California's Proposition 8

[john5746]

This may tell us something about a possible side affect of the gay gene. It may not allow one to see the nuts and bolts of reality.

 

Oh, the irony!!

[Sayonara]

My whole take on it is this. I don't want to get in the way of anybody or whatever, but I have a very strong aversion to "them" categorizing themselves with me. Make up their own term, coin a new word or whatever, but it is not the same and until it is characterized differently, I have no wish at all to be associated in that way, other than being human. It is an inhuman marriage. Make something up.

This is the most pathetic attempt to justify discrimination I have seen for a while, yet sadly it seems to be pretty much the basis of the vast majority of anti-gay marriage sentiment.

 

An "inhuman marriage"? You require a reboot.

 

Are you also opposed to terrorists and war criminals getting married?

 

 

This decision was required because white and black couples did not have the option to simply change the wording away from "marriage" into civil unions or any other tailored language, to enjoy all the benefits of this basic civil right.

Because of the political and legal structure of the time, not because they were of any particular colour.

 

Anyone with common sense realizes the value is in the auto and not the name.

A weak argument, since the counter is simply "then why is it so important that we can't call our marriage a 'marriage'?"

 

One would have to be out of touch with reality to think you are driving a tree.

Are you saying that gay people who 'think' they are married are - if you will pardon the pun - out of their trees?

 

This may tell us something about a possible side affect of the gay gene. It may not allow one to see the nuts and bolts of reality.

If you are proposing that being gay makes one permanently delusional then I suggest you back that up, substantially and quickly.

 

The gays have access to everything below the make-up. But they need to define themselves with social make-up. They are even twisting the reality of discrimination based on cosmetics.

John said this already, but it bears reiteration: oh, the irony.

[npts2020]

What if we decide some religious group....lets say Mormoons, had some part of their concept of marriage other people (particularly religious ones) didn't like.....say if you married a woman you were also married to all of her female relatives and decided that those individuals should not be allowed to "marry" since their definition of "marriage" isn't the same as ours? Could we then have a proposition on the ballot to prevent Mormoons from ever being married?

[pioneer]

All I am saying, if gays used the term "civil union" and were happy with that term, how many of these discrimination arguments would still apply? What they want is a new definition of a wording that has been used for millennia to describe the union of a male and female. The choice is for another reason which can seen with an example.

 

Say someone wanted to call creationism, evolution. They are not happy with the term creationism because it doesn't give the same ambiance as the word evolution. They have all the rights of free speech using creationism. However, polling data says people react better to the word evolution and tend to get more fidgety when they hear the word creationism. The purpose for this redefinition is to tag a better subjective consensus title to something that is different to create the illusion they are the same.

 

Let us assume enough people subjectively accepted this new name because science can't fight it with objectivity. They win the legal battle due to discrimination and free speech and get the subjective tag. Now evolution says the universe was created in one day. To the naive among us, some people will think science has proven this, since this is now a part of the term evolution. The idea is to over ride objectivity by confusing the distinction with subjectivity. Picking a name different, other than the word marriage, doesn't have the same subjective affect.

[Sayonara]

Pioneer, you have entered a new argument without responding to the questions I had about your previous post. Please show some grasp of forum etiquette and deal with the issues I raised.

[iNow]

This decision was required because white and black couples did not have the option to simply change the wording away from "marriage" into civil unions or any other tailored language, to enjoy all the benefits of this basic civil right. It didn't matter what you called it, back then, because the spirit of the civil right was what was in debate. With gays, the spirit of marriage is not in question, just the term "marriage".

Actually, no. That is false. In order for the nuptials to be legal and have any impact, they must first be approved by license from the state. If the state does not provide said license, then the union is not recognized as valid.

[ParanoiA]

This would seem like a decent time to reiterate bullet one of my original post on page one. Government doesn't regulate the dictionary. Let free society decide what "marriage" means. Here we have post after post trying to "subjectively" determine what marriage means to this person and that person and yadda yadda yadda. That's the problem with subjective governing - you alienate perfectly valid points of view.

 

Why not just term ALL current and future "marriage" as civil unions? The government should strip all extra privileges from civil unions, as they earn no objective extra entitlement merely because two or more people have committed to a lifetime of "togetherness". Instead, we honor the agreement in the context of inheritance, divorce, insurance...the weirdo legal framework that rewards/punishes "togetherness" by humans.

 

Let people play around with the word marriage all they want. If we're all just pledging a civil union, no matter our sex, our familial relationship, quantity, race, national origin...blah blah blah, the whole nine yards, then nobody is any more honored by the law than the rest.

[jackson33]

Actually, no. That is false. In order for the nuptials to be legal and have any impact, they must first be approved by license from the state. If the state does not provide said license, then the union is not recognized as valid.

 

 

The Union would be valid, just limited to the laws of their State. The License, is an implied Contract, which can be equaled by Legal Contract, down to decision making denied with out any contract, such as life support decisions or inheritance. Other common law steps in with no written contract and again implied by co habitation for a period of time. The Marriage license given by each State already has different meanings in each State and not necessarily the same. The license itself is subject to correctness of the applicant (s). Two guys, one dressed as a women can get a license and play the game for life, but that marriage could forever be invalidated, no less than falsely giving an age for future benefits or ling about your place of Birth or even not divorced from another recognized marriage.

 

By the way, except for reasons of the Church, or any eligible person (Judge/Captain) to perform a Marriage, there is no law requiring a license from the State. However, they usually do for liable reasons or making the State resposible for fraud, waiting periods etc...

[iNow]

I still have yet to see a single valid argument for why homosexual marriage should be viewed any differently whatsoever by the state than hetersexual marriage.

[Mr Skeptic]

This would seem like a decent time to reiterate bullet one of my original post on page one. Government doesn't regulate the dictionary.

 

Maybe not, but in France it is not far off.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acad%C3%A9mie_fran%C3%A7aise

I wonder, is English Legalesse defined by some specific body?

I'd also argue that you can't change laws by changing the meaning of the words in the law.

 

Let free society decide what "marriage" means. Here we have post after post trying to "subjectively" determine what marriage means to this person and that person and yadda yadda yadda. That's the problem with subjective governing - you alienate perfectly valid points of view.

 

People may decide what they mean by marriage, but it is up to the government to figure out what it meant by "marriage" when it made laws about marriage.

 

Why not just term ALL current and future "marriage" as civil unions? The government should strip all extra privileges from civil unions, as they earn no objective extra entitlement merely because two or more people have committed to a lifetime of "togetherness". Instead, we honor the agreement in the context of inheritance, divorce, insurance...the weirdo legal framework that rewards/punishes "togetherness" by humans.

 

But it could be that the government has/had a legitimate reason to encourage marriage. For example, in the days before paternity testing, if a woman had a child out of wedlock, the father could abandon her. Then we have a single mom, who may need government assistance. Hence, higher costs to the government due to people not being married. Also, I'm pretty sure that the government has an interest in managing the population size.

 

Let people play around with the word marriage all they want. If we're all just pledging a civil union, no matter our sex, our familial relationship, quantity, race, national origin...blah blah blah, the whole nine yards, then nobody is any more honored by the law than the rest.

 

Yes, I'd agree that the government should have stuck to its own stuff (civil unions). Marriage has traditionally been in the domain of religion, not of government. Hence, making laws regarding marriage could be an infringement on the right to whatever religion.

[ParanoiA]

But it could be that the government has/had a legitimate reason to encourage marriage. For example, in the days before paternity testing, if a woman had a child out of wedlock, the father could abandon her. Then we have a single mom, who may need government assistance. Hence, higher costs to the government due to people not being married. Also, I'm pretty sure that the government has an interest in managing the population size.

 

Well, sure. I'm not disputing any of that. I'm moving past it. In your example above, the entitlement programs created to help ARE the reason for the marriage issue. And that qualifies as a "privilege". That's the part I disagree with. Cancel this silly idea of helping people that fall into category "X" - like a processing plant. You either help single mom, or tell single mom to bugger off. Stop judging single mom.

 

By the way, single moms are on my list of preferred benefactors to financial support. Most of them did their part, they procreated, they contributed to our species - the males on the other hand, most of them run off for the stupidest of reasons and every one of us ought to kick their asses for it. I'm tired of seeing good women fulfill their part of the bargain while some cowardly piece of trash runs away to dump the most intense responsibility we have as a human race on her ill equipped shoulders. Absolutely pisses me off. How much of a man are you when you dump that mess on a young girl?

[Mr Skeptic]

I still have yet to see a single valid argument for why homosexual marriage should be viewed any differently whatsoever by the state than hetersexual marriage.

 

1. Homosexual marriages can't make babies.

2. Male homosexual couples cannot breast feed babies (breast feeding turns out to be rather important, for health and for bonding) even if they adopt them.

3. It is different, disgusting, sinful, unnatural, untraditional, wrong, etc.

4. There aren't a lot of laws about homosexual marriage, and these laws might be different than those about heterosexual marriage, making all of this quite complicated especially when different states disagree.

 

You might disagree with #3, but I challenge you to tell me why something like murder should be illegal without using similar value judgements (eg, that infringing on someone else's liberty is wrong).

[john5746]

1. Homosexual marriages can't make babies.

 

Wrong. Homosexual sex can't make babies, but a homosexual marriage can create a family - raise children.

 

2. Male homosexual couples cannot breast feed babies (breast feeding turns out to be rather important, for health and for bonding) even if they adopt them.

 

True, but many babies have been raised without breast feeding. It isn't illegal to not breast feed.

 

 

 

4. There aren't a lot of laws about homosexual marriage, and these laws might be different than those about heterosexual marriage, making all of this quite complicated especially when different states disagree..

 

Yes, I would prefer a national law, but we can't wait for Alabama to come around in the year 3000.

 

 

3. It is different, disgusting, sinful, unnatural, untraditional, wrong, etc.

 

You might disagree with #3, but I challenge you to tell me why something like murder should be illegal without using similar value judgements (eg, that infringing on someone else's liberty is wrong).

 

Society does decide what is immoral and illegal, I agree. But homosexuality is not illegal, so I fail to see why homosexual marriage should be considered illegal. We should have reasons for making decisions, not just because.....

[Pangloss]

Last I looked there were something like half a million children in foster care around the country. Apparently there aren't enough straight couples to go around. In fact it's probably safe to say there aren't enough straight and gay couples to adopt them all.

[Sayonara]

1. Homosexual marriages can't make babies.

That's not actually true though, is it?

 

Granted you do need the involvement of some third party at some point, but that's no different to the reproductive limitations of people in many heterosexual marriages, and nobody is telling them that they can't "marry".

 

Even if it were true, procreation is not a precondition of marriage in any civilised country I can think of, so the point is fatally flawed in two respects. Fewer specious arguments pls k thx.

[ParanoiA]

And yet, it's still a valid argument why gay marriage can be viewed differently. I believe that was iNow's charge, answered by Skeptic, as opposed to Skeptic's position on the matter. Heterosexual marriages can make babies without a third party - and do a major majority of the time. Requiring a third party, should disqualify the marriage for Sketpic's conditional statement, in my opinion.

 

It doesn't do anybody any justice to pretend as if there's no difference between heterosexual unions and homosexual ones. Difference is not a dirty word, and carries no consequence, no value judgement.

[Sayonara]

It doesn't do anybody any justice to pretend as if there's no difference between heterosexual unions and homosexual ones. Difference is not a dirty word, and carries no consequence, no value judgement.

I agree. But if someone is going to use "this is why it's not a real marriage..." as their argument then they ought to be limited to stating things which are true. Be assured that my major bone of contention with that post was that (1) was false, not that it was or was not something setting homosexual and heterosexual marriages apart.

[iNow]

1. Homosexual marriages can't make babies.

2. Male homosexual couples cannot breast feed babies (breast feeding turns out to be rather important, for health and for bonding) even if they adopt them.

3. It is different, disgusting, sinful, unnatural, untraditional, wrong, etc.

4. There aren't a lot of laws about homosexual marriage, and these laws might be different than those about heterosexual marriage, making all of this quite complicated especially when different states disagree.

Even if stipulated that all of your proposals were valid, why should the state discriminate based upon ANY of those, especially since a union/marriage does not implicitly come with successful reproduction events?

[bascule]

1. Homosexual marriages can't make babies.

 

Lesbian couples can make babies via artificial insemination. But it's not like the purpose of marriage is to be a baby factory. There's plenty of unwanted babies to go around.

 

2. Male homosexual couples cannot breast feed babies (breast feeding turns out to be rather important, for health and for bonding) even if they adopt them.

 

Being raised by loving, non-abusive parents is also important. I'd argue you're better off being formula-fed than being raised in a series of foster homes, or worse, by abusive parents. That's not to say that gay parents won't be abusive, but rather that there are a lot of non-abusive gay couples who could certainly use tax breaks that come from being a married couple raising children.

 

Also, there are plenty of heterosexual couples / single mothers who don't breast feed their children.

 

3. It is different, disgusting, sinful, unnatural, untraditional, wrong, etc.

 

*facepalm* whatever...

 

4. There aren't a lot of laws about homosexual marriage, and these laws might be different than those about heterosexual marriage, making all of this quite complicated especially when different states disagree.

 

Why should the laws be different?

 

You might disagree with #3, but I challenge you to tell me why something like murder should be illegal without using similar value judgements (eg, that infringing on someone else's liberty is wrong).

 

I have a utilitarian value system, from which the wrongness of murder follows pretty clearly.

 

I hope you're playing devil's advocate here, but if not, your value system is different than mine, and all I can argue is that my value system finds your value system to be depraved.

 

And yet, it's still a valid argument why gay marriage can be viewed differently. I believe that was iNow's charge, answered by Skeptic, as opposed to Skeptic's position on the matter. Heterosexual marriages can make babies without a third party - and do a major majority of the time. Requiring a third party, should disqualify the marriage for Sketpic's conditional statement, in my opinion.

 

Is the purpose of marriage to be a baby factory? Should we disqualify sterile heterosexual couples from getting married? How about couples who adopt as opposed to conceiving on their own? Or how about couples who simply don't want children?

[Mr Skeptic]

And yet, it's still a valid argument why gay marriage can be viewed differently. I believe that was iNow's charge, answered by Skeptic, as opposed to Skeptic's position on the matter.

 

Correct. He asked for valid arguments, not good ones. I'd say that some of the arguments against homosexuality are good ones, but that is not particularly clear. There's definitely both good and valid arguments for allowing same-sex marriages or at least civil unions.

 

Heterosexual marriages can make babies without a third party - and do a major majority of the time. Requiring a third party, should disqualify the marriage for Sketpic's conditional statement, in my opinion.

 

It doesn't do anybody any justice to pretend as if there's no difference between heterosexual unions and homosexual ones. Difference is not a dirty word, and carries no consequence, no value judgement.

 

Yes, that is a major point that bugs me. Some people insist that there are no differences between races, or between men and women, but there really are some differences, even large differences in some cases. Whenever people go around making untrue statements, even when politically correct, it really gets on my nerve. When scientists do so, doubly so.

Edited November 13, 2008 by Mr Skeptic
broken quote tag

[doG]

1. Homosexual marriages can't make babies.

 

Are you saying marriage should then be restricted to only fertile, able couples that can have babies?

 

2. Male homosexual couples cannot breast feed babies (breast feeding turns out to be rather important, for health and for bonding) even if they adopt them.

 

So marriages should only be allowed where one of the partners is able to breast feed, including heterosexual couples?

 

3. It is different, disgusting, sinful, unnatural, untraditional, wrong, etc.

 

You might disagree with #3, but I challenge you to tell me why something like murder should be illegal without using similar value judgements (eg, that infringing on someone else's liberty is wrong).

 

Says who? And how exactly would a gay marriage infringe anyone else's liberty?

 

4. There aren't a lot of laws about homosexual marriage, and these laws might be different than those about heterosexual marriage, making all of this quite complicated especially when different states disagree.

 

At one time nearly one third of the States had laws on the books that prohibited blacks and whites from marrying and marriages between slaves was also prohibited so there were a lot of differing laws about these marriages. Was it wrong then to redefine marriage to allow these previously prohibited unions?

[iNow]

Yes, that is a major point that bugs me. Some people insist that there are no differences between races, or between men and women, but there really are some differences, even large differences in some cases. Whenever people go around making untrue statements, even when politically correct, it really gets on my nerve. When scientists do so, doubly so.

 

Just so everyone knows, this was NEVER my position. My position is to insist that the LAWS should show no differences in application.

 

 

Also - I am somewhat confident that Mr Skeptic was not espousing his own beliefs with those four points. He was, if I understand correctly, trying to offer a response to my request for valid reasons why the State should treat homosexual unions any different that heterosexual unions. I don't personally find the examples he shared very compelling, but I also don't think he's some monster who was expressing his own ideas on the matter. I could be wrong, but he seems smarter than those four points suggest.

 

And the points didn't meet the criteria I'd set for "valid" reasons for different application and allowances of personal liberties.

[Mr Skeptic]

Wrong. Homosexual sex can't make babies, but a homosexual marriage can create a family - raise children.

 

When you want to say I am wrong, maybe you shouldn't say word for word that what I said is true. And right in my next statement, I pointed out that they can adopt children.

 

True, but many babies have been raised without breast feeding. It isn't illegal to not breast feed.

 

No, but that doesn't mean that it is a good idea.

 

Yes, I would prefer a national law, but we can't wait for Alabama to come around in the year 3000.

 

It will take some time for everyone to agree. The states do need to decide individually, and then the oddballs will be pressured to conform. But that makes it a nasty matter for all involved, and great food for the lawyers.

 

Society does decide what is immoral and illegal, I agree. But homosexuality is not illegal, so I fail to see why homosexual marriage should be considered illegal. We should have reasons for making decisions, not just because.....

 

In some places it is, or was. And marriage as traditionally defined in our society does not include same sex marriage, so there is no reason that the laws about heterosexual marriage should apply to homosexual marriage either, and good reason they shouldn't. You don't change laws by redefining words, you change laws by the legislative process. You wouldn't want people saying the right to bear arms means you can have the front appendage of a bear, now would you?

[iNow]

I don't personally find the examples he shared very compelling, but I also don't think he's some monster who was expressing his own ideas on the matter.

 

Ermm... On second thought...

[Mr Skeptic]

1. Homosexual marriages can't make babies.

That's not actually true though, is it?

 

Granted you do need the involvement of some third party at some point, but that's no different to the reproductive limitations of people in many heterosexual marriages, and nobody is telling them that they can't "marry".

 

Actually, it really is true. At least with current technology. In the future, we might be able to clone one of the parents (it might even be possible now, but illegal), though that would remove genetic variation. In the future, it may be possible to convince female cells to turn into sperm, allowing lesbian couples to reproduce properly. Also in the future, it may be possible to convince male cells to turn into eggs, so male couples could reproduce properly (they'd still need a surrogate mother, or additional technology to allow babies to be grown in an artificial womb.

 

Currently, lesbian couples can reproduce with sperm from a man, but then it is not the couple's baby (genetically), it will be only one of the couple's baby. Kind of like a son-in-law. I suppose a homosexual couple could hire a surrogate mother to have a child by one of them, but that will be even less the same.

 

In addition, I am fairly certain that male homosexual couples are extremely unlikely to adopt a child. I am not sure if that applies to lesbian couples. In any case, this is an extremely legitimate reason, since population is an important part of a country.

 

Since making babies and especially raising a family is traditionally associated with marriage, and homosexual couples can't make babies, then it is also another legitimate difference between traditional marriage and homosexual marriage.

 

Even if it were true, procreation is not a precondition of marriage in any civilised country I can think of, so the point is fatally flawed in two respects. Fewer specious arguments pls k thx.

 

No, but it is an expectation. With homosexual couples, the expectation is the reverse.

 

I agree. But if someone is going to use "this is why it's not a real marriage..." as their argument then they ought to be limited to stating things which are true. Be assured that my major bone of contention with that post was that (1) was false, not that it was or was not something setting homosexual and heterosexual marriages apart.

 

Except it isn't false, at least with our current technology.

Edited November 13, 2008 by Mr Skeptic
multiple post merged