Date: 5/15/2008 1:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 51876
Hey their bay ,who cares  |
Date: 5/15/2008 1:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 21903
I feel that the government should be able to decide the whole marriage thing as well....so let me get this straight: gays CAN get married in Cali now? If so, that is AWESOME!  |
Date: 5/15/2008 1:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 63962
I do agree that people should be able to love each other openly, no matter what their sexuality is (within limits of course! Making out and heavy smooching is where I'd draw the line). Still, I agree that the government should take a vote from ALL of the populace instead of just letting a few people vote or whatever they do, and then announcing out of the blue, "Hey everyone! This is how it is now"! LOL  |
Date: 5/15/2008 1:45:00 PM
From Authorid: 30747
Bay marriage? I didn't know it was illegal to get married by the bay. I'm always the last to know these things. :) I'm all for the gay marriage thing though. My son is gay and I'm hoping NY legalizes it so I don't have to move to California. It's too hot there for me.  |
Date: 5/15/2008 1:53:00 PM
From Authorid: 56293
I guess to each their own.  |
Date: 5/15/2008 2:22:00 PM
From Authorid: 14909
It doesn't matter who you love as long as you love somebody.  |
Date: 5/15/2008 2:30:00 PM
From Authorid: 13119
there is a difference between love and marriage. I agree to civil unions but please allow my parents marriage and what they believed in stand. I could care less if someone was gay or straight but why would you want to force yourself on someone else's beliefs? One man, one woman in the eyes of god...... A civil union has the same rights in a court of law so it can't have to do with legality.....  |
Date: 5/15/2008 2:33:00 PM
From Authorid: 64365
Gay marriage...hmmmmm....I know a few gay couples and they love each other very much. You wouldn't know they were gay, though. They seem like normal people to me.  |
|
Date: 5/15/2008 2:35:00 PM
From Authorid: 64365
...I guess that's because they are normal people. I don't want anyone's preferences forced down my throat, so I don't force mine down anyone else's. IF that's what they want to do...I'm not going to protest, or stand up and criticize it. |
Date: 5/15/2008 2:35:00 PM
From Authorid: 16376
I don't have any problems with gays getting married, so I don't have a problem with it.  |
Date: 5/15/2008 2:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 10657
I don't really care as long as they aren't getting divorced.  |
Date: 5/15/2008 3:03:00 PM
From Authorid: 62849
Marriage (legally speaking) is a financial agreement between two of-age citizens. Sexual preference should have nothing to do with it in my opinion. Now, if the churches don't want to recognize gay marriage, I'm not going to argue with them- their rules, their way. As far as the law goes, though- I'm glad California lifted the ban. Good for Ah-nold.  |
Date: 5/15/2008 3:12:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
Author, if the government shouldn't have any place to determine who should or shouldn't get married, then shouldn't any legal reference to "marriage" just be gotten rid of? This was a court ruling, or otherwise known, a judicial fiat, meaning we are now allowing our court system to MAKE our laws rather than their original purpose, i.e., to interpret the law. One big issue, which SD has inadvertently stumbled upon, is what do we do in our transient society when a gay couple who has gone through this process in California moves to a state which has actual constitutional language which specifies that marriage is between a man and a woman? What is their status is such a state? I find this akin to opening up a can of worms only to find how muddy it is . . . God Bless.  |
Date: 5/15/2008 4:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 2030
In a democratic and free society the people of california approved by vote a refererendum banning gay marriage. And the government overturned it. Seems a bit wrong to me.  |
Date: 5/15/2008 4:12:00 PM
From Authorid: 62798
I was not sure what take you would have, but I completely agree with you. I am so happy with the decision. I am glad that this country is starting to wake up.  |
Date: 5/15/2008 4:15:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Magoo, I think if you want to be consistent you should take up your issue with all the heterosexual atheists and non-Christians (assuming that’s the “God” you’re referring to) who can already get married.  |
|
Date: 5/15/2008 4:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Several people have pointed out the problem with having laws which the majority may not assent to. This is indeed a problem. Would we think that a society should outlaw slavery, if the majority of people within the society want to keep slaves? Neither option seems ideal - the best society is one whereby slavery is outlawed and the majority think this is a good thing. But if we have to make a choice between protecting the freedom of a minority, or protecting the freedom of a majority to keep that freedom from them, (assuming having that freedom harms nobody) maybe it’s better this case to avoid a “tyranny of the majority”. |
Date: 5/15/2008 4:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 35720
I really don't see the big deal between two men or women sharing their lives rather than a man and a woman.  |
Date: 5/15/2008 5:27:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
I strongly support Gay Marriage. I believe any two Adults may enter into a loving contract. I see marriage as a validation & public declaration of the love a couple shares.  |
Date: 5/15/2008 6:50:00 PM
From Authorid: 36766
I don't see where who you fall in love w/ , whether it be the same sex or not, the government should have any say in it. They already have enough control over us as it is, who we fall in love w/ is our business, not theirs.  |
Date: 5/15/2008 7:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
I think I know where god is sending the next earthquake, tornado, terrorist attack, alien invasion, etc.  |
|
Date: 5/15/2008 9:24:00 PM
From Authorid: 13119
DP the issue at hand is gay marriage not atheists, not non-christians. Although seriously thinking god is only for christians is kinda narrow minded don't you think? I am saying just respect the older generation and allow them to continue holding their beliefs and values. Don't force something down people's throats just because you feel it validates you somehow. Civil union, pitter patter, marriage, nope not right now maybe some day in the future when all the states can get it together and recognize it all across the country. |
Date: 5/15/2008 10:01:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 62099
deb- my question to you is this: why was there a ban in the FIRST place. why would that happen? hate,intolerance,bias,discrimination. thats why. slavery was supported in this country once, as was internment camps for the japanese, we once arrested and charged crimes against homosexuals, simply for wanting the same sex relations...that is wrong. telling someone they cannot marry because others are ignorant, isnt reason enough to persecute someone---if you supported this ban, then wouldnt it be fair to say you supported the tyranny of communisms ban on religion? unable to worship a god, because thats how the govt. wanted it? anything that imposes hardships on someone should never be allowed to stand in our country. If they let britney spears breed, then anything in this country should be allowed..i mean COME ON!..(jk, britney we are still cool, call me)  |
Date: 5/15/2008 10:40:00 PM
From Authorid: 18155
Why have the ban in the fiirst place?  |
|
Date: 5/16/2008 6:51:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
The ignorance of the masses just floors me. I simply cannot be everyone's social studies (or civics as we used to call it) teacher, law professor, or moral compass. Six of seven justices decided that millions of people are too stupid to figure this out. I say to that six that they are too bought to figure this out. If domestic partnership (or civil union or pairriage or whatever it is someone who wants to be a real leader to stand up and say this is what we'll call this) is seen to be not a legal equivalent to marriage (and all I can say about that is when something is declared legal and equal, then uh, duh, the LAW says it is legal and equal), then DO AWAY WITH any legal reference to marriage (as some of you are arguing, though I doubt you fully get that that is what you're saying), and insert in any reference we currently have to marriage to now be known as "Domestic Partnership" (or whatever else it is this great leader wants to deign it). Viola! Put the parameters of such a designation to be two unrelated consenting adults who are not in any other such partnership, or else, since "progressive" justices can apparently say marriage is an evolving concept, I assure everyone here, you are going to be seeing polygamous marriages being fought for, incestuous marriages, child marriages, etc., etc., etc., because some poor minority group (i.e., the polygamous, the incestuous, the pedophiles) are being discriminated against, and the majority simply shouldn't be restricting those peoples' freedoms, right? Anyone here arguing that this is so enlightened, needs to take the "logic" of how they got to their position and apply it across the board, because you certainly don't want to be seen as inconsistent, do you? And as much as I don't want to, I agree with RT'd, though I think He'd Wait until the mass influx got to the "bay marriage" before something like that happens. . . God Bless. |
Date: 5/16/2008 8:08:00 AM
From Authorid: 30093
The California Supreme Court did their job, and that was decide if a decision was unconstitutional or not. As for my personal opinion: I believe society should change to fit people, people shouldn't change to fit society. Sometimes I don't fully agree with the changes, but it brings about new laws, new ideals, and new understandings. Somewhere along the line people took marriage to be a religious institute, which it just isn't and never fully has been. I think all the arguing over semantics is a bit silly. Civil union, marriage, coupling.... They're all the same thing, I just think certain groups are trying to distance themselves from certain other groups.  |
|
Date: 5/16/2008 9:25:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
Why does it need to be called something else? Your slippery slope argument fails, incest and pedophilia are already illegal. And yea, God is a member of the Al-Qaeda. |
Date: 5/16/2008 10:05:00 AM
From Authorid: 62823
This message was received by a visionary a few days ago. Jesus said "I tell you that national leaders and legislators--even educators--who do not support the commandments of love, are responsible for the souls they lead astray and the moral degeneration of their nation, as well--I add to this, those who lead or otherwise influence any religion. Their responsibility is to lead souls deeper into love of God and neighbor as self--this is Holy Love. Yet, there remain those who encourage violence, birth control, abortion, same sex marriage and many other evils related to these sins and more. You cannot lead souls in righteousness if your own heart is full of error. For this reason, I come in truth to correct consciences and to pull souls back onto the path of light. Be united in Our United Hearts."
 |
|
Date: 5/16/2008 10:11:00 AM
From Authorid: 62823
The truth is, the act of homo-sexuality is not in-line with a path that is one with God in holiness. God is the absolute ultimate of PURENESS, HOLINESS and LOVE. Even if a person is gay they can choose to live a holy life by sacrificing their desires and placing them in-line for the purpose they are here. We are here to grow in love with God and to serve neighbor, not to serve ourselves. |
|
Date: 5/16/2008 10:25:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
The citizens of California can decide whatever they want to define marriage. What this decision shows is that it doesn't matter what they think. The judicial branch (not the legislative but just a handfull of judges) can over rule them all. |
|
Date: 5/16/2008 10:27:00 AM
From Authorid: 30093
BCAR, it was decided that the decision was unconstitutional. I'm sure there will be an amendment introduced for the California state constitution that the voters can vote for (or against) come election time. |
Date: 5/16/2008 10:35:00 AM
From Authorid: 53284
I always find Judicial activism very interesting. Four people overturned the will of the voters. I'm not discussing the "Gay Marriage" but rather how some judges view that they know better then the voters. How can you have a democracy when you have a small group of people overrule the voters?  |
|
Date: 5/16/2008 11:53:00 AM
From Authorid: 2030
Well I personally have a problem with constitutional amendments for or against gay marriage, as marriage isn't a human right but a volentary binding contract as defined by state law. Which should bring it under control of the legislative branch. IE: "The servants of the people" |
|
Date: 5/16/2008 12:37:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Also at issue Magoo is the inconsistency of claiming that marriage can only be marriage if it is sanctioned by God despite the fact that there are no constitutional bans on atheists getting married in any state, no constitutional bans on Hindus or Buddhists or worshippers of Thor or Zeus getting married. What deity is sanctioning these unions? How or why should such a thing even be relevant within the boundaries of the law (you can hardly call God to the stand to testify which unions he is supporting and which he isn’t) and you can’t use one singular interpretation of God and then apply it to everyone else (that’s what they do in Iran). I am saying, do not respect older generations’ beliefs if the consequences of those beliefs is that people are not treated equal. We can understand older people’s beliefs, it doesn’t mean we should humour them when the consequences are more than merely “hurt feelings” for gays, lesbians, bisexuals who want to marry someone of the same gender. |
|
Date: 5/16/2008 12:44:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
“I assure everyone here, you are going to be seeing polygamous marriages being fought for, incestuous marriages, child marriages, etc., etc., etc.,”
“Anyone here arguing that this is so enlightened, needs to take the "logic" of how they got to their position and apply it across the board, because you certainly don't want to be seen as inconsistent, do you?” - Deb, is it really necessary to trot out such worn and defeated slippery slope arguments? I, being consistent in my position, will grant you that yes, if we take the logic to its natural conclusion, you might very well have to endorse some form of polygamous marriage (though this would not be directly comparable to say, certain practises of certain Mormons for example). What will never follow from the logic which advocates gay marriage is logic which advocates incestuous relationships or which advocates marriages involving underage children. To achieve the former, you would have to have some additional reasoning which would rationalise the effects of endorsing such relationships (not present in the gay marriage argument) and the achieve the latter, you would have to redefine children as being capable of entering into contracts, at the very least (something not present in the gay marriage argument either.) |
|
Date: 5/16/2008 12:45:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
I should also point out that the slippery slope argument might easily have been applies a few decades ago to the issue of interracial marriage - “if we define marriage as between a man and woman of any race, how long before we define it between two people of any gender?” |
|
Date: 5/16/2008 12:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Subejazz, that’s fine for you to believe, but do you think your religious conviction should be enough on its own to justify a law forcing other people who do not share your beliefs to change their behaviour? |
|
Date: 5/16/2008 12:54:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
I should have a theme song - Dark Phoenix; defender of the gays. |
|
Date: 5/16/2008 1:34:00 PM
From Authorid: 2030
To me the gay marriage part is a non-issue (let's share the misery). My problem is how states rights and the will of the people who live there can be overturned by a few judges. For instance if this was Mass. (where gay marriage has been legalized by the legislature) and a group of conservative judges over ruled it, would everyone be singing the same song?? I would. |
|
Date: 5/16/2008 1:52:00 PM
From Authorid: 30093
I understand where you're coming from BCAR, but the structure of law and justice in the USA isn't always so clear cut as "We vote: it happens". |
|
Date: 5/16/2008 4:32:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
Hmmm. Well, I may have trotted it out, DP, but you sure got on it and rode it. The ease at which the duplicity comes forth from you, again, just floors me. On the one hand, you chastise me for bringing up polygamy, and then on the other, you tell us all that it certainly isn't too far behind. (Did the rest of you all catch that? Another "Hmmmm. Maybe that is why no one has come back here to sing your song, DP.) Lest you all forget, homosexual acts were not so long ago, also illegal. Claiming that we won't be slipping down a slope with regard to incest and pedophilia and, what the heck, let's throw beastality in for good measure, with the reasoning that "all of that" is against the law now, is disingenuous at best (especially considering that the argument is being made that the "majority" certainly shouldn't be imposing their tyranny on some poor minority;). But, far be it from me to ask anyone to be consistent in their reasoning and logic. If the government wishes to re-name my marriage to now be called a "Domestic Partnership" then I have not one iota of argument against that, because I, for one, have my own brain and certainly don't have to take stock in the government granting me the privilege (it's not a right, people) to marry since my husband and I already have that Covenant with God. Semantics is the study of the meaning of language. Since the study of the meaning of "marriage" takes us to the French connoting this to mean something of the affect of "handing over a woman", I'm still trying to figure out how that is possible in a two man partnership, as much as one of them may like to think in those terms. And I still want to know how, in the mathematical world, a man and a woman is supposed to equal a man and a man, or for that matter, a woman and a woman, but, apparently with the state of intellect at the point it is today, what anybody wants to say is treated as gospel. Including the CA supreme court, which did not just rule a ban against gay marriages as unconstitutional, but also deemed that "Domestic Partnership" was not equal to "Marriage", and that is their reasoning for this decision. No, not that the reason why it is not equal is due to the make-up of the partnership (because they can't do that if they have any mathematical acumen at all), but that the people of California can't make these two designations equal because those who voted were too stupid to make laws, so these justices (and I use that word loosely;) are going to do it for them. I'm guessing the whole nuance of the three branches of government isn't being taught these days since it appears the only people who understand this are those somewhere near my age (sorry to out you, BCAR and WildBob, on being "kinda" old;). God Bless. |
|
Date: 5/16/2008 5:04:00 PM
From Authorid: 30093
I....appreciate your underlying disdain of our youth, and I even more appreciate your questioning of our level of education. Wait no I don't... Too bad this topic is obviously now just another gay marriage topic. |
|
Date: 5/16/2008 5:10:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
I did not chastise you for bringing up polygamy Deb, perhaps you should re-read my comment. I (being consistent) acknowledged that an argument for polygamy could be made without adding anything extra to the logic behind the argument for gay marriage (or at least, the argument I endorse). What I rightly called you on, was the suggestion that sanctioning gay marriage will somehow lead to sanctioning incestuous unions or unions where one or both partners are underage. This is because the logic which justifies gay marriage is insufficient to justify these kinds of unions. There may be a slippery slope from interracial marriage to gay marriage, there may be one from gay marriage to polygamy (though not the kind where only one man can marry multiple women), but there is no slippery slope between gay marriage and incestuous marriage, or marriage involving underage participants.
I did not suggest that this is because those practises (underage sex and paedophilia) are illegal and homosexuality is not. This point was made by RodTod, not I. What is legal is not always identical to what ought to be legal, this is pretty obvious, so I have been perfectly consistent in my reasoning. |
|
Date: 5/16/2008 5:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
“mean something of the affect of "handing over a woman", I'm still trying to figure out how that is possible in a two man partnership” - This is because concepts change over time - the etymology of a word does not impose a rigid interpretation which must adhere to it throughout time. I hardly need to point out that “marriage” exists in virtually every country in the world and existed as a concept before the French language. I assume you’re not suggesting that these marriages derive their concepts from a French term, and that all such marriages throughout time must be understood through the origin of a modern word in a particular language. |
|
Date: 5/16/2008 5:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
“And I still want to know how, in the mathematical world, a man and a woman is supposed to equal a man and a man, or for that matter, a woman and a woman” - I’ve answered this so many times! People are not numbers. No two people are identical. A marriage between two men is the same as a marriage between a man and a woman in exactly the same way a marriage between two heterosexual red-haired people is the same as a marriage between two heterosexual brown-haired people. Making a distinction between same sex and opposite sex unions makes as much sense as making a distinction between couples based on any other physical factor - whether it be the colour of hair, or whatever. |
|
Date: 5/16/2008 5:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Point being, if you want to say that a man/man union is “mathematically” different to a “man/woman” union, then you have to say a “black man/black woman” union is “mathematically” different to a “white man/white woman” union, or any number of other completely arbitrary distinctions. |
|
Date: 5/16/2008 7:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 13119
DP black, white any colour is not the same as two dangly bits or no dangly bits. That is comparing apples and oranges. I don't care about anyone who wants to be in a loving committed relationship, all the power to them but don't force it on people. |
|
Date: 5/16/2008 8:03:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Apples and oranges are both kinds of fruit. Skin colour and “dangly bits” are both physical properties which have nothing to do with whether or not someone is suitable to marry someone else. The law does not expect people to be of a certain colour in order to get married, nor does the law expect that people must have heterosexual sex with each other in order to be married. If a man and a woman can get married without anything physical happening between them, then physical acts using whatever dangly bits you have, cannot be intrinsic to the definition of a marriage. |
Date: 5/16/2008 8:26:00 PM
From Authorid: 12341
There was a time not all that long ago when adults of different races were not allowed to be married or be together at all. The key is, adults being allowed to make adult decisions regarding adult relationships, which has entirely no business being determined by government. Adults in adult relationships entering into a commitment of marriage is simply two people wanting to share life together as partners or companions. People who try to marry children or animals based on being a minority are never going to be part of the arguement against simply because two adults in a relationship together is nothing even close to a 50 year old wanting to marry a 4 or 5 year old. Society has some common sense to protect children and animals, even if there are those who would try and use this as a smokescreen for being deviance and abuse of others.  |
|
Date: 5/16/2008 10:07:00 PM
From Authorid: 62118
Suebjazz, I hope you don't eat shellfish. |
|
Date: 5/17/2008 8:00:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
It is not so much the level of education I worry about, it is the level of indoctrination at which today's younger people seem oblivious in terms of how their thoughts are being formed. How convenient of you, Nanaki, to just opt out of a debate via your emotional reaction once a debate point is conciliated (i.e., my telling you all that "Domestic Partnership", as I defined it above, would be a legal designation that I would accept, because, WHOA!, it accurately describes the whole set at which we are trying to afford the same benefits through the legal system). I do appreciate you not falling into DP's tactic of weaving wholly irrelevant issues into the topic. Hey, DP, with all your cut and pastes of my comments, why did you stop once you reached that conciliatory point I've made? "Concepts change" as "society changes". Here: Let's change the concept that a legal designation which inures those fitting that legal designation a litany of benefits granted by the government MUST BE CALLED a "Marriage". Why isn't that being touted by anyone as a viable, positive change? Oh, wait, it kinda is, by that agent of change, himself (Obama), although he doesn't even go as far as making a WHOLE change since apparently even he can't think in terms of ALL . . . God Bless. |
|
Date: 5/17/2008 8:15:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
Are you asking what is wrong with simply using the term “Domestic Partnership” or some other catchall term to cover both gay and straight unions, thereby granting the same rights and benefits currently afforded to married couples without labelling these unions as marriage? |
|
Date: 5/17/2008 9:11:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
Marriage should simply mean the union of two people of the opposite sex but of the same race. |
|
Date: 5/17/2008 9:16:00 AM
From Authorid: 62118
When interracial marriage became legalized the government should of done what Deb is suggesting and called it a "Domestic Partnership". |
|
Date: 5/17/2008 2:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
On tha point ^ , the following is from the Court's opinion: "Although, as an historical matter, civil marriage and the rights associated with it traditionally have been afforded only to opposite-sex couples, this court’s landmark decision 60 years ago in Perez v. Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 711 — which found that California’s statutory provisions prohibiting interracial marriages were inconsistent with the fundamental constitutional right to marry, notwithstanding the circumstance that statutory prohibitions on interracial marriage had existed since the founding of the state — makes clear that history alone is not invariably an appropriate guide for determining the meaning and scope of this fundamental constitutional guarantee." |
|
Date: 5/17/2008 2:58:00 PM
From Authorid: 15070
Somebody *slap* me, I find myself agreeing with RodTod. |
|
Date: 5/17/2008 3:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
Yes, DP, which, in case you haven't noticed, I have put forth numerous times in the past eight years here (as well as running the parallel argument). Meaning, I would prefer the two designations just as your neighboring "states" do. If the "Domestic Partnership" definition was put into the U.S. Code there would then be the two definitions which individual states could decide upon via voter mandate (and not because six people so decided) as to whether that state would use both designations or just the one. I am more than sure that, even though the previously disgraced mayor of San Francisco claims that "as California goes, so goes the whole country", the rest of the United States are perfectly capable of making their own decisions regarding this issue rather than believing that California is such a desirable state that everyone is just swooning to be just like them. And, get over the interracial argument already, people. No matter how you spin it, it still required a man and a woman be the parties involved in a marriage . . . God Bless. |
|
Date: 5/17/2008 3:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 30093
How is it that comparing the black issue to the gay issue is an invalid argument, but saying gay marriage would lead to incest or beastiality etc IS a valid argument? |
|
Date: 5/17/2008 6:22:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
From the little I have read of the Californian Court’s decision, prohibitions against interracial marriage had existed since the foundation of the state, as you can see above. Thus, when these were removed 60 years ago, you had a kind of marriage which was never before possible. The only difference between that and gay marriage is that 61 years ago you would be told “you cannot marry the person you love because of the colour of your skin.” whereas nowadays people were being told “you cannot marry the person you love because of your gender”. As for why there cannot be too different names granting the same rights, I have not read all of the decision, but the general view seems to have been that creating a separate distinction for people based on their orientation was not treating them with dignity and respect, which is a view I agree with. |
|
Date: 5/17/2008 9:45:00 PM
From Authorid: 13119
and so changing that which is sacred to some and that which they entered into with a clear view of what it was to make some happy is alright? How can you say it is not treating them with dignity and respect, it is acknowledging their commitment and ensuring that they have the same rights. Why do you need the word? Isn't that kinda shoving your beliefs down the throats of the masses? |
|
Date: 5/17/2008 9:45:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 62099
deb-the german government used to classify parts of their society different too. they were called jews, and were forced to life under different rules, just as you propose. So whats next, would you life homosexuals to were insignia on there clothing and move into "special" parts of each town? maybe even build a giant gate and surround them? hey, you can read up on that stuff, im sure there are more ideas you may "Support" |
|
Date: 5/17/2008 9:51:00 PM ( From Author )
From Authorid: 62099
to those who are against gay marriage, (OR THOSE WHO FEEL THEY NEED TO BE LABELED DIFFERENT) The Southern States here in America voted to keep slavery alive in the 1800's, I guess lincoln should have taken your view, and said "hey, if the people want to keep slaves, lets do what the people want" same thing man, you want to discriminate against those you either fear, or hate. why seperate, why different, what makes a heterosexual better? look at the "divorce" rates between these two groups, by the numbers the homosexual population are the ONLY group that honor their vows the way "God" intended..ironic. |
|
Date: 5/18/2008 7:21:00 AM
From Authorid: 13119
you really believe that drivel? Look at the promiscuity that is in the gay population and still try to tell me that their unions last longer than others. BULL, they are just the same as everyone. I don't care if they want to be together forever, good on em but leave what the people voted stand. Stop trying to cram it down people's throats. And this crap about hate or fear is way off base. I don't hate or fear anyone, I believe in not forcing others to do as I wish just because I have it in my head that I am being picked on. |
|
Date: 5/18/2008 9:56:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
You people are confusing individual human traits with partnership relationship traits. A partnership is not an individual. There is not one law in the United States that prohibits a homosexual adult who is not already married to get married. The law defining marriage is that it is to be between a man and a woman. Period. There is no language in that that says if you are a homosexual you cannot get married. So all of you need to get over this whole argument regarding an individual human being as "persecuted" trip due to their sexual orientation, and the inane attemps to compare that with slavery or the Nazis. And Nananki, incest and bestality already exist, so my argument is not that gay marriage would lead to that, it is that opeing up the definition of marriage for one minority group is fodder for these other minority groups to argue for their idea of marriage to also be legal. If there was one legal designation describing RELATIONSHIP parameters which deigned it to mean a "domestic partnership" between two unrelated adults not already in a binding legal "domestic partnership" relationship, that covers ALL people who wish to be in this type of relationship which the government recognizes as a relationship which inures special benefits to, how is that separating anyone out of this equation? HOW? Once again, I do not care that my marriage would then be called by the government, a "Domestic Partnership" because that would be the legal description for same. There would be no separate LEGAL designation for heterosexual couples or homosexual couples. And this is unacceptable to you all in what way? That is my unanswered question, so would someone PLEASE answer it. DP, yes, MY PREFERENCE would be to have the two designations. YOUR PREFERENCE is to have one designation but you keep insisting that the government call that designation "Marriage". MY CONCILIATORY POSITION is to do away with the legal designation now known as "Married" in order to better define ALL relationships that the government should give the same benefits to, to "Domestic Partnership". Your conciliatory position is WHAT? Tell me where you, as "defender of the gays" is attempting any pacification on this issue? THIS is my concern over how young people are being indoctrinated in today's educational arena and society. There is no teaching of how to reach a middle ground at all. The prevailing attitude is "in your face" until we (a minority) get our way, with the reasoning that a majority shouldn't be imposing tyranny a minority, but with no thought whatsoever that a minority then is imposing tyranny on a majority, as if that is all right. Magoo, my personal thought on why gays are so intent on wanting the benefits that the government bestows on married people has to do with your statement of promiscuity: Very widely unreported is the "gay man disease" of Hepatitis C. While this is not a fatal disease, it is a disease which leads to all sorts of medical complications which require a lot of medical treatment, which, if one is not insured on their own, is quite expensive for an individual, but if their "current partner" has insurance, jumping on that gravy bandwagon to get treatment for what has befallen a gay man due to his sex life, is one of the driving forces behind this push for gay marriages. JMHO on that. On a side not, I do need to correct my numbers up there: My cursory hearing of this had me believing this was a 6 - 1 Decision, but I see WildBob had it right with the 4 - 3 Decision. Mea culpa. All that does for me though, is to be more outraged that an EVEN SMALLER group of people could decide this over the millions of CA voters . . . God Bless. |
|
Date: 5/18/2008 12:31:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Calling same-sex unions “marriages” does not change whether or not God endorses the marriage of a particular heterosexual couple Magoo, so I don’t see how any harm is being done here - the government cannot affect the sanctity or otherwise of a marriage, that’s something that’s up to whatever God you believe in. |
|
Date: 5/18/2008 12:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
“There is no language in that that says if you are a homosexual you cannot get married.” - Deb. Seriously. You have more intelligence than that. Before interracial marriages were legalised every person had an equal right to marry someone of their own race. Would you come along and say “there is no language in that that says if you are a black person you cannot get married” ?
“opeing up the definition of marriage for one minority group is fodder for these other minority groups to argue for their idea of marriage to also be legal.” And did it occur to you that these arguments might be defeated? Your logic here is tantamount to saying if we extend rights to one minority group, we must extend them to all by virtue of being minorities. This is nonsense. |
|
Date: 5/18/2008 12:41:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
“There would be no separate LEGAL designation for heterosexual couples or homosexual couples. And this is unacceptable to you all in what way? That is my unanswered question, so would someone PLEASE answer it.” - I cannot speak for anyone but myself, but in my opinion the term “Domestic Partnership” is a meaningless one. People know what it means to marry someone, the nature of the public commitment which is being made. To an extent, it is the tradition of marriage that is being sought. The difference between those who think marriage is the correct term for same-sex unions lies in whether or not the gender combination of the union is an intrinsic property of marriage. |
|
Date: 5/18/2008 12:47:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
As for a conciliatory position - There are some matters which admit of no compromise and I cannot change my stance on these. I understand that you’re trying to compromise despite your preference for another system, which is admirable in principle. However, there are certain ethical matters which must be absolute and do not admit of compromises. If women could not vote, and someone’s conciliatory position was to allow women to vote, but to have each vote count for half of a male vote, I could not compromise. Similarly, since I believe that separate but equal is not equal, and that a marriage is not defined (in essence, regardless of law) by the gender combination of the union, I cannot compromise on this issue. |
|
Date: 5/18/2008 12:53:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
As far as promiscuity in the gay community, this appears to be an empirical fact. It is also an empirical fact that a sizeable proportion of the gay community suffer from depression.
The mistake, however is to misdiagnose the causes of both promiscuity and depression.
If a person is living within an environment where their sexual orientation makes it socially unacceptable or even dangerous for them to express themselves, it is understandable that depression might follow. Certain people however, attempt to conclude that homosexuals are somehow innately predisposed towards depression, forgetting to take into account the context of the situation, i.e. homophobic environments. Similarly, promiscuity must be considered within the context of the environment. In the majority of states in the world, homosexuals are unable to have their partnerships recognised by governments, even in the form of civil unions/domestic partnerships. Add to this the fact that it is often impossible for a person to live in a stable openly gay relationship in a homophobic environment and you go some way to explain why gay people seem to be more promiscuous. |
|
Date: 5/18/2008 3:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 13119
why was my comment deleted? I was saying it is horse pucky to try and make it the fault of the masses for the promiscuity. I don't care if you are gay or straight, if you truly love someone it doesn't matter what others say or think you will remain faithful to them and won't be out whoring around. Don't try to put it off on anyone else. Those who are promiscuious just are. |
|
Date: 5/18/2008 3:53:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
ROTFLMAO. You won't change your position because you want a traditional marriage! LMAO. In the Catholic Church, DP? Isn't that where people in Ireland traditionally get married? I mean, because your comment to Magoo right there below my last comment certainly puts my position in concise terms, i.e., "the government cannot effect the sanctity or otherwise of a marriage"! EXACTLY! So why do you need their sanctioning so bad, DP??? And you are getting very sloppy with your language, DP. "Before interracial marriages were legalised every person had an equal right to marry someone of their own race." So, a white man could marry a white man? Really??? And aren't you the one up there calling for minority rights to be oh so protected from the tyranny of the majority, yet you wouldn't extend that "privilege" to a minority group outside of YOUR minority group? And you want to cry out against "nonsense"??? (You do know that that means something makes no sense as in your reasoning there I've just laid out;). And THEN you bring up ethics, principle, and disregard of the law??? Oh, Dear God, Please Give DP just a little bit of sense as to what consistency means. God Bless. |
|
Date: 5/18/2008 4:23:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Clarifications: “To an extent, it is the tradition of marriage that is being sought.” - The key phrase here is “to an extent”. What is not being sought is the recognition of a marriage by any specific religious institution. People in the U.S. and Ireland frequently MARRY without the explicit recognition of any church. Heterosexual Atheists MARRY under the law in both our countries. [Atheists are obviously the best group to use for the purposes of this argument, since their unions are not sanctified by any church whatsoever] What is being sought is the traditional secular understanding of marriage - marriage is understood (in general) to entail a contract or commitment between two people, born out of romantic love. Some people add to this a religious element - the marriage has additional meaning from their particular perspective. This is of course not a matter for the government. What is a matter for the government, is whether or not it decides to discriminate upon the basis of factors such as age (it does so, with good reason), race (used to in the case of California, not anymore with good reason) religion (no discrimination, since atheists and Christians and all other faiths are each recognised as being MARRIED) or gender (soon this will not be the case). |
|
Date: 5/18/2008 4:26:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
If I tell someone I am MARRIED, I expect them to assume that I have made the same commitment to my partner, that any heterosexual man makes to his wife. If I tell someone I have a Domestic Partnership, this is a meaningless term for me, and for them. It is an unnecessary distinction, and it is disrespectful to me, to exclude me from the term “marriage” on the basis of my gender since in the eyes of the law, my union should be equal in every regard to a heterosexual one.
|
|
Date: 5/18/2008 4:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Magoo, I didn’t see your deleted comment, so all I can say is that it makes sense to me that a group would be more promiscuous than another, if the environment for expressing your sexuality is substantially different. If you live in an environment where expressing your sexuality in terms of long-term monogamous relationships is not supported by your family, your peers, or your government, then it stands to reason that there’s a higher chance of promiscuous behaviour. |
|
Date: 5/18/2008 4:36:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
More clarification: “So, a white man could marry a white man? Really???” - Ok, you got me. I should have specified that everyone had the equal right to marry someone of the same colour and the same gender. One of these has been removed and hopefully soon the other will follow in all states.
“And aren't you the one up there calling for minority rights to be oh so protected from the tyranny of the majority, yet you wouldn't extend that "privilege" to a minority group outside of YOUR minority group? And you want to cry out against "nonsense"???” - I made the point that just because one group is a minority does mean that their rights should be identical under the law. If other factors are present, then it is perfectly legitimate to extend rights to certain minorities, while denying those rights to others. Ignoring this commit’s the slippery slope fallacy you’ve demonstrated. For example, those who wish to marry their pets are presumably a minority. However, marriage rights could never be extended to this minority without redefining animals as capable of entering into contracts (to name just one factor). Thus the reason why the slippery slope fails is because there are significant barriers which remain in place, once you’ve legalised gay marriage, which prevent the legalisation of these other types of “marriage” without other factors being addressed. Just to reiterate, being a minority is not in itself a reason to have equal rights with the majority. The nature of the minority must be taken into account, as well as the consequences of extending those rights. Obviously I believe that the nature of homosexuality and gay marriages is such that there is no reasonable justification to deny equal rights (unlike, say, those who wish to marry underage individuals).
|
|
Date: 5/19/2008 8:15:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
Every "clarification" you attempt to make, DP, says the same thing in my book: "WE HAVE TO HAVE the GOVERNMENT tell us how to think!" Your saying you are married, if there is no LEGAL DESIGNATION of the word "married", then makes your statement YOURS. Your behaving out in public as a "married couple" then makes your behavior YOURS. Your going to a church (or any other wedding business) that performs a ceremony for you in which you are pronounced "married", makes your ceremony YOURS. What you keep arguing is that your words, behaviors, and actions couldn't possibly give anyone a sense of you having a "public commitment". Why is that? Because you're already known by that same public to be a liar, a hypocrite, and a phony? Who, out there in the public arena, knows whether a person is under the legal designation of "Married" in our world today? Is there some identifying mark the government in your country gives married people, so that out there in public everyone knows who's married? And is that identifier identifying who it is they're married to? Because, by God, if the government's system is the only way you can be identified as married, then you best be looking into that Nazi comparison after all. Oh, yeah, speaking of God, where is your "clarification" on that point you were attempting to make with Magoo on the government not effecting the sanctity of marriage? If the government, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, "cannot effect the sanctity or otherwise of marriage", why are you here arguing for the exact opposite, i.e., for governmental sanctioning of gay marriage? Oh, yeah, I know why -- it's because you have no sense of consistency, even though you're going to come back here and tell me that you do and make another ridiculous statement that will just go to show your inconsistency, like any other time we've had debates. BTW, your slippery slope of defining marriage seems to have already consumed polygamy, since you can't seem to see how it would be thwarted by the foundation of domestic partnership, and I am still failing to see how incest can't follow on that slide, given the parameters you keep arguing (i.e., that anyone -- I'll stick with the humans here -- who wishes to be legally married to whomever else they want should therefore be allowed to). God Bless. |
|
Date: 5/19/2008 9:00:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
Oh, yeah, I forgot to mention something. How utterly ironic that you would bring into this discussion "the right of women to vote" AND "only giving them half a vote". THIS DECISION NULLIFIED EVERYONE'S VOTE! Not just the woman's! Not just "half a vote"! ALL VOTES! And people really do sit and wonder why there's this thing called "voter apathy" . . . God Bless. |
|
Date: 5/19/2008 9:47:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
Imagine telling someone you meet “I’m married to a wonderful man”. Now imagine that person telling you “actually, you’re not married, you have a domestic partnership”. That is, in effect, what the government is saying to each person who it refuses to acknowledge as married. What I keep arguing is that my public commitment is undermined if the government insists on treating me under a separate heading. The only possible rational reason to do this, is if the government is judging my union to be different from the union of marriage. The reasoning for this must be either A: because of my gender (in which case, all things being equal, this discrimination is unjustified), B: because the government is judging my union to be inferior to marriage unions (or marriage unions to be inferior to mine if you want to be technical about it, or C: both. These are the only possible reasons to add an extra, new distinction to cover same-sex unions. |
|
Date: 5/19/2008 9:51:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
“If the government, IN YOUR OWN WORDS, "cannot effect the sanctity or otherwise of marriage", why are you here arguing for the exact opposite, i.e., for governmental sanctioning of gay marriage?” - I would have thought this was obvious and didn’t need to be clarified. The “sanctity of marriage” refers to a religious aspect of marriage which is not intrinsic to the nature of marriage. A civil marriage is one which is endorsed by the government alone, whereas a religious marriage is one which is (usually) endorsed by a particular deity and may also be endorsed by the government. Thus, a person may be married in the eyes of God but not in the eyes of the government, or be married in the eyes of the government, but not in the eyes of God. It is not the government’s business to deal with whether or not God endorses a union, and for the government to sanction a marriage is to say nothing about the sanctity of that marriage. |
|
Date: 5/19/2008 9:53:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
“given the parameters you keep arguing (i.e., that anyone -- I'll stick with the humans here -- who wishes to be legally married to whomever else they want should therefore be allowed to).” - Um… have you been reading my comments? This is in no way what I have been arguing. I direct you to where I dealt with the issue of underage marriage as an example above, which demonstrates why simply wanting to be legally married is not enough. |
|
Date: 5/19/2008 10:00:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
“THIS DECISION NULLIFIED EVERYONE'S VOTE!” - That is a matter of perspective. It is the job of the judges to rule whether or not something violates the constitution which I presume was endorsed by the Californian people. If the people vote for a constitution, and endorse politicians who set up a framework designed to ensure the integrity of this union, then you cannot complain if the judges (who are the best qualified to determine legal matter, i.e. what is the law, not what the law ought to be) determine that something is unconstitutional. As I understand it, it will be possible for the people (if the majority want it) to put an amendment to the vote which would trump the court’s decision. Democracy in action. |
|
Date: 5/19/2008 10:01:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
"Its domestic partnership legislation grants same-sex couples most of the benefits of married couples except a few, such as the right to jointly file income tax returns, the right to bring a foreign partner into the United States and right to pass Social Security benefits on to a spouse. So far, more than 30,000 same-sex couples are registered in California as domestic partners." |
|
Date: 5/19/2008 11:39:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
Get over the separate label already, DP. It is a point conceded. You just don't accept that, do you? That I can think of myself as married, and believe that my marriage is sanctioned, even though the government offers me only to check a box that says "Domestic Partnership"? That the voters of California didn't have the foresight to give ALL the same benefits to a Domestic Partnership that inures to married people is not my point. That these judges took what the people of CA voted for, i.e., not to confer marriage status to homosexual unions, and decided that that is unconstitutional, is NOT what is unconstitutional. What is, is that they did not confer the same BENEFITS that married couples have to those 30,000 homosexual couples in a domestic partnership. That is not the SAME THING, yet you'd never know that by your arguments, DP. And, you're right, the voters of California have every opportunity to now correct that omission, and if they have any guts at all they will. But unfortunately, they have seen the intent of their vote be NULLIFIED, and thus the way the government has made them feel has to be construed as inadequate and undermined and inferior. I'm sure they are all going to fall into a state of depression now since how the government treats them and the environment in which their feelings and thoughts don't mean anything has been sanctified. :( Once again, your comment regarding what a person would say to you if you told them that you were "married to a wonderful man" is full proof that you need the government to sanctify (authorize, legitimize) your union because you are unable to think that for yourself. And your fictional respondant's right to freedom of religion in BELIEVING that you are not married is certainly of no concern to you, because their right to believe in the sacredness of marriage as a sacrament of God as between a man and a woman would be trumped by the sanctity of the government in making that freedom disappear. Oh, no! we can't have people believing something contrary to what the government says. Why that opens them up for being sued for discrimination, being charged with violating civil rights, and having their religious freedoms diluted. No harm done there, though, right? God Bless. |
|
Date: 5/19/2008 2:56:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
The same harm that is done if someone refuses to serve a person because of the colour of their skin.
You cannot and should not prosecute a person for what they believe, but you can and should prosecute someone they this belief leads them to harm someone else. I reject the idea that needing the government to sanction (I do not use the term sanctify, since it has primarily religious connotations) indicates some sort of infantile need for approval. It is not enough for my or anyone else’s rights to exist merely theoretically. We need the government to step in when these rights are violated, and the only way for this to happen is for the government to acknowledge the existence of these rights. |
|
Date: 5/19/2008 2:58:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
"And this existence of these rights is being acknowledged by having domestic partnerships" - if that's your response, mine is that doing so would create an unncessary distinction in law based upon gender, which is ultimately ingraining inequality further into law. |
|
Date: 5/19/2008 4:20:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
That comment is superfluous tripe which said nothing to the point I am making. Do you want to try again? And PLEASE show me where the "Right to Marry" is ANYWHERE in the U.S. Constitution. The "government" is THE PEOPLE and if they don't BELIEVE (as is indicated by the polls of the whole of the United States) that a gay union is the same thing as a marriage, being forced by government officials to think, believe or act otherwise is harmful. When there is no law telling you that you may not have a ceremonial marriage and act "married" with your partner, AND the government is inuring the EXACT SAME BENEFITS it inures to currently married people, THERE IS NO DISTINCTION to which you can claim your equal rights are being violated. The "rights" being afforded by the government are the BENEFITS which inure NOT THE LABEL BY WHICH they are afforded. It is not an unnecessary distinction, and if that is the best you can do for an argument, then the BEST DISTINCTION to use for inuring those benefits is "Domestic Partnership", especially given the harm to religious freedom which arises from the government's holier than thou (sanctimonious) attitude over those who would then HAVE TO ACKNOWLEDGE, contrary to the sanctity they give to God, that you are married. God Bless. |
|
Date: 5/19/2008 5:13:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
You may regard rebuttals to your “points” as superfluous tripe Deb, there’s nothing I can do to change that except to perhaps suggest such language is more than a little rude. Are we talking about the U.S. Constitution or the Californian Constitution? Make up your mind, if you’re going to be the champion of consistency. Whether marriage is considered a right or not does not change the fact that unjustified discrimination is occurring. You cannot appeal to the validity of a law by appealing to the existence of the law, that is simply circular reasoning. There is certainly harm being done if the will of the people is not reflected in law. There is also harm being done if the will of the majority is to cause harm to a minority. Ultimately, the majority will have the final say, this is not affected by the court’s decision. However, if the majority of people wanted slavery to be legal, I would prefer a government to overturn such a decision and impose a law banning slavery upon the people. In such cases the harm being done in one case outweighs the other. This is not to compare the two issues necessarily beyond the fact that what is legal and approved by the majority is not always what is to be desired, even if it would mean violating the will of the majority. |
|
Date: 5/19/2008 5:15:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
“When there is no law telling you that you may not have a ceremonial marriage and act "married" with your partner, AND the government is inuring the EXACT SAME BENEFITS it inures to currently married people, THERE IS NO DISTINCTION to which you can claim your equal rights are being violated.” This is false. If the government is refusing to allow a same-sex union to be called a “marriage” they are creating a “separate but equal” situation, which is anything but equal. I would not support a distinction in terms based on gender, height, weight, hair colour etc. of a union. The government which calls some unions marriages and others something else is guilty of discriminating on the basis of gender. |
|
Date: 5/19/2008 5:16:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
The government is not asking a religious person to accept that two people of the same sex are married in the eyes of God. They are simply asking that their marriage given the same respect a religious person would give the marriage of an atheist - a completely secular union. |
|
Date: 5/19/2008 5:18:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
This alludes to one of the best arguments for gay marriage ^. Nobody is actually able to demonstrate how they would be harmed by such a recognition. |
|
Date: 5/20/2008 6:40:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
Well, here we are back to square one -- all because the prevailing attitude of today's youth is in your face until we get our way, and we don't care about you and your convictions. Topped with the lack of basic educational civics including the weaving of federal law and state. Comparing fish to birds and claiming they both flock together so they thereby must all swim in schools . . . One more time, DP: a man and a woman does not equal a man and a man. THAT is why there is this "separate" YOU insist on highlighting. Why you can't just see that the benefits are what is required to be equal not the designation, EVEN AFTER you cite what I am surmising is a summary or portion of the case (not citing your material is abjectly juvenile) which says that! Of course, nothing you're going to cite or copy is going to ever be admitted by you to have an interpretation other than what you claim, as your extrapolation process is limited due to those blinders you wear in which all you can see is what's in front of you rather than responding to the ALL. God Help us all . . . God Bless. |
|
Date: 5/20/2008 8:55:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
“One more time, DP: a man and a woman does not equal a man and a man” - Lets just settle that this is the core of the issue. My response is of course the same as it has always been and the same response you have failed to address time and time again. Your argument goes as follows: 1. A man and a woman does not equal a man and a man. 2. There is a difference between things which are not equal. 3. Different things have different names. 4. It is proper to refer to a man and a woman as “married” and a man and a man as having a “domestic partnership.”
If this is a mischaracterisation of your position ( if any premise is incorrectly stated or if there are additional premises you feel are relevant) please correct me. Otherwise, I can explain exactly where my objection to the above argument lies (though obviously there’s little point in this if the above argument is not accurately reflective of your position). |
|
Date: 5/20/2008 9:03:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
My rebuttal to the above argument, is that the distinction is an arbitrary one. Yes there is a difference between a man/man and a man/woman union, however it does not follow that such a difference mandates a different term for the overall union. As I have explained before different objects can belong to a certain category while having different properties. This is why “U.S.A.”, “Andorra” and “Republic of Ireland” can each belong to the category “Country”, despite the fact that Andorra has no coastline, while the U.S.A. and Ireland both do, to take one property. The reason for this, is that the property of having a coastline is not INTRINSIC to the concept of a country. Contrast this with the category of “Members of the E.U.”, to which Ireland belongs, but the U.S.A. does not. The reason the U.S.A. does not, is because the concept of being a member of the E.U. includes within it the property(or fact) of having signed up to various treaties which the U.S.A. has not.
Now apply this system to the concept of marriage. What you are doing, is pointing out a difference between two unions (call this property “gender combination”) and then claiming that this justifies separate distinctions. However, what you have not done, the step you are ignoring, is the part where you show that “gender combination” is an intrinsic property of marriage, i.e. that it is contained within the concept of marriage. You can certainly attempt to make an argument to this effect, however, you cannot claim that the identification of a difference necessitates a difference of terms, any more than I can claim that the fact Andorra doesn’t have a coastline necessitates that it is something other than a country |
|
Date: 5/20/2008 11:17:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
We have had this argument so many times before, DP, and I know you won't agree with me on any of this, but perhaps if any other person reading this can UNDERSTAND that your position on "intrinsic" (aka "inherent"; which is aka "innate"; which is aka "existing from birth"; which is aka "inherited"; which is aka "intrinsic";) properties is so fully off-base that it is truly sad (because you want to think of yourself as so smart, yet keep showing otherwise) to see you keep on trying to argue, then I will gladly reiterate for you. Just in this debate, you have mentioned the "concept" of marriage, the etymology of "marriage", and the "tradition of marriage". There is NOT ONE speck of evidence in any of these areas which supports your contention that "the intrinsic nature of marriage" does not preclude homosexual unions. None. The "concept" that people enter into unions or partnerships in long-ago cultures, and that some of these unions were homosexual in nature, is NOT PROOF that those cultures didn't have TWO WORDS (or phrases) which described DIFFERENT TYPES of unions. All that you can say that has been "inherited" from such a concept is that homosexual unions have been in existence. The etymology of the word "marriage" clearly indicates the presence of a woman. There is absolutely no way in any rational persons head to claim inheritance from the word "marriage" that does not include a woman. The "tradition of marriage", be that a societal, religious, or legal tradition; be that a marriage only between people of the same race; be that a marriage in which an atheist is a participant; ALL STILL HAVE HAD THE REQUIREMENT of a man and a woman. There simply is nothing you can claim as an inheritance for homosexual unions via tradition. I absolutely already know that you are going to come here and claim that the definition that you are using for the word "intrinsic" is that of "being an innate or essential part". So, to save you from typing, just go put that phrase in anywhere I have used the word "inherit" and you have my response to your, yet again (I'm making a prediction here;), superfluous tripe comment you're about to type. God Bless. |
|
Date: 5/20/2008 2:09:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
The burden of proof rests with you Deb, since it is you who is making the claim that gender combination is an intrinsic property of marriage. “There is NOT ONE speck of evidence in any of these areas which supports your contention that "the intrinsic nature of marriage" does not preclude homosexual unions.” There is in fact much evidence of this, you have simply failed to recognise it. One of the most powerful pieces of evidence is the fact that we allow people to marry without mandating that they have any kind of physical intercourse. If it is possible to have a marriage without having sex then the question of gender becomes irrelevant. It does not matter whether the majority of couples will have sex at one stage or another, all you need is a single exception to prove my point. |
|
Date: 5/20/2008 2:14:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
“The etymology of the word "marriage" clearly indicates the presence of a woman”
- I’ve already explained why this is a nonsense point. Google tells me “Deborah” is a Hebrew word which shares its origin with the word for “bee”. Does this mean that you must be possessed of some inherent bee-like qualities in order for you to be suitably named?
“Marriage” is a single word, which happens to have made its way into the French language. The institution of marriage (unlike the etymology of the word) is not traceable to a single explanation - Marriage as a concept has existed all over the world in many forms and many languages with different etymologies. I’m sure you’re well aware that marriage as originally conceived in Europe had a much different meaning than it carries today (i.e. marriage was about property rights, the notion of romantic love is a relatively recent invention). |
|
Date: 5/20/2008 2:18:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
You seem to be having problems with the concept of definitions. You are absolutely correct that the definition of “intrinsic” I am using is “being an innate or essential part”, nothing to do with inheriting anything. You cannot take a word I am using in one context, and use it in another in order to address my original point. I have explained already that a single word may have multiple definitions but all of these definitions may not be appropriate given the context in which the word is used.
Specifically: “Equivocation is classified as both a formal and informal fallacy. It is the misleading use of a term with more than one meaning (by glossing over which meaning is intended at a particular time).” http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equivocation (citing my material so as not to appear ‘juvenile’ |
|
Date: 5/20/2008 2:23:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Further to my original point, so you can get a clearer picture of the kind of reasoning I’m using: In order to consider whether something should be considered an intrinsic property of marriage, I simply consider a “marriage” without that property and see would it still seem reasonable to call it a marriage. For example: must married couples have children in order to be married? I consider married couples without children, and note that we have no problem calling these people married - thus marriages need not produce children. You can do the same with any number of properties. When I come to gender, I consider what it is that a heterosexual couple can do that a homosexual one can’t - the only conclusion I can come to is certain physical acts. I then ask myself whether a marriage is still a marriage in the absence of such acts. Since I can conceive of a couple who never have had sex, or who are unable to for whatever reason, and since I reason that we would still have no problem considering the couple married, I conclude that gender is irrelevant to marriage. |
|
Date: 5/20/2008 2:26:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
A further example, is a religious element an intrinsic element of marriage? Atheists are allowed to get married, thus it is possible for a couple to be married (in the eyes of a government) without the sanction of any metaphysical entity.
|
|
Date: 5/20/2008 2:29:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
And as I’ve pointed out elsewhere, just because every marriage up to this point has had one combination, does not mean that a new combination necessarily creates a new thing in the same way that all vehicles travelled on earth or water until the invention of the airplane (or hot air balloon or whatever). |
|
Date: 5/20/2008 2:38:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
Uh, honey, that's "B" . . . God Bless. |
|
Date: 5/20/2008 2:42:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
And, yes, it is an intrinsic trait. God Bless. |
|
Date: 5/20/2008 4:25:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
Are you sure? Every internet source I can find says otherwise. |
|
Date: 5/20/2008 4:26:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
( ^ Admittedly, the internet is rarely a good source for anything, but I’m not exactly an expert at the etymology of Hebrew names so…) |
|
Date: 5/21/2008 7:15:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
And what do ALL sources say about the word "marriage"? DUUHH . . . Remember how irony works (and if you don't, just go look at your comments on the post re: the soldier and target shooting). Remember, also, you've put the badge of consistency on yourself. God Bless. |
|
Date: 5/21/2008 11:24:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
I can’t speak for all sources obviously, the consensus online appears to be that “marry” (coming from “marriage”) is of *uncertain* origin, possibly coming from “to give a young woman” which I believe you mentioned above. I presume this means you are in favour of lesbians getting married but not homosexual males? ;) Seriously though, are you honestly suggesting that a word can only be used in accordance with its original etymology? Even if we accept the uncertain origin of “marry”, I bet I can find many other terms in modern use which bear no resemblance to their original etymology. Might give me something to do do distract me from study…hmm…
|
|
Date: 5/21/2008 11:35:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
Here’s some fun examples I found online : ) So if we’re only correctly using words when we stick rigidly to their etymological origins:
Assassin - should only apply to eaters or smokers of hashish,
Avocado - should only apply to a part of the male anatomy, Hazard - should only apply to games using dice, Phony (or Phoney) should only refer to gilt rings sold by “British thieves and swindlers”. Quarantine - should only refer to periods of about forty days. |
|
Date: 5/21/2008 11:37:00 AM
From Authorid: 19613
And of course, marriage should only refer to cermonies where the woman is given away (as property, given the context of the original usage). |
|
Date: 5/22/2008 10:47:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
I like looking into words! One of the best way to do that is by knowing the subtle differences that punctuation is used in defining words. For instance, when I look up the word "intrinsic" and see two separate clauses set apart by a semi-colon, then I know the two definitions are meant to be looked together in the context of ALL that is given (e.g., "being an innate or essential part; inherent"). Also helpful, of course, is root words. The sound of the first syllable in the word "marriage" gives us a hint along with the consideration of language origin, i.e., French. The closest French word I associate with the sound of that first syllable would be "mere", which in French has decidedly female connotations. But even that is not a complete examination. Why, in the English language, we have a word with a sound just like that first syllable, to wit, "mare". Now, "mare" has two delineated meanings, as is indicated by the use of numbers within the text of its definition. So looking up "mare" we get "1, a female horse. 2, a large flat area on the moon." So, DP, you can take ALL of this and still come here and argue that somehow this word examination all still applies to homosexual unions; OR, you could come here and still argue that CHANGE is what we're after, by darnit!, change people's attitudes toward homosexuality, change a deeply-held belief for millions of people, just CHANGE the MEANING of the word "marriage" and we'll do ALL of that, by golly; OR, you could come here and REASON that the change the government can effect is giving a legal designation to homosexual unions which inure the same legal benefits as "married" people, and understand that rather than forcing those above-mentioned issues down people's throats, you've made rational steps toward SHOWING people what it is you want them to think: That homosexuals are just people, just like the rest of us. God Bless. |
Date: 5/22/2008 11:06:00 AM
From Authorid: 63241
There was a case shown on Dateline or 20/20 about same sex marriage. The lesbian partners had been together over 20 years. One of the women developed cancer and the other took care of her for years up to her death. SUDDENLY, the deceased woman's family, who had disowned this woman over 20 years before and had nothing to do with her, not even during the end of her life, came into the picture. This family legally had the right to make funeral arrangements, take over the deceased woman's bank account, her belongings, car and everything else she owned. Not only was her partner's death devastating to the surviving woman but she couldn't bury her the way they agreed and had to deal with her scavenger family. If she had been married to this woman, this never could have happened. Is this right?  |
|
Date: 5/22/2008 2:39:00 PM
From Authorid: 11240
No, WoodElf, it is not right. That is why I support a legal designation for homosexual unions. My complete and total argument is that that designation simply is not "Married" . . . God Bless. |
|
Date: 5/22/2008 8:30:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
My point Deb, was the etymology of a word explains its origin, not its meaning. This is why you can look up the word “assassin” and have a different definition than “an eater of hashish”. Meanings of terms are fluid to an extent, and change depending upon how they are used in society. In the Netherlands, gay people get “married” (or whatever the Dutch word for married happens to be) just as gay people in Massachusetts (and soon California) will be getting married. Adding gay couples to the groups we consider married does not damage heterosexual relationships, it does not diminish them in the eyes of a particular deity, or the government. As the concept of marriage evolved when women were no longer considered property, so to can it evolve to include a minority which had previously been persecuted in most Western societies for much of the last 2,000 years. The “tradition” of marriage is situated in the context of homophobic societies where homosexuality itself was frequently outlawed, where homosexuals suffered all manner of persecution. “Marriage” has never belonged to any one religion, and it need no longer belong to a world of prejudice against homosexuality. |
|
Date: 5/23/2008 7:55:00 AM
From Authorid: 11240
The issue is not whether heterosexual relationships are damaged, DP. Why do you keep ignoring the real issue? What is damaged, or HARMED, is an individual's right to freedom or religion in BELIEVING that a marriage is as between a man and a woman, and having the GOVERNMENT FORCE an alternate belief (Render unto Caeser . . .) into their interactions with others! If you are truly concerned with people being persecuted, what makes it right to persecute those with deeply held religious convictions re: this? Is that what the concept of "equality" boils down to for you? I.e., that homosexuals have been suffering and damaged for so many years by society, so the "equal" thing now is to turn that around onto other people??? God Bless. |
|
Date: 5/23/2008 6:46:00 PM
From Authorid: 19613
The religious question is easily answered for me Deb - Under no circumstances should any church be forced to recognise a same-sex union (or indeed any other union which doesn’t meet the particular religious definition). Since the state should not make laws based on religious beliefs (countries like Iran etc.) then you end up with the state being impartial - for religious people to believe someone is married in the eyes of the state does not necessitate believing they are married in the eyes of God. This seems pretty easy to me, when you consider that the government currently grants marriage licences to, for example, Hindus and atheists. These groups are not married according to (for example) the Christian tradition, yet Christians don’t generally seem to have a problem dealing with them as married in the eyes of the government. |
Date: 5/23/2008 6:55:00 PM
From Authorid: 51635
If the government can say that wiccans, athiests, agnostics and any other religion (or lack there of)can be "married" then why does the GLBT community have to settle for civil unions? It is up to individual religions to decide whom they will let have marriage services in their churches, done by their priest/pastor/reverend, the GOVERNMENT should have nothing to do with that, but as far as who my next of kin is, who I can visit in the hospital and how I/we file our taxes THAT should be up to the government and thats where I ask if people who have no faith or faith in another diety (other than the Christian God) can do it why not me? ...  |
|
Date: 5/23/2008 6:59:00 PM
From Authorid: 51635
Deb, No sate in the union is required to recognize a marriage registerred in any other state if it chooses not to. Most do recognize those between a man and a woman, but could require that the couple get a license from them as well as the one they already have from where ever they got married. It wasn't so long ago that people didn't travel much. |
|
Date: 5/23/2008 7:17:00 PM
From Authorid: 51635
People keep talking about gay marriage being forced upon people. How is two people getting married because they love eachother and want to be joined on paper to eachother forcing anything on anyone? It's not like they will be honey mooning in your living room. Banks being closed on Christams or MLK day is more like forcing something on to people than gay marraige. ... |
Date: 5/24/2008 9:51:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
YES I disagree. I still believe that marriage is between man and woman. DONT get me wrong, I've seen on tv and in person how happy these people are with their partners and I do believe if they are going to be partners for life then they should get all the same benifits of a man and wife that are married *same sex* I'm still of the belief of what our Lord tells us on this matter.  |
|
Date: 5/24/2008 10:21:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
DP said,These groups are not married according to (for example) the Christian tradition, yet Christians don’t generally seem to have a problem dealing with them as married in the eyes of the government. " I'm thinking your wrong on that yes christians do have a problem with that, or at least any christian that I know of do NOT believe that they are married in the eyes of God. TO me a person/persons married that do not believe in God, and I dont care if they were married in a church in front of a preacher if the people themselves do not believe in God, have not included God in their lives I do not think they are married in the eyes of God. At one point in the bible a woman had been with many men and Jesus said that she had several husbands, *basically what He said but you get the point* He said she had husbands because when we sleep with a person spiritually we are joined to them, that does not mean that God accepts it, what did Jesus tell her after that? Go and sin no more. Why did jesus say that? Because before that she did not know Him and apparently not God the father in her life either. And I say apparently because in those days you either believed in GOD or gods as in many. Now where you do not believe in any GOD or gods, it doesn't matter to you either way, but to those that do believe in God of the Bible, the God that we believe is the creator, to US it matters so what ever point you try to make with us about this is really no point as our belief system is not the same. Before I was a Christian I'm sure my points of views on many things would have been close to yours and I can't explain how I know that I know that I know that the God of the bible is the TRUE and ONLY God of creation, I guess its a spiritual thing and until one discovers HIM on their own, you just can not comprehend where we are coming from. NOw this hindu in your comment has a belief in a god, not the one that we Christians believe is the God of creation however even if it were, if this hindu were a believer a strong believer in what his God said, he would never marry an athesist. If so then he/she certainly would not be one with knowledge of what His/Her god was saying. |
|
Date: 5/24/2008 10:32:00 PM
From Authorid: 16671
ROD all that I can say is you one racist person and Nanaki, must come right after you. Marriage should be simply one woman and one man, RACE DOES NOT play a card in this. Nanaki, the reason is because a black person marrying a white person o |
