Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

I'm not right or left wing.

1) At its core, Prop 8 *IS* Unconstitutional. It will eventually be overturned when a majority of citizens in this country grow up, just like we did wrt the 19th Amendment and Jim Crow laws.

I don't see any way around that. As for demonizing its supporters, that isn't my intent. But any organization that puts $20 million towards limiting the rights of my fellow citizens because they don't agree with a personal choice can eat a fat d***. It's pathetic and petty, and there is absolutely no common sense or American reason to support it, save ignorance. I get people for and against abortion. I get people for and against war. I get people for and against torture. But not this.

2) Like Civil Rights, this is a black and white issue. I have yet to hear a cogent reason why a consenting adult cannot "marry" another consenting adult (unrelated) and be provided with the legal benefits (and disadvantages, such as tax bracket penalties, etc) that accompany such a union. I've heard plenty of religiously-derived emotional pleas...but ZERO rational and dispassionate reasoning.

3) Zero.

4) And that $20M primarily came from Utah. I do have a real problem with that. And who in the hell are the Mormons to give marriage advice?

5) **** this issue. We have REAL **** to be worried about in this country (and this world). This is down in the weeds.

6) Except for the fact that it is, you know, contrary to the core values of the Constitution.

7) Jfraz, we did declare the 3/5th's Compromise Unconstitutional. And it is in the Constitution. Same with Prohibition.

Doctor Thunder wrote:

I think you have brought up two good key points of this issue. 1) To what extent do you believe that people have a right to free thought?

2) To what extent do parents have the right to teach their children as they see fit?
Here's my position: I dislike thought-police. I believe in the right to freedom of though enough that I will defend it for those I disagree with.
Many of your thoughts, Ozymandias, I find to be evil, but under no circumstances will I suggest that your children must be indoctrinated into my way of thinking.

When they get older they will encounter other points of view and may choose for themselves, but when they are children the rights belong to the parents.

1) People are allowed to think whatever they want. What people aren't allowed to is to restrict the rights of others. That's why a woman can find work even if some believe she should stay at
home, a person can marry someone else of a different race. If you want to teach your children that homosexuality is evil/wrong/whatever do it on your own time. Just like with evolution,
school's aren't their to "teach the controversy". Also, teaching kids that "gay people are people too so BTW please don't curb stomp them" doesn't seem to be all the evil to me."

2) Parents have the right to teach children about whatever. What they cannot do is impose what they want to specifically teach their kids on other children. I'm perfectly fine with some
racist parent telling his kid that the other races are bad, or from some bigot telling his kids the holocaust never happened. What I am against is if these people trying to infect their particular brand of beliefs on others. There is a reason evolution is the only thing taught in schools and not creationism.

Anyway, you realize this is completely off topic to prop-8, right?

Here's the big secret:
PROP-8 HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH EDUCATION AND HAS NO EFFECT ON A KID'S CURRICULUM.

This is the reason homosexuals are getting really angry at those that are pro prop-8 - and the Mormon church in particular, is because they keep on bandying the lie that somehow prop 8 is going to change the educational curriculum of their kids (like telling kids that gays exist is somehow a pro-comment anyway). Prop 8 is solely about gay marriage.

Does anyone have a secular argument against Gay Marriage? Or is it all because "God told me its wrong".

What about people's faiths that don't think gay marriage is wrong?

Here's what you do: Churches that want to marry gays get to marry gays. Churches that don't don't have to and never would under prop 8.

Doctor Thunder wrote:
I never said I cannot justify my beliefs, I said I cannot explain his beliefs.

Then explain how the sanction of the state makes your marriage more sacred?

Don't see the relevance Dieneke. The 3/5 rule was declared unconstituional (IIRC) by the veto of 600,000 deaths, not by a court of law.


-note I've already shown how this is unconstitutional under that exact Amendment.

Doctor Thunder wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:

You are using laws to say something is sacred. Don't you see the problem with that?

No, I don't. We are using the vote exactly as it should be used. We are voting for what we think is right, exactly the same as the pro-gay marriage side is.

But when what you think is right is the denial of legal rights to another minority group you are very much in the wrong.

dogma wrote:

Doctor Thunder wrote:

Ozymandias wrote:

You are using laws to say something is sacred. Don't you see the problem with that?

No, I don't. We are using the vote exactly as it should be used. We are voting for what we think is right, exactly the same as the pro-gay marriage side is.

But when what you think is right is the denial of legal rights to another minority group you are very much in the wrong.

In your opinion.

In my opinion, allowing gay marriage to be legal would be very much in the wrong.

So, how do we resolve this difference of opinion in America?

We vote.

dogma wrote:

But when what you think is right is the denial of legal rights to another minority group you are very much in the wrong.

QFT.

"I don't like black people, let's vote to make it so they don't have the same rights as us!"

"I don't like Muslums, let's vote to make it so they don't have the same rights as us!"

"I don't like women, let's vote to make it so they don't have the same rights as us!"

"Gays are icky, let's vote to make it so they don't have the same rights as us!"

@ Doctor Thunder:

I'm my opinion, letting interracial marriage to be allowed is wrong!

So what do we do?

We Vote!

Doctor Thunder wrote:In your opinion.

In my opinion, allowing gay marriage to be legal would be very much in the wrong.

So, how do we resolve this difference of opinion in America?

We vote.

We are a Republic, not a democracy. The unconstitutionality of the issue renders my opinion and your opinion moot.

Our opinions do not matter...the law does. The law is derived from the tenets of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights (and subsequent amendments).

Fortunately, my opinion on this issue does not contradict the legal rights of other citizens, so I'm OK here. There are some places where I might not have an opinion that runs concordantly with the Constitution, but that is too bad for me.

In my opinion, allowing gay marriage to be legal would be very much in the wrong.

So, how do we resolve this difference of opinion in America?

Indeed. But why ?

Seemingly by spending $20 Million dollars to affect the vote in a place that has no/minimal affect upon you.

Like Mr. Ozymandias says, we've yet to hear any rational explanation for being against gay equality other than dislike.

Doctor Thunder wrote:
In your opinion.

In my opinion, allowing gay marriage to be legal would be very much in the wrong.

So, how do we resolve this difference of opinion in America?

We vote.

Since, as has already been stated, Prop 8 is unconstitutional it isn't anywhere near as simple as a matter of opinion.

dienekes96 wrote:We are a Republic, not a democracy. The unconstitutionality of the issue renders my opinion and your opinion moot.

Our opinions do not matter...the law does. The law is derived from the tenets of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights (and subsequent amendments).

Fortunately, my opinion on this issue does not contradict the legal rights of other citizens, so I'm OK here. There are some places where I might not have an opinion that runs concordantly with the Constitution, but that is too bad for me.

Exactly.

Just as someone can't outlaw you teaching Mormonism to your children or being Mormon, you can't restrict the rights of another group of people if it is constitutional and isn't directly impinging on your rights.

The reason there is a supreme court is to, surprise, surprise, strike down unconstitutional laws. If you voted on a law that would make it illegal for black people to marry, it would be struck down, even if it got a popular vote, because it is unconstitutional

reds8n wrote:

In my opinion, allowing gay marriage to be legal would be very much in the wrong.

So, how do we resolve this difference of opinion in America?

Indeed. But why ?

Seemingly by spending $20 Million dollars to affect the vote in a place that has no/minimal affect upon you.

Like Mr. Ozymandias says, we've yet to hear any rational explanation for being against gay equality other than dislike.

No one here has said anything about stopping equality. Equality seems fine to me!
But no one has said why a gay union has to be marriage. Why can't you have all the rights but not the word?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

reds8n wrote:

In my opinion, allowing gay marriage to be legal would be very much in the wrong.

So, how do we resolve this difference of opinion in America?

Indeed. But why ?

Seemingly by spending $20 Million dollars to affect the vote in a place that has no/minimal affect upon you.

Like Mr. Ozymandias says, we've yet to hear any rational explanation for being against gay equality other than dislike.

No one here has said anything about stopping equality. Equality seems fine to me!
But no one has said why a gay union has to be marriage. Why can't you have all the rights but not the word?

Separate but equal! That worked well in the past!

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
No one here has said anything about stopping equality. Equality seems fine to me!
But no one has said why a gay union has to be marriage. Why can't you have all the rights but not the word?

Separate is necessarily unequal. Unless you want to remove marriage from the legal books that argument is bankrupt.

Mekniakal wrote:

dienekes96 wrote:We are a Republic, not a democracy. The unconstitutionality of the issue renders my opinion and your opinion moot.

Our opinions do not matter...the law does. The law is derived from the tenets of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights (and subsequent amendments).

Fortunately, my opinion on this issue does not contradict the legal rights of other citizens, so I'm OK here. There are some places where I might not have an opinion that runs concordantly with the Constitution, but that is too bad for me.

Exactly.

Just as someone can't outlaw you teaching Mormonism to your children or being Mormon, you can't restrict the rights of another group of people if it is constitutional and isn't directly impinging on your rights.

The reason there is a supreme court is to, surprise, surprise, strike down unconstitutional laws. If you voted on a law that would make it illegal for black people to marry, it would be struck down, even if it got a popular vote, because it is unconstitutional

But does saying marriage is between a man and a woman unconstitutional?
I think to say that marriage should have more rights than gay unions is!
But Marriage has long been defined as man and wife. Why change that? If you can get rights, why change marriage? There is no legal reason too!

dogma wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
No one here has said anything about stopping equality. Equality seems fine to me!
But no one has said why a gay union has to be marriage. Why can't you have all the rights but not the word?

Separate is necessarily unequal. Unless you want to remove marriage from the legal books that argument is bankrupt.

I have $100 dollars gold in one hand and $100 dollar silver in the other. Are they the same? No. Are they equal in value? Yes.
The silly argument of separate in not equal can be used against gay marriage. You are not straight. Therefore you are not the same. You therefore cannot be equal. See, it is silly.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:

But does saying marriage is between a man and a woman unconstitutional?
I think to say that marriage should have more rights than gay unions is!
But Marriage has long been defined as man and wife. Why change that? If you can get rights, why change marriage? There is no legal reason too!

Actually, a marriage is a business agreement between two Jews.

Also, if a church wants to marry a gay couple, what right do you have to stop it?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
I have $100 dollars gold in one hand and $100 dollar silver in the other. Are they the same? No. Are they equal in value? Yes.
The silly argument of separate in not equal can be used against gay marriage. You are not straight. Therefore you are not the same. You therefore cannot be equal. See, it is silly.

Except human beings aren't objects, they are living, breathing people with hopes, dreams, etc...

Here's the facts:

As long as marriage isn't a religious institution, you cannot use faith based restrictions on it. There are Christians that are perfectly happy to marry a gay couple.

Mekniakal wrote:

Also, if a church wants to marry a gay couple, what right do you have to stop it?

I will only try to say that I think it is impossible to marry two people of the same gender as marriage is between a man and a woman (both traditionaly and currently under the law). That church can form a union that gives the same rights and I will not object in the slightest (unless the cake was bad. I might complain then!)

edit: My spell check messed up my traditionally attempt. Sorry about rationally.

Mekniakal wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
I have $100 dollars gold in one hand and $100 dollar silver in the other. Are they the same? No. Are they equal in value? Yes.
The silly argument of separate in not equal can be used against gay marriage. You are not straight. Therefore you are not the same. You therefore cannot be equal. See, it is silly.

Here's the facts:

As long as marriage isn't a religious institution, you cannot use faith based restrictions on it. There are Christians that are perfectly happy to marry a gay couple.

Okay. But marriage is defined not just by religions but by thousands of years of tradition. I object to losing traditions. Those faiths that want gay unions can have them, but they are not marriages as defines for the last thousand years. I would honestly support a bill that made unions equal. Really! Leave me the tradition of marriage! Please?

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I have $100 dollars gold in one hand and $100 dollar silver in the other. Are they the same? No. Are they equal in value? Yes..

They're only equal if they are equally accepted everywhere. If, for example, you try to purchase goods or access services and are told " Sorry we only take $100s in gold not silver" then they are not equal.

I guess it ultimately comes down to what is easier to change : the myraid of benefits and responsibilities that that marriage brings with it over civil partnership-- over 1000 apparently-- or the definition of the word marriage.

You'll note, as far as I'm aware anyway love to be proved wrong, that the Mormon church/Yes campaigners never seemed to argue for the former idea.


Just to point out : Mr.GL Losing has previously stated he himself has no problem withh full equality with regards to access of said benefits etc.

reds8n wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I have $100 dollars gold in one hand and $100 dollar silver in the other. Are they the same? No. Are they equal in value? Yes..

They're only equal if they are equally accepted everywhere. If, for example, you try to purchase goods or access services and are told " Sorry we only take $100s in gold not silver" then they are not equal.

I guess it ultimately comes down to what is easier to change : the myraid of benefits and responsibilities that that marriage brings with it over civil partnership-- over 1000 apparently-- or the definition of the word marriage.

You'll note, as far as I'm aware anyway love to be proved wrong, that the Mormon church/Yes campaigners never seemed to argue for the former idea.


Just to point out : Mr.GL Losing has previously stated he himself has no problem withh full equality with regards to access of said benefits etc.

Okay, but you can't force a change of beliefs, not matter what the law says! If it is legally the same, then it is equal. If Joe Blow Smith has an opinion that it is less, that is his right.

p.s.- Thank you for the kindness of the last part of your post. It shows you are a fan of civil debates.

Bad Mormons! No gay sex for you!

Honestly, I don't care about the word "marriage". If churches choose to NOT "marry" homosexual couples...I could support that. I care about the legal rights...wills, hospital visitation, medical decisions. These are rights currently ONLY accorded to citizens involved in a civil union (also known as marriage).

I am discussing the legal ramifications of marriage, not the church.

If someone's church wants to pretend they have a straight-only heaven or something, more power to them. I'd prefer my faiths to be inclusive, not exclusive. But I'm not going to tell someone how to live. Be exclusive.

The churches have the legal right to NOT be involved in gay marriage. I support that as well.

Nurglitch wrote:Bad Mormons! No gay sex for you!

I like a bit of humor tossed in! Thanks!

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Okay. But marriage is defined not just by religions but by thousands of years of tradition. I object to losing traditions. Those faiths that want gay unions can have them, but they are not marriages as defines for the last thousand years. I would honestly support a bill that made unions equal. Really! Leave me the tradition of marriage! Please?

But, you're infringing on the right of other religions to marry who they believe should be allowed to marry! Your church doesn't have to recognize their right to marriage. Also, what thousands of years of tradition? Hindu? Bhuddist? Christian? Different regions have had different view on marriage/who can marry/etc.

Why does your specific traditions override others?

Slavery is a historic institution, do you object to the loss of it?

Modquisition on:
Lets keep it peacable folks
Modquisition off:

err... I don't think peple are arguing that you can or even should use laws to change opinions.

I agree this would be a fallacy, if not impossible.

It's also a fallacy to pretend that chnaging the definition of amrriage would alter future or existing marriages in any way what so ever.

I don't get how it's an " attcak on tradition" even. Surely the fact that people want to get married, as opposed to just shacking up/living in sin/whataver shows the tradition is more valid and worth keeping than was previously thought.

You can't argue that marriage, at least in Americ, has traditionally been between a man and a woman. But the actual nature of the marriage itself had changed in countless ways throughout this same period. It's only by adapting and evolving (slightly) that traditions stay alive or vaguely relevant.

Traditionally you eat a gose at Xmas. But we don't most go for Turkey. Hell, I'm doing steak this year . It's the basic principle : family/friends sitting down and sharing a meal in compansionship or in religious celebration that is the essence of the tradition.

marriage is about 2 people ( consenting adults blah blah) making a special vow to each other. As this is, lets be honest, pretty cool and generally has proven laregly beneficial for society we throw certain advantages to people who undertake this. Thengenders of those involved is, surely, irrelevant.

EDIT To clarify: That said I acknowledge fully there has to be give and take here. Whilst I think it important to let gay people marry, they have to respect others rights here. So, for example, a church-- of any denomination-- would be fine to politely refuse to conduct such a service in their building. Just as it would be impolite to fry bacon in a mosque or crack holocaust jokes in a synagogue.

Mekniakal wrote:

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:
Okay. But marriage is defined not just by religions but by thousands of years of tradition. I object to losing traditions. Those faiths that want gay unions can have them, but they are not marriages as defines for the last thousand years. I would honestly support a bill that made unions equal. Really! Leave me the tradition of marriage! Please?

But, you're infringing on the right of other religions to marry who they believe should be allowed to marry! Your church doesn't have to recognize their right to marriage. Also, what thousands of years of tradition? Hindu? Bhuddist? Christian? Different regions have had different view on marriage/who can marry/etc.

Why does your specific traditions override others?

Slavery is a historic institution, do you object to the loss of it?

Were I to object that homosexuals cannot be called Heterosexuals, would that be a removal of rights? No. It would be a practice in definitions. If I wanted to be legally called a woman to have access to women bathrooms and women only health clubs, I would be laughed at! The word woman has a meaning. So does marriage.
As for traditions, you make a good argument. So I will stick just to US history. Marriage was between a man and a woman. I want to keep that tradition. I also want civil unions to beefed up to be a "mirror" of marriage.

Gen. Lee Losing wrote:I want to keep that tradition. I also want civil unions to beefed up to be a "mirror" of marriage.

I am cool with that.

Here's an idea:

What if the government could only issue civil unions, and then the churches decide whom they want to marry? They can marry only those that they believed are allowed to in the eyes of their god.