Proposition 8 poses ethical, legal, religious, and scientific questions

[jackson33]

So what you are saying is that a gay couple automatically has the same rights and privileges under that law that a straight married couple has? With no effort on their part other than being a couple? Or do gay couples have to take extraordinary measures to assure the same things married straight couples get automatically under the law?

 

And C1ay:

 

I am saying under law, people have equal rights to the limits of the laws, ALL PEOPLE.

 

Any person can walk into a courthouse, request a Drivers License, Marriage License, a Building permit or a thousand things. If your blind, your not going to get the drivers license, don't fit that societies requirements for marriage(more than one reason) your not going to get that license, or don't meet any number law/regulations not going to get a building permit. Trying to say every one is entitled to anything they want...because they WANT or are entitled to has to fit LAW, which you all are trying to equate to fairness.

Fairness has to be accepted to the society and the society has to establish that fairness.

 

Moon, if you don't count the Marriage ceremony as extraordinary then yes to to attain certain rights granted by that permit (implied rights) have to be gained by other means (contract law). I have tried to explain, even those implied rights or those gained by contract are not necessarily universal in the US. If you concern is to mandate religious conscience, social acceptance or some international recognition of a fair society, it become a different argument...

[REASON]

Any person can walk into a courthouse, request a Drivers License, Marriage License, a Building permit or a thousand things. If your blind, your not going to get the drivers license, don't fit that societies requirements for marriage(more than one reason) your not going to get that license, or don't meet any number law/regulations not going to get a building permit. Trying to say every one is entitled to anything they want...because they WANT or are entitled to has to fit LAW, which you all are trying to equate to fairness.

Fairness has to be accepted to the society and the society has to establish that fairness.

 

It is easy for me to understand why a blind person can't get a Drivers License. You don't have to be a genius to figure that one out. But I have yet to hear a good argument for why a same sex couple can't get a Marriage License issued by the state.

 

What is the purpose of a state issued Marriage License? If couples are afforded the same legal rights whether they have a Marriage License or not, why is it even necessary? Is it just another means to collect a license fee?

 

In what way is the public good being served by denying Marriage Licenses to same sex couples?

[Moontanman]

And C1ay:

 

I am saying under law, people have equal rights to the limits of the laws, ALL PEOPLE.

 

Any person can walk into a courthouse, request a Drivers License, Marriage License, a Building permit or a thousand things. If your blind, your not going to get the drivers license, don't fit that societies requirements for marriage(more than one reason) your not going to get that license, or don't meet any number law/regulations not going to get a building permit. Trying to say every one is entitled to anything they want...because they WANT or are entitled to has to fit LAW, which you all are trying to equate to fairness.

Fairness has to be accepted to the society and the society has to establish that fairness.

 

Moon, if you don't count the Marriage ceremony as extraordinary then yes to to attain certain rights granted by that permit (implied rights) have to be gained by other means (contract law). I have tried to explain, even those implied rights or those gained by contract are not necessarily universal in the US. If you concern is to mandate religious conscience, social acceptance or some international recognition of a fair society, it become a different argument...

 

So you are saying it's ok that a straight couple can walk into the courthouse a get a one stop contract that covers all the things a gay couple has to obtain separately with added cost and trouble not to mention to mention the other hurdles like visitation rights a gay couple has to over come just because they are gay? I really don't care what you call it, civil union, marriage friendship pact, it really doesn't matter what the name is. Both couples should be able to get the same one stop legal contract with the same amount of ease. How can you say both couples shouldn't have equal access to the same rights and privileges? Religion doesn't figure into it, plenty of churches will marry gay couples it's the legal contract of marriage or civil unions that matters. I have many gay friends and I see them struggle very day with people who think it's ok to **** on them because they are gay. Just to be able to enter into the same type of contract as every one else is an important part of living.

[HydrogenBond]

I don't hate gays. Over the years I have had many gay friends, some of which died of AIDS. It was a sad loss. Good people are good people. This question has nothing to do with gays as human beings. It has nothing to do with them not able to form legal unions with all the benefits of any married couple. It comes down to semantics.

 

I am only presenting the next example, not because I think it should be done, but to demonstrate the power of words, pro and con. For now on, the people who "like" animals wish to be called gay. Those into animals can still show love, passion, commitment and be otherwise sound citizens, but are currently far more on the fringe of culture due to this one thing. This new terminology would allow them to attach a label that is far more acceptable so everyone.

 

The reaction should be similar to those who oppose the word marriage. At some subjective level of argument we can create emotional similarities of this utopian world where we all just love. But at an objective level, the mind will see a difference. This mind based or objective difference will create the subjective negative reaction. that will make many people upset that I even brought this up. In the mind, one starts to picture the differences and the confusion hovering over who you are. It doesn't mean you hate the animal people, but I am sure the gays would prefer they keep their own label. It is nothing personal.

[Moontanman]

I don't hate gays. Over the years I have had many gay friends, some of which died of AIDS. It was a sad loss. Good people are good people. This question has nothing to do with gays as human beings. It has nothing to do with them not able to form legal unions with all the benefits of any married couple. It comes down to semantics.

 

I am only presenting the next example, not because I think it should be done, but to demonstrate the power of words, pro and con. For now on, the people who "like" animals wish to be called gay. Those into animals can still show love, passion, commitment and be otherwise sound citizens, but are currently far more on the fringe of culture due to this one thing. This new terminology would allow them to attach a label that is far more acceptable so everyone.

 

The reaction should be similar to those who oppose the word marriage. At some subjective level of argument we can create emotional similarities of this utopian world where we all just love. But at an objective level, the mind will see a difference. This mind based or objective difference will create the subjective negative reaction. that will make many people upset that I even brought this up. In the mind, one starts to picture the differences and the confusion hovering over who you are. It doesn't mean you hate the animal people, but I am sure the gays would prefer they keep their own label. It is nothing personal.

 

It doesn't matter what you call it HB, call it a friendship pact, as long as Gays get the same rights and privileges as straight couples. Many churches will already marry same sex couples all they need is an equal legal contract.

[C1ay]

I am saying under law, people have equal rights to the limits of the laws, ALL PEOPLE.

 

And the point of this thread is that the limits of those laws you speak of are not equal for all of the people. The laws on the books obstruct privileges for some of the people that it bestows on others by using an arbitrary value system.

[Moontanman]

All of these completely reasonable arguments why Homosexual people should not be allowed the same rights as straight people are eerily similar to all the arguments used to show that one group of people are some how less human or less capable or less deserving that some other group, usually the group that is in power.

 

Bio-warfare against native Americans, the trail of tears to concentration camps reservations, capturing African natives to be sold as slaves, not allowing Orientals or blacks to eat or sleep in certain places or drink out of water certain fountains, the final solution to the Jews in Europe or not allowing whites and blacks to marry or or for whites and blacks to go to school together. All these things at one time had a perfectly reasonable argument to back them up, didn't make them right, it just made them happen.

 

We as a society need to stop these reasonable arguments before they get started not after the damage is done. If you are uncomfortable allowing homosexuals the same rights as straights then you are part of the problem. Stop and think about your reasonable arguments. does it really diminish you to allow others the same rights and privileges as you? I think not and I think if any intelligent person really gave it some thought you would think the same thing.

 

You might not like it but is that reason enough to not to allow it? Who does it harm? Whose rights are diminished by it? Freedom to live the way you see fit and not be arbitrarily diminished by others due to your own quirks and differences can only serve to enhance us all in the end.

[jackson33]

It is easy for me to understand why a blind person can't get a Drivers License. You don't have to be a genius to figure that one out. But I have yet to hear a good argument for why a same sex couple can't get a Marriage License issued by the state.

 

What is the purpose of a state issued Marriage License? If couples are afforded the same legal rights whether they have a Marriage License or not, why is it even necessary? Is it just another means to collect a license fee?

 

In what way is the public good being served by denying Marriage Licenses to same sex couples?

 

Every law, has its base. From that base the majority are served or protected from abuse. You can buy a pet, support that pet and spend any number of dollars on that pet, even exceeding what you spend on your children, BUT cannot take a deduction on your taxes. There has to be limitations.

 

Marriage, is a religious concept and most States are populated and run by religious people. Any way you understand sanctity, these religious people want their marriages protected from the meanings of their religious understanding. Even religious people, in a majority should have rights and protection of THEIR 3000 year old traditions. The reality of Gay/Lesbian movements is to justify/force their sexual preference on that majority and legitimize behavior. Since those behaviors do exist and apparently in increasing numbers, laws have been established to equalize relationships, but under law, protecting that sanctity of the religious.

 

I'll reverse you last statement and ask; What purpose would be served in giving that legitimation/recognition to one set of partners, when there are so many others in some manner also denied that license.

[Moontanman]

by jackson33, Marriage, is a religious concept and most States are populated and run by religious people. Any way you understand sanctity, these religious people want their marriages protected from the meanings of their religious understanding. Even religious people, in a majority should have rights and protection of THEIR 3000 year old traditions. The reality of Gay/Lesbian movements is to justify/force their sexual preference on that majority and legitimize behavior. Since those behaviors do exist and apparently in increasing numbers, laws have been established to equalize relationships, but under law, protecting that sanctity of the religious.

 

I'll reverse you last statement and ask; What purpose would be served in giving that legitimation/recognition to one set of partners, when there are so many others in some manner also denied that license.

 

There are already many churches that are willing to marry same sex couples so this argument doesn't hold water at all, as for the 3000 year old tradition, slavery was a several thousand year old tradition, does that mean we should allow some people to own slaves? And I have to ask who are these many others who are being denied that license? How does granting this license to same sex couples deny the same to anyone else? Your arguments do not hold water, they are just rehashing old prejudices and hate with new words to justify their legitimacy

[jackson33]

And the point of this thread is that the limits of those laws you speak of are not equal for all of the people. The laws on the books obstruct privileges for some of the people that it bestows on others by using an arbitrary value system.

 

All law by nature limits somebody. Any value system, to even be a system is established by that society. What you may or for that matter what I feel is restrictive, may to others be to permissive. Most governments, especially the 57 Islamic States, feel ours is in total to permissive.

[Moontanman]

All law by nature limits somebody. Any value system, to even be a system is established by that society. What you may or for that matter what I feel is restrictive, may to others be to permissive. Most governments, especially the 57 Islamic States, feel ours is in total to permissive.

 

Yes laws can be restrictive but laws are usually designed to be restrictive for reasons concerning public safety or to prevent harm to people. There is no reason what so ever to restrict same sex couples from obtaining a marriage license. As for the 57 Islamic states I don't give a rats *** what they do inside their borders, this is the United States of America, home of the free and the brave, be brave and grant all of our people freedom to marry under the law.

 

Really, it's nothing personal, we're just better than you!:doh:

[Galapagos]

Every law, has its base. From that base the majority are served or protected from abuse. You can buy a pet, support that pet and spend any number of dollars on that pet, even exceeding what you spend on your children, BUT cannot take a deduction on your taxes. There has to be limitations.

Dogs aren't human beings. Gay people are. This is the second time in this thread that a poor analogy between gays and animals or inanimate objects has been attempted. Quite telling.

 

Marriage, is a religious concept and most States are populated and run by religious people. Any way you understand sanctity, these religious people want their marriages protected from the meanings of their religious understanding. Even religious people, in a majority should have rights and protection of THEIR 3000 year old traditions. The reality of Gay/Lesbian movements is to justify/force their sexual preference on that majority and legitimize behavior. Since those behaviors do exist and apparently in increasing numbers, laws have been established to equalize relationships, but under law, protecting that sanctity of the religious.

Human beings > ideas or beliefs(especially obviously false cultural beliefs)

 

What you are saying is very similar to the dangerous nonsense being pushed by the Sauds and other Islamic countries right now, to pay undue respect to dogmas.

The Saudis' dubious interfaith agenda at the UN | csmonitor.com

 

This sort of thing leads to nothing but human misery.

 

I'll reverse you last statement and ask; What purpose would be served in giving that legitimation/recognition to one set of partners, when there are so many others in some manner also denied that license.

What purpose was served in awarding the right to interracial couples? Again, this argument works for any other sort of bigotry you can think of, and is therefore a terrible one.

 

 

All law by nature limits somebody. Any value system, to even be a system is established by that society. What you may or for that matter what I feel is restrictive, may to others be to permissive. Most governments, especially the 57 Islamic States, feel ours is in total to permissive.

 

Many Islamic states regularly violate human rights and do not respect free speech or freedom of religion.

 

Human rights are not relative, they are universal. The fact that some people are determined to continue living as though this were the year 700 does not justify what goes on here in America.

[jackson33]

There are already many churches that are willing to marry same sex couples so this argument doesn't hold water at all, as for the 3000 year old tradition, slavery was a several thousand year old tradition, does that mean we should allow some people to own slaves? And I have to ask who are these many others who are being denied that license? How does granting this license to same sex couples deny the same to anyone else? Your arguments do not hold water, they are just rehashing old prejudices and hate with new words to justify their legitimacy

 

Your again forgetting, my argument is method for change and I DON'T OPPOSE GAY PEOPLE.

 

Yes SOME Churches will perform a ceremony for 'same sex' unions. Many Catholics use contraceptives or use abortion and some Witchcraft practitioners will do many things, many of which are NOT legal under law. For 20.00 and a self addressed stamped envelope I can marry anyone or for that matter anything.

 

Your playing games now; Slavery was the universal means of labor for eons and TODAY women are virtual slaves in their own homes. Think you know this over those periods included as many whites or any race and had nothing to do with rights. In fact some societies were primarily gay or lesbian. Our Society was formed by religious people, set in traditions, MOST opposed slavery and those feelings exist today.

 

On your other post; Are you trying to correct the injustices of your ancestors by over reacting to any slight self perceived injustice today? Are all those 52% to 78% of other referendum (38) votes, denying 'same sex marriage' to gays, all living in the past or opposed to the other gains of this society? Are they just all bad people and wish, women had not been given a vote, or blacks or people that owned nothing (founders desire)? Over reacting to the past can lead to more problems many of which you would probably feel just as much an over reaction, as I feel your showing.

[Moontanman]

Your again forgetting, my argument is method for change and I DON'T OPPOSE GAY PEOPLE.

 

That's mighty white of you.

 

Yes SOME Churches will perform a ceremony for 'same sex' unions. Many Catholics use contraceptives or use abortion and some Witchcraft practitioners will do many things, many of which are NOT legal under law. For 20.00 and a self addressed stamped envelope I can marry anyone or for that matter anything.

 

I am not talking about the Church of Wicca, or some fly by night Church of BS I am talking about Christian Churches, your argument that the Christian Church will not or does not want to marry same sex couples is simply not true.

 

 

Your playing games now; Slavery was the universal means of labor for eons and TODAY women are virtual slaves in their own homes. Think you know this over those periods included as many whites or any race and had nothing to do with rights. In fact some societies were primarily gay or lesbian. Our Society was formed by religious people, set in traditions, MOST opposed slavery and those feelings exist today.

 

No I am playing the same game you are and try to tell most modern women in the US that they are slaves in their own homes and see the answer you get, I'd do it from a distance if I was you. No most religious people did not oppose slavery, slavery is a big part of the bible, the bible was used to justify slavery so again you are simply wrong.

 

On your other post; Are you trying to correct the injustices of your ancestors by over reacting to any slight self perceived injustice today? Are all those 52% to 78% of other referendum (38) votes, denying 'same sex marriage' to gays, all living in the past or opposed to the other gains of this society? Are they just all bad people and wish, women had not been given a vote, or blacks or people that owned nothing (founders desire)? Over reacting to the past can lead to more problems many of which you would probably feel just as much an over reaction, as I feel your showing.

 

 

There is no way to correct the injustices of the past, it's impossible and a fools errand to attempt. I am all about preventing and or correcting current injustices. I do not live in the past but if we ignore the past we are doomed to repeat the same mistakes over and over. You seem to be willing to bring up the past to justify the present, why can't I? You have yet to give a reason that justifies not giving the same rights to same sex couples as straight couples, do you have one or all your arguments steeped in emotions and past tradition?

 

Really, it's nothing personal, we're just better than you, that's all! :doh:

[Moontanman]

I'll reverse you last statement and ask; What purpose would be served in giving that legitimation/recognition to one set of partners, when there are so many others in some manner also denied that license.

 

You haven't addressed who these "others" are that are being denied that license. Care to clarify this statement?

 

Really, it's nothing personal, we're just better than you , that's all!:phones:

[jackson33]

Moon; Suppose you want to pull me into that 'Slippery Slope' argument which would get the same old response. Frankly, just an outline of SS in 1936 to todays coverage or taxes and there purpose from the founding to todays or any number of Social Program, possibly well intended in there origin to total corruption and abuse seen today, should give you cause for concern...IMO.

 

To our ancestors injustice was just as prevalent. The founders were spit on Slavery, but the Big Gun 'Virginia' was a slave State and the issue simmered for 60 years, fought over killing 60k, then simmered another 100 years and finally addressed as a Nation and by law changed. While all this was going on, Black's owned property (including slaves), invented a good many things, added to the culture and were as wealthy to any in their day.

 

Were talking slaves and slavery was a world wide problem. NO, women in the US are equals to males and under law are given special treatment, which is just fine with me. Women around the WORLD, generally Islamic, but to some degree in China and other places are by their laws, slaves to a man and the man was probably not by their choice. The man is judge and jury to their fate. You knew what I was thinking, think it fair to keep this discussion civil..."mighty white of".

 

Am a little curious, since your relating religious teachings of the 7th Century to not embracing gay sexual relationships today and claiming its outdated, are you not then saying Religion itself is outdated?

 

No again, Catholic Church's will not marry same sex people, with or without a license nor will any so called Evangelicals that I know of. Most all gay marriages are performed by Mayors or non-religious people just for that reason, unacceptable practice to religious people. It would seem to me, of any religion, Catholics should understand gays living in a near all Male world already. Would add according to a previous argument (genetics), there must be a serious problem with the genetic of Priest's, or have I has the Vatican Apologized for nothing for them...

 

The long and short of this entire issue; Gays/Lesbians of the future will eventually be mainstream in American Society. Obama is pro-issue as is the Congress and each year more and more of us know more and more gays, which are actually quite normal in other ways (what ever you call normal). I can see Congress in the next 2-8 years passing an Amendment and somewhere down the road States ratifying it. We have two others nevr ratified Amendments floating around, not ratified (Child Labor/Womens Rights) that the Courts, including the SC have followed in spirit if not the laws themselves. But actually making it Constitutional or ratified, may take awhile and our already court systems will be stressed further until the issue does become past tense...probably 50 years.

[REASON]

But actually making it Constitutional or ratified, may take awhile and our already court systems will be stressed further until the issue does become past tense...probably 50 years.

 

I generally agree with your prognostication, but I think it will happen much sooner.

 

Anyway, you missed answering my question about the purpose, as you understand it, of a Marriage License. I'll restate it.

 

What is the purpose of a state issued Marriage License? If couples are afforded the same legal rights whether they have a Marriage License or not, why is it even necessary? Is it just another means to collect a license fee?