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

[jackson33]

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?

 

Keep in mind licensing to begin with is to maintain some understanding of a society or in some cases control over that society. Early is US history, few States required any license to marry, but by the 1920's most had, but to place restrictions on B/W marriages, if any restrictions were in place. No one would have thought of Gay Unions at this time, much less a need to restrict. Sodomy laws were very strict...

 

I have suggested, Laws whether on speed limits, murder or any offense how ever is formed to serve the general public is a STANDARD for compliance. Laws and specifications in the law, can place any specific meaning into another place, but the standard is set. I understand the idea, States seem to license anything for the dollar and in many cases true. Hunting license fee's, fishing license fee's are used to enhance that experience and so forth, but in general most license fees end up in general funds. I hardly think License or permit cost is instrumental in determining standards for social order or the objective to maintain that order.

[Moontanman]

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.

 

So you think that social programs are totally corrupt and abused now, why does that not surprise me?

 

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.

 

Mainstream Churches of the time were either neutral or pro slavery. Do you actually think that the Catholic and Evangelical Churches are the only Churches in existence or the only important ones? I am a member of the Metropolitan Community Church, they marry same sex couples regularly. We have gotten past religious support for killing adulterers, unruly children, and other things we take for granted as non capital punishments these days why is it so difficult to imagine same sex couples being seen as regular people? Are we really so so backwards these days we must think of fighting a war to obtian equal rights for our people?

 

 

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".

 

I can't do anything about women rights around the world, I cannot do anything for them but wish they were living in a real civilized society instead of a medieval theocracy. I am for womens rights, I am concerned for the rights of all our citizens in the USA, right now we are talking about homosexuals but if you want to include everyone, then I think it's appropriate, it's very important for every one to have the same rights and privileges, as long as one group is denied these things it's bad for all of us. To me it's not an either or situation, i can promote equal rights for women, gays, blacks, native Americans, whites , Jews, Muslims, everyone. It's important to note that equal rights for one group cannot be allowed to restrict the rights of another group. the fight for equal rights includes everyone and each time someone wins the battle it's good for us all.

 

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?

 

Actually I think that organized religion is out dated but it won't be updated with out a fight, if anything drags us into another world war it will be religion.

 

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 Catholic Church is not the end all be all of religion, My Church marries same sex couples, so do some others. Many straight couples are also married by officials other than clergy. The problem with Catholic Priests was pedophilia not homosexuality, get your facts straight.

 

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.

 

Yeah , you're probably right, things do take time, if blacks had just waited 50 years I'm sure everything would have worked out, and hey women didn't need to fight for the right to vote if they had just been patient men would have seen the error of their ways and gave them the vote. yeah, and if after 50 years things still weren't quite right hey another 50 years would have been cool too. Yeah, your right time is what we need, time and trust in the people in power, they know best, in the long run.

 

Really, it's not personal, we're simply better than you, that's all!:phones:

[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.

 

How about it Jackson? Are you ever going to clarify this statement? Who is being denied the license? Who are those "others"? Sounds like nothing more than obfuscation to me.

 

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

[Moontanman]

Keep in mind licensing to begin with is to maintain some understanding of a society or in some cases control over that society. Early is US history, few States required any license to marry, but by the 1920's most had, but to place restrictions on B/W marriages, if any restrictions were in place. No one would have thought of Gay Unions at this time, much less a need to restrict. Sodomy laws were very strict...

 

I have suggested, Laws whether on speed limits, murder or any offense how ever is formed to serve the general public is a STANDARD for compliance. Laws and specifications in the law, can place any specific meaning into another place, but the standard is set. I understand the idea, States seem to license anything for the dollar and in many cases true. Hunting license fee's, fishing license fee's are used to enhance that experience and so forth, but in general most license fees end up in general funds. I hardly think License or permit cost is instrumental in determining standards for social order or the objective to maintain that order.

 

So what you are saying is that marriage licenses were first brought about to keep Blacks and Whites from marrying? It sounds like you are ready to accept any law no matter what it is simply because it's a law. Or do you only agree with laws that put no restriction on your actions?

[jackson33]

So what you are saying is that marriage licenses were first brought about to keep Blacks and Whites from marrying? It sounds like you are ready to accept any law no matter what it is simply because it's a law. Or do you only agree with laws that put no restriction on your actions?

 

Licensing, permits and other social issues (zoning law) have developed over years. What the reasons WERE, has nothing to do what I THINK. However yes, I have tried to obey laws and the laws on the books, as is if being enforced and whether I personally agree with them or not. There are many I do not. This discussion is on Prop 8, and those 52% that voted against recognition of 'Same Sex Marriage' in THEIR State and voicing an opposition to THEIR State Legislature, usurping THEIR last same result vote. Why are you trying to place my attitude in place of arguing for THEIR right. It may go back to my pre-law education, when we were taught to argue law, not our opinion....

 

 

No I think Social Programs, for the most part were intended to serve a admirable purpose. Whether from the Electorate or the Legislature and for what ever reason (to many to cover) these programs have ALL gone well beyond their original intent, coverage and expected cost.

 

I always find it interesting when condemnation of the US for being so back wards, have absolutely no interest in the rest of the world. Their usually the same ones desiring 'isolationism' and oppose any efforts to free others of totalitarian governments.

 

IMO, Church's operate very much like any business. If a style or beliefs do not conform to some people, who would attend and support that sect. History is full of branch off interpretations and today their are hundreds of different ideologies. I don't like telling you this, but one of the fastest growing Religions in the US today is 'Islam' and they do not conform or believe in much you do. Would you deny them the right to pursue what they think is just....

 

I'll disagree on Religion being the reason for a WW or even a civil war in the US. If there is one, it will be the same old things in modern history wars are fought over. Power and resources, but I'll hold out hopes even American's can become tolerant of all rights, not just self perceived rights.

 

Pedophilia relates to children, most Priest were interested in young men and apparently not girls at all. You pick the tendency involved and note, once 18 they were breaking none of man's law. You would have or did not hear much about this...One subject I'd rather not go into.

[REASON]

Keep in mind licensing to begin with is to maintain some understanding of a society or in some cases control over that society. Early is US history, few States required any license to marry, but by the 1920's most had, but to place restrictions on B/W marriages, if any restrictions were in place. No one would have thought of Gay Unions at this time, much less a need to restrict. Sodomy laws were very strict...

 

I appreciate your effort to answer, jackson, but this remains a bit vague. Let's take a look at the Wiki article on Marriage Licenses for additional information.

 

From wiki:

HISTORY

For most of Western history, marriage was a private contract between two families. Until the seventeenth century, Christian Churches accepted the validity of a marriage on the basis of a couple’s declarations. If two people claimed that they had exchanged marital vows — even without witnesses — the Catholic Church accepted that they were validly married.

 

State courts in the United States have routinely held that public cohabitation was sufficient evidence of a valid marriage. Marriage license application records from government authorities are widely available starting from the mid-1800s with many available dating from the 1600s in colonial America.

 

UNITED STATES

Every state in the United States has a requirement for marriage licenses to be obtained. A marriage is not valid if the marriage ceremony is performed without a marriage license being previously obtained.....

 

.....The requirement for marriage licenses in the U.S. has been justified on the basis that the state has an overriding right, on behalf of all citizens and in the interests of the larger social welfare, to protect them from disease or improper/illegal marriages; to keep accurate state records; or even to ensure that marriage partners have had adequate time to think carefully before marrying.....

 

......In the early part of the twentieth century, the requirement for a marriage license was used as a mechanism to prohibit whites from marrying blacks, mulattos, Japanese, Chinese, Native Americans, Mongolians, Malays or Filipinos.[3] By the 1920s 38 states used the mechanism. These laws have since been declared invalid by the Courts.

 

CONTROVERSY

Black's Law Dictionary defines "license" as, "The permission by competent authority to do an act which without such permission [...] would be illegal." The authority to license implies the power to prohibit. A license by definition "confers a privilege" to do something. By allowing the state to exercise control over marriage, it is implied that we do not have a right to marry; marriage is a privilege. Those born in the US receive a birth certificate, not a birth license. Most would object to a birth license as it would imply that people must gain permission to be born. Following that same logic, many refuse to accept a marriage license and exercise their right to marry without obtaining permission from the state.

 

Some groups believe that the requirement to obtain a marriage licence is unnecessary or immoral. The Libertarian Party, for instance, believes that all marriages should be civil, not requiring sanction from the state. Some Christian groups also argue that a marriage is a contract between two people and God, so that no authorization from the state is required.....

 

.....In the United States, until the mid-nineteenth century, common-law marriages were recognised as valid, but thereafter the states began to invalidate common-law marriages. At present eleven states and the District of Columbia recognise common-law marriages.

 

So essentially it could be stated from this information that the requirement of obtaining a Marriage License is simply so the state can extend "the priviledge" of marriage to couples who wish to have their union sanctioned by the legal authority, and that by issuing a marriage license, the state is protecting the welfare of the citizenry from the spreading of disease and improper marriages.

 

"Improper marriages" becomes the operative phrase in all of this. How does the state define what constitutes a "proper" marriage? In California, as well as other states, it has been put to a vote. But is this appropriate? Should the citizens of a state have the authority to establish state constitutional law that has been rendered unconstitutional by the courts? For example, should the public be allowed to vote to overturn Loving v. Virginia which ended all race-based legal restrictions on marriage in the United States? Essentially, should the bigotry of a majority of citizens of a state be allowed to supercede the U.S. Constitution? I think not.

 

This is what I believe is occuring with regard to state constitutional amendments that seek to define marriage as between a man and a woman, for no other reason than to restrict same-sex marriages. There is no sensible justification for legally restricting consentual same-sex marriages as a means to protect society, and so bigotry and discrimination become the foundation for which constitutional law is allowed to be established, and same-sex couples are simply denied the "privilege" to marry.

 

I find this to be shameful and completely inconsistent with the ideals of freedom, civil rights, and equal justice under the law.

[DrQuantum]

Moontanman – Thanks for your posting. Here are some responses to your statements – point-by-point – posted in response to my notes and also to the comments of Hydrogenbond (below).

- - - - - - - - -

I'm not sure about many of the things you are claiming but I do know that gays in other states are not guaranteed these things. I live in a state where gay marriage is illegal. Yet my Church marries gay couples routinely so I know that gays have no trouble finding a church to marry in. It might not be the church of their choice but church none the less.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This is actually the point - gays already have any number of avenues available to enable them to form whatever union they consider to be meaningful.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

To suggest this law is only meant to keep gays from suing organizations who will not bend to their will is disingenuous at best.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I realize that this argument does not agree with your viewpoint but why is any opinion that differs from yours only disingenuous? Why not heartfelt, or well-presented, or insightful? I consider your argument to be as sincere as mine – not disingenuous. Why can’t we just discuss the evidence rather than impute motives to the discussion? Perhaps some individuals have motivations that go beyond the legal points but that is the reason for the organized support for Prop 8.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

As for Gay adoption I think it is wrong for anyone to deny gays the ability to adopt. It's especially stupid when it's the Catholic Church considering their protecting pedophile priests while they were condemning gays in society.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Again, these are separate issues. Of course the Catholic Church has its problems but that is not the point here. The point is related to any organization being subjected to legal pressure to engage in activities which are against their policies. However, if you really want to talk about the issue of gay priests, then that discussion raises a two-edged sword. On one hand, many legal actions have been brought to force the church to identify and purge gay priests from their ranks. On the other hand, the Boy Scouts have been sued numerous times to force them to accept gay scout leaders. Why are YOU against pedophiles but in favor of gays? So, any legal position taken just depends on the special interest group and the agenda that they are trying to promote. This is the entire point of Prop 8.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I feel that gays should have the right to a real marriage with all the perks and disappointments everyone gets in the process. To legally deny them marriage is wrong…

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

What does this have to do with the point at hand? Ever since the “free love” generation of the 60’s, many have continued to make the argument that “marriage” is not defined by a piece of paper from the county clerk. Why now do the gays – and you – claim that a “real marriage” only exists with that piece of paper? Or, am I missing the point? What do YOU consider to be a “real” marriage? What “perks” and “disappointments” do you attribute to a “real” marriage that gays do not have otherwise? As you pointed out so well in your opening paragraph, gays – even in your state – can go to a church and make vows and have a “marriage” performed – and even call themselves “married”. Or, they can do what many heterosexual couples do – make their vows privately and create their own loving partnership. No one will deny them the right to do that.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

…much like the laws that prevented blacks from marrying whites these laws are simply wrong. The very arguments you raise to prevent gays from marriage could have very well been used to prevent marriage of whites and blacks.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

These are not the same arguments. The bias against interracial marriage was based on a false assumption that races are different. We now know that there are no genetic differences between the races. However, there are genetic differences between genders (remember X-X vs X-Y chromosomes?). Based on this difference, the debate has some merit while there is no basis for debate on racial issues.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Our society survived that hurdle and it can and will survive allowing gays to marry as well.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Of all your assertions, this one is the least rational. What is the definition of a “hurdle”? What does it mean for society to “survive”? Is this the only criteria for determining whether or not something should be fostered? It is very likely that society would survive the removal of such things as traffic laws, real-estate zoning laws (including such obvious discrimination as homeowner’s associations), business regulation laws, smoking bans, gun laws, and many other behavioral restrictions posed by our society. Should we, thus, remove all such restrictions? Society has “survived” – and flourished – for 10,000 years with certain taboos in place. Many of these constitute what are called “morals”. We should proceed with caution when considering the removal of these. It is not at all certain that society will survive if they are all abolished. Consider the current condition of society with gang violence, domestic disputes, rampant obesity, drug and alcohol abuse, school shootings, epidemics of depression – not to mention global warming. Are you really convinced that we are surviving?

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

(Response to Hydrogenbond's comments)......

= = = = = = = = = = = = = =

HB, can you honestly say that a person should be denied the rights and privileges the rest of us enjoy for no other reason than their sexual orientation?

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

As with the other points, why do you assume that there is “no other reason”? Just because you do not grasp the possibility for other reasons does not mean there are none.

- - - - - - - - - - -

In no way would allowing gays to get married force any church to marry them. There are already Churches that allow gays to marry, all they want is for it to be legal. Why is this a problem for you.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

You have not apparently been checking the news. If you do, you will find that there are numerous examples in several states as well as Canada where gays are, in fact, suing churches in a attempt to force them to perform gay marriages. This is the primary focus of the gay marriage movement and the principle motivation (not hate, as you propose) for the proponents of Prop 8 and similar amendments in other states.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Why do you hate gays so much? Why is it so hateful to you that they could get married?

…All your reasons and excuses simply boil down to you not approving of gays. Years ago it was blacks that couldn't marry white for pretty much the same reasons you point out, even the language you use is reminiscent of those stupid arguments. How would it bring down your world for gays to be married? Would the sun stop rising? Would the universe end? I think not, it's just a prejudice on your part toward something you don't understand and have been taught to hate. Get real HB, look at your motivations a little closer and see if they are just intolerance unchained.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Oops…It looks like your emotions are taking over. There are no salient points in this paragraph – only a diatribe. Try again to see if you can collect your thoughts and make s meaningful argument on behalf of some logical proposition – not just against the person posting. There are many of who read this thread who would like a well-presented, cohesive, effective discussion of how individual gay couples -as opposed to the gay activist community - benefit from obtaining a marriage license since all of their partnership rights are already guaranteed by law.

[Moontanman]

Pedophilia relates to children, most Priest were interested in young men and apparently not girls at all. You pick the tendency involved and note, once 18 they were breaking none of man's law. You would have or did not hear much about this...One subject I'd rather not go into.

 

Jackson, normally this wouldn't be involved in this discussion but I have to point out that the problem with catholic priests was indeed pedophilia. They were accused by literally hundreds of people of sexually molesting children, most were around the ages of 11 and 12. I don't understand how homosexuality has anything to do with this but you are the one who tried to connect the two. I know quite a bit about this and I suggest you do a little research and get your facts straight. It was not young men it was children, none of the cases were about problems with homosexual priests it was about pedophile priests.

[Moontanman]

Moontanman – Thanks for your posting. Here are some responses to your statements – point-by-point – posted in response to my notes and also to the comments of Hydrogenbond (below).

- - - - - - - - -

That's good I'll return the favor.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This is actually the point - gays already have any number of avenues available to enable them to form whatever union they consider to be meaningful.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Yes true, but these unions are not legally equivalent to marriage.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I realize that this argument does not agree with your viewpoint but why is any opinion that differs from yours only disingenuous? Why not heartfelt, or well-presented, or insightful? I consider your argument to be as sincere as mine – not disingenuous. Why can’t we just discuss the evidence rather than impute motives to the discussion? Perhaps some individuals have motivations that go beyond the legal points but that is the reason for the organized support for Prop 8.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

This has nothing to do with my view point , it has to do with making claims that are patently false. Same sex couples do not have the same legal rights that a simple marriage license assures straight couples.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Again, these are separate issues. Of course the Catholic Church has its problems but that is not the point here. The point is related to any organization being subjected to legal pressure to engage in activities which are against their policies. However, if you really want to talk about the issue of gay priests, then that discussion raises a two-edged sword. On one hand, many legal actions have been brought to force the church to identify and purge gay priests from their ranks. On the other hand, the Boy Scouts have been sued numerous times to force them to accept gay scout leaders. Why are YOU against pedophiles but in favor of gays? So, any legal position taken just depends on the special interest group and the agenda that they are trying to promote. This is the entire point of Prop 8

.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Again you are using an argument that is patently false, this has nothing to do with gay priests or gay boy scout leaders the problem had to do with pedophiles, not homosexuals. Are you trying to say homosexuals are pedophiles? That's certainly what your rant reads like. I am against pedophiles because children cannot make a informed decision to have sex with an adult. It is indeed the law of the land and it's there to protect children from pedophiles not homosexuals.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

What does this have to do with the point at hand? Ever since the “free love” generation of the 60’s, many have continued to make the argument that “marriage” is not defined by a piece of paper from the county clerk. Why now do the gays – and you – claim that a “real marriage” only exists with that piece of paper? Or, am I missing the point? What do YOU consider to be a “real” marriage? What “perks” and “disappointments” do you attribute to a “real” marriage that gays do not have otherwise? As you pointed out so well in your opening paragraph, gays – even in your state – can go to a church and make vows and have a “marriage” performed – and even call themselves “married”. Or, they can do what many heterosexual couples do – make their vows privately and create their own loving partnership. No one will deny them the right to do that.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Again I'll say, a marriage license gives straight couples automatic legal rights that gay couples do not get with out spending much time and effort to assure. Why should gay couples be denied this legal contract? Who does it hurt? No one is saying that any church that disagrees with gay marriage should be forced to marry gays. There are already plenty of Churches that will do this. Even if a mayor or boat captain performs the ceremony it's the marriage license that give the legal perks not the place the marriage takes place.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

These are not the same arguments. The bias against interracial marriage was based on a false assumption that races are different. We now know that there are no genetic differences between the races. However, there are genetic differences between genders (remember X-X vs X-Y chromosomes?). Based on this difference, the debate has some merit while there is no basis for debate on racial issues.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

So the laws against gay marriage are based on genetic differences now? Is moving the goal posts a reasonable way to argue? As an argument this is just sad.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Of all your assertions, this one is the least rational. What is the definition of a “hurdle”? What does it mean for society to “survive”? Is this the only criteria for determining whether or not something should be fostered? It is very likely that society would survive the removal of such things as traffic laws, real-estate zoning laws (including such obvious discrimination as homeowner’s associations), business regulation laws, smoking bans, gun laws, and many other behavioral restrictions posed by our society. Should we, thus, remove all such restrictions? Society has “survived” – and flourished – for 10,000 years with certain taboos in place. Many of these constitute what are called “morals”. We should proceed with caution when considering the removal of these. It is not at all certain that society will survive if they are all abolished. Consider the current condition of society with gang violence, domestic disputes, rampant obesity, drug and alcohol abuse, school shootings, epidemics of depression – not to mention global warming. Are you really convinced that we are surviving?[/quote

- - - - - - - - - - - - -

So you are equating same sex marrage with all these other things? Same sex marriage will promote these things or will it be just one more nail in the coffin of civilization? Straw man arguments all.

 

As with the other points, why do you assume that there is “no other reason”? Just because you do not grasp the possibility for other reasons does not mean there are none.

- - - - - - - - - - -

 

So we need to worry about the unforeseen consequences of same sex marriage? I doubt very seriously it will have any worse effect than interracial marriage or any other right any minority group has won throughout our history.

 

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

You have not apparently been checking the news. If you do, you will find that there are numerous examples in several states as well as Canada where gays are, in fact, suing churches in a attempt to force them to perform gay marriages. This is the primary focus of the gay marriage movement and the principle motivation (not hate, as you propose) for the proponents of Prop 8 and similar amendments in other states.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Do you have any examples of large numbers of law suits or is this just something we are supposed to assume is true? People get sued all the time, churches included, just how many churches have been sued, when were they sued and what were the circumstances.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Oops…It looks like your emotions are taking over. There are no salient points in this paragraph – only a diatribe. Try again to see if you can collect your thoughts and make s meaningful argument on behalf of some logical proposition – not just against the person posting. There are many of who read this thread who would like a well-presented, cohesive, effective discussion of how individual gay couples -as opposed to the gay activist community - benefit from obtaining a marriage license since all of their partnership rights are already guaranteed by law.

 

I am sure there are many who read this thread who would like to read a facts and not assumptions, bigoted rants and half truths as well, how about giving us some real info and not just fear mongering.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by jackson33

 

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.

 

How about it Jackson? Are you ever going to clarify this statement? Who is being denied the license? Who are those "others"? Sounds like nothing more than obfuscation to me.

 

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

[DrQuantum]

Galapogos - Thanks for your input. Here are my thoughts.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Just wanted to highlight your bias and obvious value judgments before carrying on with this post.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I appreciate you pointing out my “value judgments”. Does that mean that you have none? If nobody has any values, and we all take the position that “anything goes”, then why do we have governments, legal systems, or any sense of structure in society? If any “values” are permitted to govern society, then whose values will prevail? This is the entire basis for our political system. We present our values to each other, we debate those values (sometimes more rationally than at other times), we vote on those values, and then the values that prevail are imposed on society. That is what happened with the abortion issue, prayer in schools, even slavery (although that took a war). Prop 8 (the basis of this thread) is nothing more or less than this process still being carried out.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I am not a homosexual, and am not interested in their pride parades, but I consider their culture to be no more "grotesque" than any other unfamiliar culture, and I do not understand why a student of anthropology or medicine in a college level sex ed class should not understand the sexual practices of all people, including homosexuals.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

You have not represented my statement correctly. I did not call their culture “grotesque” – I was referring to the costumes that are on display in gay pride parades (and other gatherings of gays). I did not invent that word. Others, including gays, have used that term to refer to them. As far as students understanding sexual practices, that is not the point. The problem is one of “value judgments” – that is, those practices are being celebrated, not just taught, in college classes that receive taxpayer funds.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Have you considered that the revulsion one race feels to another, that most feel towards incest, or some religious people feel towards homosexuality are part of our evolutionary endowment? Xenophobia may have been adaptive in the past, but that says nothing about our value judgments and ethical choices now, which should have nothing to do with tribal demands for purity or sanctity and instead everything to do with freedom and rationality…

…I don't think normal people should marry the severely mentally handicapped either (I'm fairly certain the law agrees), because they have a limited subjectivity in a similar way.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Are you saying that revulsion towards incest is not longer “rational”? If so, you are adding fuel to the “slippery slope” argument. That is, why is incest an acceptable practice but marrying “severely mentally handicapped” is not? Since you seem to feel that “freedom and rationality” are the governing concepts, whose “rationality” will prevail? Do you trust the rationality of the politicians? They are the ones that have given us the ban on mylar balloons, after all. I guess that is rational to them but not to those of us who realize there is no evidence at all that mylar balloons are a threat to society. Again, why is public discourse along with the ballot initiative process not a reasonable method to determine what is “rational”? And, at exactly what point did we move out of the arena of our “adaptive evolutionary endowment”?

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Marrying an animal or a truck that cannot reasonably consent is a silly argument to make.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Well, I was just quoting a gay rights activist. Why would they make that argument? I only quoted it to show their agenda relative to Prop 8, which is what started this thread.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

A

gain, the slippery slope is a terrible argument to begin with, and all the examples you have given sound desperate. As Moonman has pointed out above, the slippery slope works just as well for racism and opposition to interracial marriage.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Come on, every argument made since the beginning of human society is based on the “slippery slope” concept. Since you apparently subscribe to the secular humanist philosophy, you can appreciate the fact that if we “zoom” our view down to the quantum level, nothing can be proven – that is, everything is based on statistical fluctuations. Slippery slope arguments are nothing more or less than a macroscopic manifestation of that fact and if you eliminate that type of argument, what is left? Again, “rationality” seems to be very much in the eye of the beholder.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Right, so this isn't a civil rights issue, it is an assault on your tribes vision of purity. I think that denying a certain group of people the rights we all share is oppression and bigotry. Much of the oppression and bigotry in this world is only justifiable in light of dogmatism and delusional certainty about the supernatural, and this issue is a perfect example.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Back to your well-crafted phrase “adaptive evolutionary endowment” (really – I do like it)…are you really convinced that we are past that point? All one needs to do is examine the campaigns and rhetoric in the recent presidential campaign to realize that a “tribal” mentality still exists. It is an inherent part of human nature – at least so far. How long it will take for that to change is certainly anyone’s guess. In fact, it appears that we cannot even imagine a society where tribalism does not exist as we can see from such science fiction works as Star Trek and Star Wars. So, it seems that at least for the present, we are stuck with dealing with tribalism as part of our existence.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

I'd say it [support of Prop 8] based on very real, irrational bigotry and xenophobia. How is depriving one portion of the population a right that all others share for religious reasons not oppression? It is a simple civil rights question and obviously so, and no number of obscurantist rants will change this obvious fact.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Let’s see…you have not been able to refute the slippery slope methodology, attribute any argument to something other than “delusional certainty about the supernatural” or provide irrefutable evidence that we can bypass tribalism (that is, no longer in an evolutionary state) so now all you can do its invoke the old “irrational bigotry and xenophobia…religious reasons” strawman.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Just curious, what rights of heterosexuals were taken to with a metaphorical legal hammer? You seem to have everything very backwards here.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

First, let’s all accept the fact that there are inescapable collisions between the “rights” of different groups – smokers vs non-smokers, pet owners vs non owners, renters vs landlords, employees vs employers, haves vs have-nots. It is unlikely that the time will ever come that these collisions, or similar ones, will evaporate. We have developed a system over many years – and generations – to mediate the claims from these various groups. Prop 8 was a manifestation of that system at work. Without invoking the “hate” motivation (although there is evidence of that on both sides), each group has specific motivations, based on their “tribal” identity. Each group puts forth their points in an attempt to sway the thinking of the uncommitted or uneducated. The general population then votes on which of the arguments they think have the most merit. In the case of Prop 8, the key argument in favor of it was the one that you dismiss with the pejorative term “metaphorical legal hammer”. This hammer is far from metaphorical. It is, in fact, very real and very active. Due to certain associations and shared interests between various groups, the legal hammer has only increased in weight and ferocity over the years. As with Moontanman, you apparently have not been following the news. Numerous lawsuits have been filed by gays – in states where gay marriage is legal (such as Massachusetts and also in Canada). These are people who have already been granted their marriage licenses. The suits are brought against churches, to which they do not even belong, for declining to perform the RELIGIOUS rites. Now, you tell me – under what form of logic does that make any sense? If they only want the piece of paper from the county clerk and they have the same attitude that you have. Are they fighting the “delusional certainty about the supernatural” by these lawsuits? Or are they – as their own spokespeople have publicly stated – simply exerting an “in-your-face” posture to show the supporters of Prop 8 that they can wield their influence? They were certainly free to obtain marriage licenses in California after the overturning of Prop 22 last May yet only about 2% of gays did so. It does not appear that there is an overwhelming interest in marriage – only in using their “legal hammer” – which they do not consider metaphorical in any way.

[modest]

You have not apparently been checking the news. If you do, you will find that there are numerous examples in several states as well as Canada where gays are, in fact, suing churches in a attempt to force them to perform gay marriages. This is the primary focus of the gay marriage movement and the principle motivation (not hate, as you propose) for the proponents of Prop 8 and similar amendments in other states.

 

 

Do you have any examples of large numbers of law suits or is this just something we are supposed to assume is true? People get sued all the time, churches included, just how many churches have been sued, when were they sued and what were the circumstances.

 

Galapogos -

 

<...>

 

As with Moontanman, you apparently have not been following the news. Numerous lawsuits have been filed by gays – in states where gay marriage is legal (such as Massachusetts and also in Canada). These are people who have already been granted their marriage licenses. The suits are brought against churches, to which they do not even belong, for declining to perform the RELIGIOUS rites.

 

Welcome to Hypography DrQuantum.

 

I appreciate that this is a politically-oriented debate which by nature has claims that are less about facts and figures than persuasion and personal perspective. Nevertheless, this is a science forum and there are some site rules that are geared toward keeping it so. Most importantly is the requirement of backing up claims with links or references especially when asked.

 

You've made a claim above that is interesting if true. Are you able to back it up?

 

~modest

[Galapagos]

I appreciate you pointing out my “value judgments”. Does that mean that you have none? If nobody has any values, and we all take the position that “anything goes”, then why do we have governments, legal systems, or any sense of structure in society?

I obviously believe all forms of oppression and bigotry are deplorable. This is a value judgment. I think that the treatment of women in Saudi Arabia is disgusting in the same way that I think the treatment of homosexuals here is disgusting. My point was to highlight what appeared to be a prejudice of yours.

If any “values” are permitted to govern society, then whose values will prevail? This is the entire basis for our political system. We present our values to each other, we debate those values (sometimes more rationally than at other times), we vote on those values, and then the values that prevail are imposed on society. That is what happened with the abortion issue, prayer in schools, even slavery (although that took a war). Prop 8 (the basis of this thread) is nothing more or less than this process still being carried out.

The values that prevailed when Jim Crowe laws were enacted were disgusting and they belonged to a similar crowd that the view of gays as second class citizens belongs to today.

A recent thread had me reading some Thoreau, so I quote him:

“t is not desirable to cultivate a respect for the law, so much as for the right. The only obligation which I have a right to assume is to do at any time what I think right.… Law never made men a whit more just; and, by means of their respect for it, even the well-disposed are daily made the agents of injustice.”

If the laws are prejudiced or unjust, it is an obligation of good human beings(and Americans) to stand up and say something.

 

You have not represented my statement correctly. I did not call their culture “grotesque” – I was referring to the costumes that are on display in gay pride parades (and other gatherings of gays). I did not invent that word. Others, including gays, have used that term to refer to them. As far as students understanding sexual practices, that is not the point. The problem is one of “value judgments” – that is, those practices are being celebrated, not just taught, in college classes that receive taxpayer funds.

Perhaps I misinterpreted your words as being more derogatory than they were intended to be. Note that words like "grotesque" and "perverted" and "deviant" all coincidentally have more than one meaning, some including value judgment connotations. Observers may decide what your intentions were, I am not interested in semantics.

 

As for the problem of value judgments in sexual education, I don't really see the problem. Do you want professors to remind their adult, multi-cultural students that Yahweh thinks homosexuality is an abomination? I don't understand why value judgments should be made about subjects in a psychology, anthropology or biology course discussing sexual behavior. Should instructors comment on all their favorite/least favorite sexual acts, or just on the ones offensive to you?

 

 

Are you saying that revulsion towards incest is not longer “rational”? If so, you are adding fuel to the “slippery slope” argument. That is, why is incest an acceptable practice but marrying “severely mentally handicapped” is not?

Revulsion to incest was likely adaptive in the past. The value judgments we make today should be uncoupled from emotions(irrational) such as disgust when discussing topics such as civil rights or bioethics.

http://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/anthro/faculty/fessler/pubs/Fessler3rdPartyIncest.pdf

http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/papers/Incest_avoid.pdf

http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/papers/incest2003.pdf

More on moral psychology if interested:

http://www.mc.edu/campus/users/sbaldwin/emotional%20dog%20rational%20tail.pdf

Feel free to start another thread about incest or moral intuition if you would like to discuss further.

I mentioned earlier, the issue of mentally handicapped people is one of awareness/subjectivity and consent. Incest is a different issue.

 

Since you seem to feel that “freedom and rationality” are the governing concepts, whose “rationality” will prevail?...

All human beings should be born with the same freedom and rights. You have not and I expect will not put forward a good argument for why gays should be denied equal rights. If you don't have a good reason to do something, it is irrational by definition. The denial of marriage rights to gays is irrational.

 

Come on, every argument made since the beginning of human society is based on the “slippery slope” concept. Since you apparently subscribe to the secular humanist philosophy, you can appreciate the fact that if we “zoom” our view down to the quantum level, nothing can be proven – that is, everything is based on statistical fluctuations. Slippery slope arguments are nothing more or less than a macroscopic manifestation of that fact and if you eliminate that type of argument, what is left? Again, “rationality” seems to be very much in the eye of the beholder.

I dont quite understand your claim about quantum physics/slippery slopes and I think I would contest that all society is based on the slippery slope concept, but I'm not interested a derail(no offense, this is just a lot of work for a simple issue imo!). Perhaps these claims of yours would be best made in their own threads.

Again: How is the slippery slope in this case any different from when the argument was used to deny interracial couples civil rights?

 

Back to your well-crafted phrase “adaptive evolutionary endowment” (really – I do like it)…are you really convinced that we are past that point? All one needs to do is examine the campaigns and rhetoric in the recent presidential campaign to realize that a “tribal” mentality still exists. It is an inherent part of human nature – at least so far. How long it will take for that to change is certainly anyone’s guess. In fact, it appears that we cannot even imagine a society where tribalism does not exist as we can see from such science fiction works as Star Trek and Star Wars. So, it seems that at least for the present, we are stuck with dealing with tribalism as part of our existence.

I'm not sure what your first question means, perhaps my reply/linked citations above clear this up.

I am aware that people still behave in ways tribalistic, sexist, bigoted, racist, nepotistic etc. How does this excuse denying some of our neighbors rights that we all enjoy?

 

 

Let’s see…you have not been able to refute the slippery slope methodology, attribute any argument to something other than “delusional certainty about the supernatural” or provide irrefutable evidence that we can bypass tribalism (that is, no longer in an evolutionary state) so now all you can do its invoke the old “irrational bigotry and xenophobia…religious reasons” strawman.

Again, the slippery slope didn't work for interracial marriages, and it fails here.

I stand by my statement:

I'd say it [support of Prop 8] based on very real, irrational bigotry and xenophobia. How is depriving one portion of the population a right that all others share for religious reasons not oppression? It is a simple civil rights question and obviously so, and no number of obscurantist rants will change this obvious fact.

 

 

First, let’s all accept the fact that there are inescapable collisions between the “rights” of different groups – smokers vs non-smokers, pet owners vs non owners, renters vs landlords, employees vs employers, haves vs have-nots. It is unlikely that the time will ever come that these collisions, or similar ones, will evaporate. We have developed a system over many years – and generations – to mediate the claims from these various groups. Prop 8 was a manifestation of that system at work.

Yes, like the rights between the upper class and the untouchables in Indian caste systems. The rights of those who were disgusted by the prospect of miscegnation in America.

 

Without invoking the “hate” motivation...

Who's rights are being denied or violated here? Supporters of prop 8 want to deny rights we all share to a certain group of individuals. Unless a good reason can be proposed for this, it can be dismissed as irrational bigotry.