believing in him, then I can't go against God's rules. That would be WRONG, no matter what Man thinks. No matter how many people that can be convinced that this is "OK". No matter how many Romans think that killing Christians for sport is fine. No matter how many Germans think that killing Jews is fine. No matter how many Americans believe that killing/enslaving Blacks is fine. No matter how may Muslims believe that destoying the infedels is OK.

Wrong is Wrong. Two people of the same sex getting married is WRONG. There is not a question. It is not up to man to decide, unless you do not believe in God, in which case, I'll pray for you. The law getting put on the books, just confirms that most people do believe in God, and God's ways.

Everyone on this board has the choice to make. You can either believe in God, or you can believe in Man/Satan/OtherGods.

Now then, you question why people don't worry about other Christian sinful issues like temperance, adultry, pride, gluttony, and many others. Yet, this country has. The Puritans were known to make people wear a scarlet letter. An amendment was passed to the constitution that banned alcohol (misguided, but happened). None of this worked because it is not about the letter of the law, but about the relationship. We are all sinners -- gays and straights alike. The only difference is, God says that a man should leave his parents house for his wife, and that a man sleeping with another man is an abomination. So we all have character flaws that would condemn us to hell without Jesus Christ. No where does it say that I should condone that which is WRONG though.

Many who read this will think that I am prejudiced against Gays. I disagree. I do not judge any person. I have a friend who has cheated on his wife. He needs to quit sinning. I am guilty of pride. I need to quit sinning. My other friend is living with his girlfriend, but not married. He needs to quit sinning as well. Sin is easy to find, and hard to remove -- especially from you own "eye".

So I guess my answer is --- How can anyone who believes in God, condone two people marrying who are not male/female?
So, IMO, this law only infers that most people here believe in God. When the time comes that the majority here doesn't, then heaven help us.

[mavsman]

I admire your faith, dalmations, but how does it feel to share the same stance when it comes to gays with the KKK, the real Nazis and hardcore Islamists? Or, to phrase it differently, what exactly seperates you from them? I'm not meaning to provoke, I'm really interested.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: mary
If that's the case, why isn't more being done to preserve the "instutition" to begin with? Besides, you know, the whole gay thing.

Is it more or less difficult to get married than it was 30 years ago?

Is it more or less difficult to get divorced than it was 30 years ago?

Is the divorce rate higher, or lower, than it was 30 years ago?

What about the frequency of marriages and divorces?

I understand what you're saying, but I think it's fallacious to argue that something can't be intended to preserve the institution of marriage simply because everything that could be done isn't being done as well.

No, I'm not actually. Because I don't think someones sexual preferences, race, or gender are issues of merit to begin with.

Yes, you do. You think that if someone has the sexual preference to sleep with a family member, that is worth discriminating against.

I see that you have a real hang-up with the incest analogy, so I'll present it to you another way.

There are many people living together today that have no sexual relationship at all. For example, many family members (brothers and sisters, aunts and uncles) live together and support one another. They could really benefit if they were allowed to marry and enjoy the benefits that married people do.

If it's simply a benefits package, then there really should be no distinction between a homosexual couple that wants to marry and a brother and sister who want to marry. Both are examples of consenting adults who want to enjoy the "rights" and "benefits" created by marriage. But marriage is NOT simply a benefits package, and I seriously doubt our society would allow such an arrangement. Do you disagree?

Some people are of the opinion that people who have tatoos, body piercings and listen to punk are leading deviant lifestyles. Furthermore, I'm certain this is not the type of lifestyle that some would consider consistent with Biblical teachings about treating one's body and mind as a temple, and somesuch. Yet, we don't direct legislation toward this group of people to deny them the right to marry (or procreate or mark up their bodies for that matter).

Apples and oranges. A tattoo or body piercing is something an individual does. It has absolutely no bearing on why people have a relationship.

I think its both. By making my point about religion earlier, I didn't mean to imply that it wasn't a moral issue - just not a religous one, since I don't see society as particularly religous at this point in time. (Afterall, religion's not meant to be a buffet for us to pick and choose our favorite entrees, and there's certainly no lack of what is considered "sexual immorality" among the majority).

From a religious standpoint, something is either wrong (sin) or it isn't. The fact that someone sins doesn't mean they have to condone it when others do something they consider to be sin.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: chumdawg
I find it hard to understand your suggestion that the folks opposed to Prop 2 are trying to legislate their morality on the rest of us. I would be very interested in hearing your explanation of that claim.

Chum, the folks opposed to Prop 2 ARE trying to legislate their morality. They just try to do it through the courts, because they don't have the ability to do it through the legislative process.

I'm opposed to Prop 2, for the reason that I don't want other people legislating their morality on society as a whole. I'm not gay. I don't have a dog in this fight. Any more than any other straight person has a dog in this fight, I might add. I oppose those who don't have a dog in the fight getting into the fight. Make sense?

If that's your reason for opposing Prop 2, then your opposition is misplaced. Both sides want their morality to be legislated. One is trying to do it through statutes and constitutional amendments. The other is trying to do it through the courts. Either way you look at it, both are trying to legislate morality.

I'm sorry, but I just do not feel that the proponents of Prop 2 have made a strong enough cause for how they would be damaged if gay people were allowed to share in the sacred compact of marriage that they themselves share. [/quote]

The argument is that society itself would be damaged. If you believe that the family is the foundation of our civilized society, and you believe that children are best raised by a mother and a father (as social science suggests), then it's not too hard to understand how damage to society could occur.

Will the "victims" just be sore losers in democracy? Interesting take on the matter. I hesitate to think what might be the ultimate effects on our society if the majority were simply able to have its rule. I'm here to tell you: blacks wouldn't enjoy what they now enjoy, in terms of freedoms and in terms of legs-up in affrimative action. Handicapped people wouldn't have the amenities that they have in all public places. If we put everything up to public opinion, no matter how right or wrong it was, things would look a whole lot different than they do today.

True, but it's pretty difficult to try and equate race or disability with sexual preference. And as I've said before, I never said the majority was right simply because it is the majority.

[chumdawg]

I understand what you're saying, but I think it's fallacious to argue that something can't be intended to preserve the institution of marriage simply because everything that could be done isn't being done as well.

I think you misunderstand her argument.

Or rather, I think you do understand the argument but you are engaging in fallacy of your own to counter it. Actually, I shouldn't say fallacy. I should say obfuscation, in an attempt to further an agenda.

The argument is that Prop 2 does not exist because the "institution of marriage" that is under attack, because if that were the case then those who wished to strengthen the institution of marriage would focus instead on the very real things that threaten that vaunted institution--which is to say a lack of respect for the institution in the first place, the ease with which the sacred marriage pact can be (and is being) dissolved, the number of people who live with all the benefits of marriage but who do not commit completely to the responsibilities it requires.

If folks were really worried about strengthening a vaunted institution that was under attack, that's where they would start. But that's not where they are. They are, instead, trying to prevent a segment of people from joining into the same sacred pacts that they hold so dear.

When people can fly to Vegas and marry that same day, it doesn't threaten the institution of marriage and all that it stands for, as long as those people are straight.

When people can, and readily do, choose to dissolve their sacred marriage pact--which they sweared upon for life--for just about any old reason, that doesn't threaten the institution of marriage, as long as those people are straight.

When people can, and readily do, violate the marriage pact by committing adultery, with little or no consequence, that doesn't threaten the sacred institution of marriage, as long as those people are straight.

When convicted child molesters can get married, and procreate, that doesn't threaten the sacred institution of marriage, so long as those people are straight. Actually, just so long as people marry someone of the opposite sex.

But when same-sex couples want to commit their lives to their partners by sacred vows under God, want to have their commitment recongized by the state and want the rights that such a commitment bestows upon every other human being, that does indeed threaten the very sacred institution of marriage.

Give me a break. The institution of marriage isn't under threat from gays. It may be under threat from a lot of other things, yes. But not gays. The only thing under threat when it comes to Prop 2 is homosexuality. You can deny that all you want, you can obscure that all you want with dubious logical leaps, but the fact remains.

[mary]

If it's simply a benefits package, then there really should be no distinction between a homosexual couple that wants to marry and a brother and sister who want to marry. Both are examples of consenting adults who want to enjoy the "rights" and "benefits" created by marriage. But marriage is NOT simply a benefits package, and I seriously doubt our society would allow such an arrangement. Do you disagree?

I never said it was a benefits package to begin with.

The reason I have the hang up about the analogy is because it fails to justify denying gay people the right to marry. You can reword it again, but it won't gain relevance simply because you've restated it using different words.

Apples and oranges. A tattoo or body piercing is something an individual does. It has absolutely no bearing on why people have a relationship.

They're both deviant lifestyles according to society norms. I understand they are not exactly the same thing, but certainly thery are both lifestyles that are frowned upon. Why aren't we attempting to legislate other types of behavior?

I understand what you're saying, but I think it's fallacious to argue that something can't be intended to preserve the institution of marriage simply because everything that could be done isn't being done as well.

Its not fallacious if the stated intent is false to being with (or at the very least, INCREDIBLY hypocritical)

Okay, here's an metaphor of my own.

Barbara goes to a restaurant and decides she is in the mood for something sweet.

The waiter brings her some apple pie. She eats it.

The waiter brings her some peach cobbler. She happily gobbles it down.

The waiter brings her some chocolate cake. She says, "No thanks, I'm trying to watch my figure."

The waiter brings her some ice cream. She licks the bowl clean.


What's wrong this picture? According to the "preserve the institution" logic, its very reasonable to believe that Barbara did reject the chocolate cake because she's worried about her figure. I mean, just because she didn't turn down the other three desserts, doesn't mean "getting fat" isn't a good reason to reject chocolate cake. Of course, she already weighs over 300 pounds, but lets not worry about that part of the equation. Everyone accepts the fact that chocolate cake goes straight to the hips, so she must really be concerned about her figure - after all, she did in fact reject chocolate cake.

OR

Would it be more reasonable to conclude that.......Barbara just .........doesn't........ like....... chocolate cake?



(I realize all of your quotes are out of order KG...but its late, the brain has shut down, and its time to go to bed)

Dal - I read your comments earlier tonight in my office. I have some thoughts I'd like to articulate at a later time - especially concerning how society views sin (or I guess what you would refer to as a "character flaw").

[Epitome22]

So what you are effectively saying is, KG, because proponents of same-sex marriage are allegedly trying aquire state recnognition of SSm through the courts, we should deny them state recognition through the legislature? I don't follow you.

[Epitome22]

"But when same-sex couples want to commit their lives to their partners by sacred vows under God, want to have their commitment recongized by the state and want the rights that such a commitment bestows upon every other human being, that does indeed threaten the very sacred institution of marriage."

? Please explain why.

[dalmations202]

I admire your faith, dalmations, but how does it feel to share the same stance when it comes to gays with the KKK, the real Nazis and hardcore Islamists? Or, to phrase it differently, <u>what exactly seperates you from them</u>? I'm not meaning to provoke, I'm really interested.

Jesus Christ and Grace

I do not wish their death. I do not wish them any issues. I want them to repent of this abomination.
I cannot condone it though.

I also want all people who break any of the ten commandments to repent, and all men to come back to the ways of the Lord. It isn't like you can find a person who is not a sinner. All you can do is inform, and not condone that which is WRONG.

1Co 2:14 Now the natural man receiveth not the things of the Spirit of God: for they are foolishness unto him; and he cannot know them, because they are spiritually judged.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: chumdawg
I think you misunderstand her argument.

Or rather, I think you do understand the argument but you are engaging in fallacy of your own to counter it. Actually, I shouldn't say fallacy. I should say obfuscation, in an attempt to further an agenda.

The argument is that Prop 2 does not exist because the "institution of marriage" that is under attack, because if that were the case then those who wished to strengthen the institution of marriage would focus instead on the very real things that threaten that vaunted institution--which is to say a lack of respect for the institution in the first place, the ease with which the sacred marriage pact can be (and is being) dissolved, the number of people who live with all the benefits of marriage but who do not commit completely to the responsibilities it requires.

Yes, I understood her argument, which is why I said, "I understand what you're saying, but..."

In YOUR opinion, homosexual marriage doesn't threaten the institution of marriage itself. That's fair enough, but there are many people who disagree with you, even if you claim that to know better than they do what they are thinking.

That said, I certainly agree with you and Mary that there are many things eroding the "sanctity" of marriage in our society today.

It would be great if we could pass some law that required people to respect marriage more, but what would that law look like?

Practically speaking, in Texas we have a "no-fault" divorce system. If you wanted to try and make it more difficult to end a marriage, you could try and go back to a requirement that the party wanting a divorce show fault or cause for a divorce to be granted by the court, but the reality is that there wouldn't be broad enough support for such a measure to pass, because our society now accepts divorce as a part of life. That's sad, but true. I would certainly be in favor of putting a fault or cause requirement back into divorce law, and I'm sure many proponents of Proposition 2 would as well. But to argue that if that kind of legislation can't be passed, then no other legislation intended to preserve marriage should be passed, is fallacious. There are reasons beyond the implied hypocrisy of some of the proponents of Prop 2 for why such legislation won't happen.

As for requiring people who are married to take it more seriously, I'm all for that as well. That said, I'd like to see you suggest a law that would allow us to do that. Enforcement would be quite an interesting proposition, and again I think you probably wouldn't have enough support to pass any such law.

When people can fly to Vegas and marry that same day, it doesn't threaten the institution of marriage and all that it stands for, as long as those people are straight.

I agree. That does cheapen marriage. But you have to be able to pass a law to stop that. How are you going to do it?

It's easy to point out what people aren't doing. It's much more difficult sometimes to point out how they should do it.

When people can, and readily do, choose to dissolve their sacred marriage pact--which they sweared upon for life--for just about any old reason, that doesn't threaten the institution of marriage, as long as those people are straight.

See above.

When people can, and readily do, violate the marriage pact by committing adultery, with little or no consequence, that doesn't threaten the sacred institution of marriage, as long as those people are straight.

Of course it threatens marriages when people commit adultery, but as with the other examples you cited above, please tell me what kind of law you'd propose to stop or curb adultery. I'd be happy to pass a law that made it a crime to commit adultery, because I believe adultery is wrong. The problem is, you and I both know that such a law would never get passed, because there wouldn't be enough support for it.

When convicted child molesters can get married, and procreate, that doesn't threaten the sacred institution of marriage, so long as those people are straight. Actually, just so long as people marry someone of the opposite sex.

I'm not following you there. If a convicted child molester procreates, is that automatically bad? Are you assuming they'll molest their own? Okay, I can go with that. Let's sterilize convicted child molesters. I doubt you'd get that passed, either.

But when same-sex couples want to commit their lives to their partners by sacred vows under God, want to have their commitment recongized by the state and want the rights that such a commitment bestows upon every other human being, that does indeed threaten the very sacred institution of marriage.

Give me a break. The institution of marriage isn't under threat from gays. It may be under threat from a lot of other things, yes. But not gays. The only thing under threat when it comes to Prop 2 is homosexuality. You can deny that all you want, you can obscure that all you want with dubious logical leaps, but the fact remains.

The "fact" remains? More accurately, your opinion remains.

The Bible condemns homosexuality and only condones heterosexual marriage, so I would dispute that homosexuals can commit their lives to one another by "sacred vows under God." Beyond that, you can be dismissive of the negative impact that I believe homosexual marriage has on society, but that doesn't mean you're right.

I don't hate homosexuals. I'm not out to get homosexuals. But I am in favor of Proposition 2, because I think it is a step toward preserving marriage. There certainly are many other things that must be done to strengthen marriages and the institution of marriage in this country (as you and Mary have pointed out), and I think we should work toward those things as well, but the reality is that many of those things both of you have brought up will have to be achieved by other methods than legislation or constitutional amendments, if they are to be achieved.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: mary
I never said it was a benefits package to begin with.

Great, so we can move past the "rights" issue.

The reason I have the hang up about the analogy is because it fails to justify denying gay people the right to marry. You can reword it again, but it won't gain relevance simply because you've restated it using different words.

The only reason I used the analogy in the first place is that I thought (perhaps incorrectly) that your justification for supporting the "right" of gays to marry was that it was "discrimination" to prevent consenting adults from marrying. If that's not the case, then I apologize.

The whole point I was trying to make is that this ultimately boils down to a moral belief about whether homosexual marriage is right or wrong and whether it has a negative impact on society or not.

They're both deviant lifestyles according to society norms. I understand they are not exactly the same thing, but certainly thery are both lifestyles that are frowned upon. Why aren't we attempting to legislate other types of behavior?

Yeah, but we're talking about marriage, not all deviant lifestyles. We do pass many laws to legislate other types of behavior (illegal drug use, prostitution, etc.), but arguing that it has to be "all or nothing" really doesn't make any sense.

Its not fallacious if the stated intent is false to being with (or at the very least, INCREDIBLY hypocritical)

Yeah, but now you're claiming to be able to read minds.

I agree with you that it would be hypocritical for a person who has been divorced or who commits adultery to be in favor of Proposition 2 on the basis that is weakens the institution of marriage. Nonetheless, if we're going to require people not to be hypocrites if they want to vote, we're going to have a much more serious problem with turnout, on both sides of any given issue. Moreover, the fact that someone does something wrong (e.g., commits adultery) doesn't mean that homosexuality is suddenly right. It either is or it isn't.

Okay, here's an metaphor of my own.

Barbara goes to a restaurant and decides she is in the mood for something sweet.

The waiter brings her some apple pie. She eats it.

The waiter brings her some peach cobbler. She happily gobbles it down.

The waiter brings her some chocolate cake. She says, "No thanks, I'm trying to watch my figure."

The waiter brings her some ice cream. She licks the bowl clean.


What's wrong this picture? According to the "preserve the institution" logic, its very reasonable to believe that Barbara did reject the chocolate cake because she's worried about her figure. I mean, just because she didn't turn down the other three desserts, doesn't mean "getting fat" isn't a good reason to reject chocolate cake. Of course, she already weighs over 300 pounds, but lets not worry about that part of the equation. Everyone accepts the fact that chocolate cake goes straight to the hips, so she must really be concerned about her figure - after all, she did in fact reject chocolate cake.

OR

Would it be more reasonable to conclude that.......Barbara just .........doesn't........ like....... chocolate cake?

Nice analogy. [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img] As I said before, I understand where you're coming from, but I think I pointed out in my post to Chum above why it's not reasonable to say that if you aren't passing laws to outlaw adultery and make it harder to get divorced then you shouldn't be passing laws to prohibit gays from getting married. I'd be in favor of laws to outlaw adultery or make it more difficult to get divorced, but such laws would be very difficult to pass.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Epitome22
So what you are effectively saying is, KG, because proponents of same-sex marriage are allegedly trying aquire state recnognition of SSm through the courts, we should deny them state recognition through the legislature? I don't follow you.

No, what I'm saying is that proponents of same sex marriage think that it's right and morally acceptable. Opponents of same sex marriage think that it's wrong and morally unacceptable. Both sides are trying to make the law reflect their views (attempting to "legislate" their morality).

"But when same-sex couples want to commit their lives to their partners by sacred vows under God, want to have their commitment recongized by the state and want the rights that such a commitment bestows upon every other human being, that does indeed threaten the very sacred institution of marriage."

? Please explain why.

I think Chum was being sarcastic.

[mary]

Nice analogy. As I said before, I understand where you're coming from, but I think I pointed out in my post to Chum above why it's not reasonable to say that if you aren't passing laws to outlaw adultery and make it harder to get divorced then you shouldn't be passing laws to prohibit gays from getting married. I'd be in favor of laws to outlaw adultery or make it more difficult to get divorced, but such laws would be very difficult to pass.

Thanks. I secretly hoped it would make someone else giggle [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

I guess my question here would have to be, if the majority holds the institution of marriage in such high regard, why would it be necessary to legislate adultery and divorce to begin with?

[mnmpeanut]

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine."

- Thomas Jefferson



i think its great that so many people are so worried about the plight of the morally corrupt that they feel it necessary to prohibit them from "ruining the sanctity of marraige" by restricting their access to over 1400 legal rights and benefits provided by a legal union, such as:

joint parenting;
joint adoption;
joint foster care, custody, and visitation (including non-biological parents);
status as next-of-kin for hospital visits and medical decisions where one partner is too ill to be competent;
joint insurance policies for home, auto and health;
dissolution and divorce protections such as community property and child support;
immigration and residency for partners from other countries;
inheritance automatically in the absence of a will;
joint leases with automatic renewal rights in the event one partner dies or leaves the house or apartment;
inheritance of jointly-owned real and personal property through the right of survivorship (which avoids the time and expense and taxes in probate);
benefits such as annuities, pension plans, Social Security, and Medicare;
spousal exemptions to property tax increases upon the death of one partner who is a co-owner of the home;
veterans' discounts on medical care, education, and home loans; joint filing of tax returns;
joint filing of customs claims when traveling;
wrongful death benefits for a surviving partner and children;
bereavement or sick leave to care for a partner or child;
decision-making power with respect to whether a deceased partner will be cremated or not and where to bury him or her;
crime victims' recovery benefits;
loss of consortium tort benefits;
domestic violence protection orders;
judicial protections and evidentiary immunity

and no, most of these cannot be resolved by drawing up a simple power of attorney.


and, just so you don't think i'm being discriminatory, if someone wants to marry their brother, daughter, whatever, or wants to have 4 wives or husbands, and they are all of-age, consenting adults, then have at it. what it comes down to is who am i to tell someone who is not infringing upon the rights of another how to live their life? some people feel its their duty to make sure everyone lives they way that they see fit, others like to leave it up to each individual.

imo, we, as a people, should not legislate the morality of anyone who is not, directly or indirectly, infringing upon the rights of another person.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: mary
Thanks. I secretly hoped it would make someone else giggle [img]i/expressions/face-icon-small-wink.gif[/img]

I guess my question here would have to be, if the majority holds the institution of marriage in such high regard, why would it be necessary to legislate adultery and divorce to begin with?

That's a fair question. First, people are imperfect and do wrong things even though they know them to be wrong. That means that some of the majority will commit adultery and get divorced. It's a fact of life. Second, the minority (which doesn't hold marriage in as high of a regard) are not going to show the same respect to the institution that the majority does.

Realistically, as I pointed out above, I don't think you could pass such laws. I think too many people would fear being prosecuted or being unable to get a divorce.

[kg_veteran]

and, just so you don't think i'm being discriminatory, if someone wants to marry their brother, daughter, whatever, or wants to have 4 wives or husbands, and they are all of-age, consenting adults, then have at it. what it comes down to is who am i to tell someone who is not infringing upon the rights of another how to live their life? some people feel its their duty to make sure everyone lives they way that they see fit, others like to leave it up to each individual.

As I said before, marriage is not just a benefits package. If it were, then I would have no problem with your position. In fact, that would probably be my position. But marriage is more than that, and I think society as a whole views it as more than that, which is why looking at marriage from a "rights" or "benefits" analysis is flawed from the get-go.

[Epitome22]

[quote]
Originally posted by: kg_veteran

[i]
No, what I'm saying is that proponents of same sex marriage think that it's right and morally acceptable. Opponents of same sex marriage think that it's wrong and morally unacceptable. Both sides are trying to make the law reflect their views (attempting to "legislate" their morality).

If that's your argument then it is a misguided one. Same Sex marriage proponents are not trying to legislate their morality (unless you consider equality a matter of morality) they are simply lobbying to have same sex marriage unions recognized by the state the same as different sex unions. If they were lobbying to say, make it illegal for private churches to refuse to marry 2 people of the same sex on moral or religious grounds that would be trying to legislate morality. Similiarly people opposed to state recognition of same sex marriage unions on the grounds that it's in the best interests of the State and for the institution of marriage to be understood as a union between a man and woman are not trying to legislate morality. However, those who oppose same sex marriage and lobby for anti-same sex marriage amendments on the grounds that they feel that homosexuality is immoral and gays are icky would most definitely be trying to legislate morality.

[mary]

That's a fair question. First, people are imperfect and do wrong things even though they know them to be wrong. That means that some of the majority will commit adultery and get divorced. It's a fact of life. Second, the minority (which doesn't hold marriage in as high of a regard) are not going to show the same respect to the institution that the majority does.

I'm not realy sure what you mean by "some" of the majority.

I do know that the divorce industry is a multi-billion dollar juggernaut that profits from much more than a niche market that accidentally screws up and gets divorced every once in a while.

[mnmpeanut]

imo, the fight for the recognition of same sex marraiges is not just a benefits package. there are many churches that will perform a ceremony joining two men or two women together as "married", and some people are fine with this. currently, these unions are not recognized by the government in most states, and therefore, are not recognized by many institutions that use the government's standards as their guideline in determining "married" or single. some gay people feel slighted by this lack of recognition and want their union recognized and respected in the country's eyes as the same as a heterosexual's. some don't care about the term "marraige" and are secure enough in their relationship that they don't really care if them being together is considered "married" or not (much like many heterosexuals who live together for extended periods without getting married). but, when you share your life with someone - male, female, whatever - you want to, and, again, in my opinion, should be able to expect the same benefits as a heterosexual married person (and if you don't think heterosexual people already in relationships, especially older people, get married just for the benefits provided by the government, you're naive.). denying them this because you don't agree with their lifestyle makes no sense to me. it all seems so incredibly selfish.

i don't understand what other reasons besides hate or selfishness would cause someone who is, in all fairness, unaffected by this legislation to vote to ban same sex marraiges. if you don't think its "right", fine. no one is asking you to. just like no one is asking you to agree with the catholic church because they are allowed to be built in your neighborhood. i don't think drinking or smoking are "right" either, but i'm not gonna go next door and tell charlie the policeman that he needs to quit drinking a 6 pack while he's watching the game. and i'm sure not gonna go out of my way to restrict his freedom from doing so because i don't agree with it or think its immoral.

i guess i just don't get it.



on a side note, i think the biggest problem the "same sex marraige movement" has is the use of the word marraige. if they would stick to the use of the term "civil union", than many of the religious "sanctity of marriage" people wouldn't be so vigilant in fighting this.

[FreshJive]

"She licks the bowl clean" was on purpose, right?

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: Epitome22
If that's your argument then it is a misguided one. Same Sex marriage proponents are not trying to legislate their morality (unless you consider equality a matter of morality) they are simply lobbying to have same sex marriage unions recognized by the state the same as different sex unions.

You can try to use semantics and repackage it any way you want, but it is still trying to make the law reflect what same sex marriage proponents view as moral.

If they were lobbying to say, make it illegal for private churches to refuse to marry 2 people of the same sex on moral or religious grounds that would be trying to legislate morality.

No, that would be a violation of the freedom of religion.

Similiarly people opposed to state recognition of same sex marriage unions on the grounds that it's in the best interests of the State and for the institution of marriage to be understood as a union between a man and woman are not trying to legislate morality.

However, those who oppose same sex marriage and lobby for anti-same sex marriage amendments on the grounds that they feel that homosexuality is immoral and gays are icky would most definitely be trying to legislate morality.

Gays are icky? Who made that the basis of their opinion?

Anyway...

Whether it is for societal or religious reasons (or both) that someone is opposed to gay marriage, it is still a legislation of morality.

[kg_veteran]

Originally posted by: mary

I'm not realy sure what you mean by "some" of the majority.

I do know that the divorce industry is a multi-billion dollar juggernaut that profits from much more than a niche market that accidentally screws up and gets divorced every once in a while.

All I meant was that not all divorces come from the "majority" we keep talking about. I wasn't really trying to quantify anything.

[chumdawg]

As I said before, marriage is not just a benefits package. If it were, then I would have no problem with your position. In fact, that would probably be my position. But marriage is more than that, and I think society as a whole views it as more than that, which is why looking at marriage from a "rights" or "benefits" analysis is flawed from the get-go.

I think there is a large contingent--both gay and straight, as mnmpeanut points out--that are just interested in the benefits package. That's what makes this proposed amendment troublesome. If we want our constitution to read that marriage only is a union of one man and one woman, I really do believe that most people wouldn't care. It's the part that denies the benefits package, though, that is causing the problem here.

So I guess I'm saying that it seems a circular argument to me, this idea that marriage, quote-unquote, is so much more than a benefits package so we need to define it and protect it as such...oh, but at the same time let's not anyone else get just the benefits package. If they wouldn't be "married," why should people care if they have a "civil union" or "domestic partnership" or whatever you want to call it?

[chumdawg]

I heard about this story last night and couldn't help but find the relevance to our question at hand.

President Reagan Linked to Log Cabin's Founding

Log Cabin got its start in California during the late 1970s. After several years of advances for the cause of gay and lesbian rights, a backlash was building. Singer Anita Bryant led a successful "Save Our Children" campaign to overturn an anti-discrimination ordinance in Dade County, Florida. Also, the legislatures of Arkansas and Oklahoma had banned gays and lesbians from holding teaching positions.

In California, Republican State Senator John Briggs, who had ambitions to be governor, proposed a statewide ballot initiative to prevent gay and lesbian people from teaching in public schools. The so-called Briggs Initiative also permitted the firing of any educator who was determined to be "advocating, imposing, encouraging or promoting" homosexuality. Briggs' vicious campaign to "defend your children from homosexual teachers" seemed to be heading for victory. One poll showed support for the Briggs Initiative leading 61% to 31%.

Many prominent politicians in the Republican and Democratic parties were hesitant about standing up to the bigotry of Briggs and his allies. That's when gay conservatives turned to former governor Ronald Reagan. At the time he was preparing to mount a campaign for the Republican presidential nomination in 1980. His advisors all thought he was committing political suicide when he decided to be an outspoken foe of the Briggs Initiative. Reagan declared that the initiative "is not needed to protect our children - we have the legal protection now."

Reagan went further, detailing the dangers of passing such a measure. "It has the potential for real mischief," the former governor explained. "What if an overwrought youngster, disappointed by bad grades, imagined it was the teacher's fault and struck out by accusing the teacher of advocating homosexuality? Innocent lives could be ruined."

Reagan's forceful opposition helped defeat the Briggs Initiative. In November 1978, voters rejected the Briggs Initiative by more than a million votes. Even in conservative Orange County, Briggs' home base, the initiative lost. Long-time Democratic gay activist David Mixner met with Reagan in 1978 to personally lobby him on the Briggs initiative, recalling, "Never have I been treated more graciously by a human being. He turned opinion around and saved that election for us," Mixner said. "We would have been in deep trouble. He just thought it was wrong and came out against it."

LCR website