Proposition 8 - Totally Gay Corollary Observations

[10,000 Volt Ghost]

Okay. Straights can be married on Mon, Wed, Fri. Gays can have Tues, Thurs and Sat. I'll take Sunday.

[Tadao]

Yep, democracy is stupid. Dictatorship is the way to go. Tell me how to feel and what to do.

[kahljorn]

shut up, twassy. Democracy is the tyranny of the asses. The asses tells you how to feel and what to do.

[Tadao]

[kahljorn]

[McClain]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

what is the purpose of marriage, McClain?

The answer to that question depends on who you ask. Since you're asking me, I'll give my answer. And since I'm about 3/4 the way through a bottle of Merlot, you'll get a long-winded version.

It's an act of desperation. It's a move to secure benefits. It's done under pressure. It's done as a public display of devotion. It's done because it's the normal thing to do.

While it's not always all those things it's typically at least one of them. But I do know that our modern concept of marriage can basically be broken down in to three parts; the courtship, the wedding, the wedlock. Marriage is a term we use to encapsulate all three aspects of matrimony. Courtship is a social more, the wedding is a religious event, and wedlock is a legality.

The modern purpose of marriage is to have a union recognized by the state. But because this country was founded by God-fearing Christians, it's clear their convictions were imposed as these rules were produced and amended. And even after we've made the distinction of separation of church and state our country remains seemingly innocuous to this civil prejudice.

And this is precisely why many consider it a "failing" institution. Because our understanding of this norm has evolved but our laws haven't. But those understandings evolved because Christian religion in our country is changing. And Christian religion is changing because this religion, as with any other, is typically a reflection of the society. A perfect example is how our interpretation of scripture has changed considerably in the past 50 years alone - an honest case study of theological evolution considering the New Testament is 2000+ years old. Think about it... How much have things changed from our parents generation to ours? And so on and so forth. Religion is a reflection of economic conditions.

My ultimate point is that denying gays the ability to formalize their union is a matter of denying human and civil rights. Personal convictions regarding sexual orientation should be idealized within a personal (not public) manner; individually, through organized institutions or as a family.

The American Evangelicals are dictating personal choice based on aged mores using "crusader" money collected via special interest groups across the nation. It doesn't matter what the purpose of marriage is to me or anyone else. What matters is that as long as the government is involved there needs to be that separation of church and state.

The Divided States of America seems more topical.

[kahljorn]

So, basically, what you are saying is that anti-same-sex marriage mentality is the result of being socialized in a system which has, since its inception, been against same-sex marriages due to their religious convictions. Also, because its so ingrained in our culture we never really considered that it may be inappropriate.
Are you saying that, currently, the institution of marriage is merely an institution of prejudice? If not, I think merely pointing to prejudices when trying to determine purposes, or whether something is right or wrong, is entirely irrelevant. Otherwise, it may be partially relevant.
And, then, it's a failed institution because so many people have recognized that it is prejudicial, and it hasn't changed to fit our modern conceptions?
When you say things like, "OUR UNDERSTANDING OF THE NORM HAS CHANGED," you mean you. Not christians, or other anti-gay marriage people -- even though it may have changed, just not in the same way. i would continue to say that there is still a lot of people, maybe a majority of them, against gay marriage, but that just goes down the route of ad populum and squables about the future...

Do you think that people are against same-sex marriage ONLY for religious reasons, including the founders of our country? Are all the people who are against same-sex marriages christian? Don't they sometimes give social and material reasons why they are against it, as well, rather than just merely prejudice and religion?

When I asked for purpose I meant more like, what purpose does marriage serve for the state? Or a religious institution? or just society period? not necessarily what purpose marriage serves for the individual.

My ultimate point is that denying gays the ability to formalize their union is a matter of denying human and civil rights.

How? Why should gays be allowed to get married? Why shouldn't people be able to marry dogs, or adolescents? Why no polygamy (a lot of this stuff could be said to have the same type of religious origin as anti-samesex folk)? No rights are ultimately being denied the homosexual in particular, they aren't restricted from getting married, just from getting married whoever or however they want.
I think adolescents is a particularly interesting topic, because there are so many arguments going about whether or not they have the ability to rationally consent to things like patient assisted suicide. So, if a 14 year old can consent to patient assisted suicide, why not marriage with a 43 year old sex offender?
but that is an aside: what about marriage is a human or civil right which should be oriented towards homosexuals and not just heterosexuals?

another good question is what about marriage is a human or civil right which should be oriented towards only heterosexuals ;o

Personal convictions regarding sexual orientation should be idealized within a personal (not public) manner

Aren't homosexuals basically saying that their convictions regarding sexual orientation should be idealized in a public manner?

I guess I should have phrased my question differently:
What is the purpose of marriage: what is the function of marriage in society? How do gays fulfill this function or purpose?

What matters is that as long as the government is involved there needs to be that separation of church and state.

Even if there was a complete separation of church and state, its still possible that marriage could be between a man and a woman only. There is nothing about that which is explicitly religious.

[DeadKennedys]

How spoiled we are, when we claim victimhood and prejudice when we don't get everything we want.

Make no mistake, I'm not an opponent of gay people, nor have I ever been. But this is about changing the definition of an institution. I'm not comparing homosexuality to anything bad, but why shouldn't we change the definition of marriage to allow marriage to multiple wives, husbands, even animals and inanimate objects? Doesn't everyone deserve to be happy?

Too often have I seen Americans berate their country, but only talk about our "bountiful freedoms" when they feel that they're at a risk.

I'm 100% behind letting gay people have an exact replica of marriage with a different name. It's a monogamous partnership, which is what our country values. But, if you're going to change the rules, you also need to change the name.

[Tadao]

I agree whole heartily! You n*ggers don't get to vote anymore, we shall call it "tovel" or some other word. All I care about is that there is a line between what the n*ggers and queers do and what I do!

[Tadao]

Oh and fuck the women too! Bitches.

[pac-man]

Originally Posted by Tadao

I agree whole heartily! You n*ggers don't get to vote anymore, we shall call it "tovel" or some other word. All I care about is that there is a line between what the n*ggers and queers do and what I do!

Tadao, you're Asian. The only line between you and a n*gger is that the n*gger can pleasure a woman.

[kahljorn]

I'm 100% behind letting gay people have an exact replica of marriage with a different name.

Separate but equal ;/ gays aren't really 100% behind that idea.

[Tadao]

Originally Posted by pac-man

Tadao, you're Asian. The only line between you and a n*gger is that the n*gger can pleasure a woman.

[DeadKennedys]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Separate but equal ;/ gays aren't really 100% behind that idea.

Then they get NOTHING, they LOSE, good DAY sir! Life's a bitch.

[Dr. Boogie]

Originally Posted by DeadKennedys

Make no mistake, I'm not an opponent of gay people, nor have I ever been. But this is about changing the definition of an institution. I'm not comparing homosexuality to anything bad, but why shouldn't we change the definition of marriage to allow marriage to multiple wives, husbands, even animals and inanimate objects? Doesn't everyone deserve to be happy?

This is just a reminder to everyone: if you ever find yourself saying "I'm not a _____, but..." chances are, you are a _____.

Be careful about likening gay marriage to bestiality. The last guy who did that publicly wound up getting his name turned into a synonym for anal leakage.


Seriously, though, you bring up a good point: Now, I love my computer, but up until now, it hasn't been a problem. But with all this talk of gay people being allowed to get married, I'm starting to feel a little worried. It used to be that when I went to defragment the harddrive, if you know what I mean, my computer understood that this was as far as we could go. When it got fussy, I would go buy a new video card, and that was the end of it.

But what if gay people are allowed to be married? That means that sooner or later, I'm going to have to marry my computer! I can't afford to be in a monogamous relationship, people. I'm too young! Sure, things are great now, but sooner or later, I'm going to want to take this one apart and build a new one. One with a slimmer case and a more flexible file system. My last computer, I gave to my brother. Can you imagine how much trouble I would've been in if I had been married to that machine? Oh, the angry emails I would have received!

[pac-man]

Originally Posted by Dr. Boogie

This is just a reminder to everyone: if you ever find yourself saying "I'm not a _____, but..." chances are, you are a _____.

I've never liked that statement or the reasoning behind it.

[DeadKennedys]

Originally Posted by Dr. Boogie

This is just a reminder to everyone: if you ever find yourself saying "I'm not a _____, but..." chances are, you are a _____.

Be careful about likening gay marriage to bestiality. The last guy who did that publicly wound up getting his name turned into a synonym for anal leakage.


Seriously, though, you bring up a good point: Now, I love my computer, but up until now, it hasn't been a problem. But with all this talk of gay people being allowed to get married, I'm starting to feel a little worried.

This is just a reminder: Sometimes, you have to say "I'm not a ___" because some people are just too quick to point their fingers.

And I made a disclaimer. I'm not likening gay marriage to bestiality - but you tell me - where does it end?

[kahljorn]

I'm not a korean, but sometimes I enjoy korean food.

[McClain]

Originally Posted by DeadKennedys

How spoiled we are, when we claim victimhood and prejudice when we don't get everything we want.

What?

Originally Posted by DeadKennedys

Make no mistake, I'm not an opponent of gay people, nor have I ever been. But this is about changing the definition of an institution.

It's not that big of a deal. It's already been done. Ever heard of an amendment? It's a *GASP* change to the definition of an institution! Our constitution NEVER intially made any direct reference condemning the union of gays. It had to be amended to say that only a man and a woman can wed. Your concerns about having to "redefine" an institution don't hold water. Besides, Proposition 8 did exactly what you're saying shouldn't be done as it made a DIRECT change to the definition of an institution and changed a state constitution.

Originally Posted by DeadKennedys

I'm not comparing homosexuality to anything bad, but why shouldn't we change the definition of marriage to allow marriage to multiple wives, husbands, even animals and inanimate objects? Doesn't everyone deserve to be happy?

Are you serious? This argument is so feckin' irrational I can't even begin to formulate a response. And I hear it all the time. Sad.

Originally Posted by DeadKennedys

I'm 100% behind letting gay people have an exact replica of marriage with a different name. It's a monogamous partnership, which is what our country values. But, if you're going to change the rules, you also need to change the name.

A union by any other name is a union. As long as it's recognized by the state who fucking cares what it's called? Gays don't give a shit if you call it a Marriage or a Civil Union or MoMatrimony. They want their rights.

So yeah, sounds like you are on board. What was all that previous prattle about? You're concerned about semantics?

[McClain]

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Do you think that people are against same-sex marriage ONLY for religious reasons, including the founders of our country?

No.

And to be honest I don't care about what other people think. It doesn't even matter how I feel about gays. This issue isn't about being pro or con for homosexuals. This isn't about whether or not the average citizen agrees with their lifestyle. It's about humans being denied their civil rights and being human enough to recognize the issue.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Are all the people who are against same-sex marriages christian? Don't they sometimes give social and material reasons why they are against it, as well, rather than just merely prejudice and religion?

The reason most of the onus is on the Christians is because they're the ones that raised the money for Proposition 8. They campaigned. Had it been the Fraternal Order of Police that raised the $40 million they'd be the ones I was speaking about. I'm smart enough to realize that prejudice isn't exclusive to religion.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Why should gays be allowed to get married? Why shouldn't people be able to marry dogs, or adolescents? Why no polygamy (a lot of this stuff could be said to have the same type of religious origin as anti-samesex folk)? No rights are ultimately being denied the homosexual in particular, they aren't restricted from getting married, just from getting married whoever or however they want.

What? First you ask why gays should be allowed to get married. So you obviously recognize that marriage is a right available exclusively to straight people. But then you turn around and say that no rights are being denied to homosexuals? I understand that perhaps you're playing the conservative advocate for the sake of the argument, but you need to shore up some holes first.

Please don't lump in this issue with other issues like humans being able to marry goats or have multiple spouses. Those are completely seperate issues and making one akin to the other is an act of rationalization and desperation in lieu of a coherent argument. Gays are not dog fuckers. Gays are not asking to have 50 spouses.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Aren't homosexuals basically saying that their convictions regarding sexual orientation should be idealized in a public manner?

No. Seperate issue. Sure there will always be people advocating the tolerance or acceptance of gays, but this is a different issue.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

What is the purpose of marriage: what is the function of marriage in society? How do gays fulfill this function or purpose?

I don't know your reasons or his reasons or her reasons. I don't give a shit about anyones reasons. This isn't about personal conviction or any of that other shit. It's about our government making rules and allowing the church to maintain exceptions.

Originally Posted by kahljorn

Even if there was a complete separation of church and state, its still possible that marriage could be between a man and a woman only. There is nothing about that which is explicitly religious.

Do you not understand that the primary groups in opposition of gay marriage are religious groups? NRA didn't campaign. NAACP didn't campaign. NOW didnt' campaign. The Church did campaign.

[MetalMilitia]

Originally Posted by DeadKennedys

This is just a reminder: Sometimes, you have to say "I'm not a ___" because some people are just too quick to point their fingers.

And I made a disclaimer. I'm not likening gay marriage to bestiality - but you tell me - where does it end?

Difference is two gay men or women are consenting adults. Someone trying to marry a cow is probably animal abuse. Someone trying to marry a child is child abuse.

---

People often try and claim that the underlying reason for opposition to gay marriage isn't religious but if we look at developed societies which were not concerned with religious dogma - for example the Roman empire - it's a whole different story.

[kahljorn]

McClain:

But then you turn around and say that no rights are being denied to homosexuals?

A homosexual man has the same right to marry any woman who agrees or whatever, and a homosexual woman has the same right to marry any man she wants. It might not be WHO or WHAT she wants, but lots of people are denied who or what they want.
There has to be a reason for it besides THEY DONT GET WHAT THEY WANT.

This isn't about whether or not the average citizen agrees with their lifestyle. It's about humans being denied their civil rights and being human enough to recognize the issue.

Well, right. That's not what I'm saying at all. But you're kind of begging the question by saying they are being denied their basic civil rights, and that its wrong, without ever supplying actual reasons. How are they being denied their basic civil rights?

Please don't lump in this issue with other issues like humans being able to marry goats or have multiple spouses. Those are completely seperate issues and making one akin to the other is an act of rationalization and desperation in lieu of a coherent argument.

Actually, it's perfectly coherent. If people should be able to marry in whatever consenting fashion they want, then why not be able to have 50 wives? That's why I'm asking you for your reasons: one reason you've stated is for a basic human and civil right. What about being married to 2 women if all of them consent and agree to it is wrong? Why isn't it as much their civil right as it is homosexuals?

Why wouldn't we let three people marry each other? What's the difference between us limiting marriage between people of the same sex and limiting people from marrying more than one person?

The problem with making any coherent argument is that you have to give a reason which doesn't allow negative things in. If an anti-samesex person said homosexuals can't get married because they can't procreate, then post-menopausal women and sterile men shouldn't be allowed to get married either. It's a natural, logical and even typical extension.

No. Seperate issue. Sure there will always be people advocating the tolerance or acceptance of gays, but this is a different issue.

ok... so... I guess I misunderstood you. i thought you meant their personal convictions as in their ability to marry. But now you are saying they are just trying to spread their what untolerance and unacceptance of gays?
ok.

I don't know usually personally i avoid saying things like that because it's kind of ad hominy and irrelevant.

I don't give a shit about anyones reasons. This isn't about personal conviction or any of that other shit. It's about our government making rules and allowing the church to maintain exceptions.

Ok, you don't care about reasons. You just think laws and institutions should just be started for no reason or on the whims of select persons in society.
not only that but we should just be able to make unsupported statements expressing only an opinion or conclusion.

I get what you're saying about prop 8 itself, though. It seems the people on the no side had no motivation and support; whereas the other side was clearly well motivated. There were also a lot of other important events going on at the time. Not only that, but there is probably a large demographic which really has little interest in marriage but isn't necessarily against samesexmarriage which didn't vote because they had little motivation or time.
But it doesn't really matter. My guess is that it will soon be over-turned in another election, just like prop 8 was designed to over-turn something else. The no side will have more voter turn-out and prop 8 will be just like all those other antisamesex things in california.

also is the church maintaining exceptions or is it a democratic voting process? Anyway, I don't really have anything to say about that stuff. No offense but it reeks of fallacy.

A union by any other name is a union. As long as it's recognized by the state who fucking cares what it's called? Gays don't give a shit if you call it a Marriage or a Civil Union or MoMatrimony. They want their rights.

They don't? Rights and getting married are different. Many gays can obtain their rights through alternate paths easily, but they still call for actual marriage. Which rights are being denied to them, besides not being able to get married?
Its called separate but equal. You know like when black people had to have different schools and stuff -- different instutitions?

look at this article, for example:
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/Story?id=4866721&page=1

Though only a handful of legal rights and obligations differ from those of a same-sex domestic partnership or heterosexual marriage, the court's decision acknowledged that domestic partnership did not carry the same weight as marriage, said Suzanne Goldberg, a Columbia Law School professor and director of the sexuality and gender law clinic.
"Before, California had a separate but equal relationship recognition rule, where straight couples could marry and gay people had domestic partnerships," Goldberg said. "That separate but equal rule is now gone, and equality has taken its place."

Not only that but if you're only concerned with them having unions/rights then what's the big deal? I can't remember but does prop 8 say that they can't have civil unions or a separate but equal instutition and/or any of the similar rights obtainable through other means like advanced directives?
i dont know ill just stop here...

[Dimnos]

Originally Posted by McClain

So here we are now. People on both sides are pissed off. And it begs the question to those who oppose same-sex marriage: How does this affect you? Please answer this question without resorting to law; either our constitution or your religious decree.


Can you tell me how it will change your hetero lifestyle? Will your food taste different? Does it alter your shopping experience? Do you hate gays? Is it 4chan? Did brief exposure to 4chan gaymeme sway you this way? Was it that "What What In the Butt" music video?

I am straight. I am married, happily so. I am Christian (Catholic to be exact). I live in the south (someone mentioned this as if it influenced your position to gay marriage). I can tell you honestly that no amount of gay marriage can affect me or my marriage. It cant affect my wife or our son. If it were one gay couple on our block or even if it was everyone down our street. The feelings and love we have for each other and the strength of our marriage could never be hindered by anyone other than the two of us weather we liked them or not, weather we agreed with their life choices or not.

If you are against gay marriage, answer this same question and please tell us HOW they could possibly affect you, your family or your marriage (or relationship / possible future marriage if your not married).

[kahljorn]

MetalMilitia:

Difference is two gay men or women are consenting adults. Someone trying to marry a cow is probably animal abuse. Someone trying to marry a child is child abuse.

What about being group married to two women if all of them consent, and the women want to marry each other too? They are all consenting adults. What is wrong with it.

People usually bring up children/animals when people say, "People should be able to marry whoever they want." If we should be able to marry whoever we want, and we want to marry them, then blah.
But then you change the definition to CONSENT. WHICH I THINK IS A GOOD REASON FOR GAY PEOPLE TO BE ALLOWED TO GET MARRIED kIND OF. However, that's why people bring up being married to multiple wives, or group marriages. They can be consenting. If consenting people should be allowed to get married, and everyone in a group marriage consents, then they should be allowed to get married.
How many other consenting arrangements are there which society would impugn?

I hope this helps anyone who had a problem understanding how group marriages and animal marriages etc. is actually relevant to the discussion.

People often try and claim that the underlying reason for opposition to gay marriage isn't religious but if we look at developed societies which were not concerned with religious dogma - for example the Roman empire - it's a whole different story.

lol interesting example since most of the religious chastising of the new testament actually refers to Rome's debauchery.

[Dimnos]

What about from a purely legal stand point? If you throw religion out the window for a minute and just look at the legality of it? Why not allow gays to marry?