Judge being gay a nonissue during Prop. 8 trial

[Melissa569]

Its not that this judge can't be fair just because he's gay... Its that he directly and personally has something to gain or lose in the ruling. But for most other people, its just an "opinion" they might have. Totally different.

I think somebody who has nothing to gain or lose (directly or personally) from the ruling should be judging the case.

[Soulsearcher]

Interesting stance Melissa, so who has nothing to lose or gain? The entire fight was based on straight people losing how sacred marriage was. So based off the arguments given who had nothing to gain or lose?

[Dravin]

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that many gays would be happy with legal civil unions, and then for everyone else to just leave them alone.

Maybe, I don't know many gay people. But Soul sounds like he isn't and even implies that it is a sentiment held by more than him (he uses the plural but I suppose he doesn't give a good quantitative feel for it). Speaking of obtaining legal equality and then setting the sights higher implies, to me at least, of seeking something above and beyond legal equality.

Honestly Soul's post kinda took me off balance, the position that give us legal equality and we'll go away is an extremely common mantra, at least I've always thought it was. I imagine Soul is more in touch with the pulse of homosexual activism than I am however, so I ran with it.

[MarginOfError]

Its not that this judge can't be fair just because he's gay... Its that he directly and personally has something to gain or lose in the ruling. But for most other people, its just an "opinion" they might have. Totally different.

I think somebody who has nothing to gain or lose (directly or personally) from the ruling should be judging the case.

The problem is, there are very few asexual people in the world, and fewer still that are entirely indifferent to gay marriage. Anybody you asked to rule on this case would have had something to gain or lose in the decision.

[Soulsearcher]

Nope, just as it isn't hard for a few Baptists I ran into on my mission to not shout out in accusation, "You aren't Christian! You worship a different Christ!" People will say things that hurt out feelings, people won't always accept our life choices. Sometimes you just have to suck things up.

As JAG points out, forcing them to keep their mouths shut (instead them exercising self control) is hard.

The problem: a Minister gets up and decries that homosexuality is against the will of the Lord. Is that disrespectful? Is that mocking? Some say yes and some say no. Which is the problem. If you want the minister to shut-up then yes, you are seeing social acceptance. If all you want is the Skinhead to not follow you down the street and hurl slurs at you (but save them for his weekly Skinhead meeting) then you aren't, that's natural. If you want to "make" people not point out to you that while you may have the law behind you that you lack the Lord, that's also seeking social acceptance. The difference is what you would like people to do versus if you are willing to somehow force society to do what you would like them to do. As I've said, nobody wants people disapproving of their choices in life.

People certainly shouldn't be following you around and hurling slurs at you, just as people shouldn't go around throwing around racial slurs, such behavior is indecent. However do you think legal action is going to make the KKK love Blacks and Jews any time soon? People are jerks, the Baptist doesn't need to insult my religious choices but I'm not gonna clamor in the court to make him shut up and be nice.

It's not that I'm arguing that i want it illegal to voice an opinion or force people to accept things. I wouldn't want to be forced into being a Christian or be bound by their views. That being said, taking measures to limit the amount of mocking isn't social acceptance, it's trying to find peace. I don't mind the Minister in his church preaching. Telling these people it's ok to go out and make life miserable seems to go against the very teachings he's preaching though.

There is a line between what the faiths teach, and how the teachings are followed. Not supporting something isn't the same as tearing people down to prove your point. The tactics everyone decries the "gay agenda" for using are being used by the other side at the same time. There is no perfect fix. I'm trying to explain why some want marriage, so no one can say it's just some silly gov fix that means nothing. I'm not stupid enough to think it will stop anything. There's going to be hate and hurt coming from both sides. I'm ashamed of some of the tactics and things done by my side, i just wonder why there's not the same feeling from the other side a bit more? The people who have the moral high ground don't tend to decry the hateful and unnecessary things said that are said with the intent to cause pain, not just point out a lack in moral judgment. The pro 8 side expected horrible things from the anti 8 side and we gave it to them, but the thing that surprised me was that the side of angels had just as many devils and the good Christians welcomed them into the fight and embraced their words.

Might seem like i got off topic but really it boils down to, we know how you feel, i don't want to change it, but why is there such a focus on me to change. Why is it ok to completely tear apart my life and wonder why i seek a way to limit this? One could say it's only an attack because i perceive it as such, but then that could be said about gays wanting to marry as well. I don't care if you ever accept me as a social normality, my question is where in the scripture it says "mock, belittle and crush the sinner and let them feel my love" Lots of ways ot get the point accross with out using the tactics you hold the other side in contempt for using

[Soulsearcher]

Maybe, I don't know many gay people. But Soul sounds like he isn't and even implies that it is a sentiment held by more than him (he uses the plural but I suppose he doesn't give a good quantitative feel for it). Speaking of obtaining legal equality and then setting the sights higher implies, to me at least, of seeking something above and beyond legal equality.

Honestly Soul's post kinda took me off balance, the position that give us legal equality and we'll go away is an extremely common mantra, at least I've always thought it was. I imagine Soul is more in touch with the pulse of homosexual activism than I am however, so I ran with it.

Problem is Dravin the argument i made was they aren't leaving us alone. they now say it's just a money grab proving we don't love we just are greedy. So even getting the equality we are still a joke and less than other people. Why is it a horrible thing to have people understand that when i say I'm in love It can be just as strong and real as you?

Leave us alone would be just that. Stop with the snide belittling comments. Stop laughing and reminding us we don't count, that we are filthy. So what does left alone mean? You got it and we'll still make you feel like you are worthless so see gays really won?

I really don't get why you see the difference between this. I guess the point I'm trying to get is the LDS Mantra "love the sinner, hate the sin" You don't have to accept the act, but why tear down the people who are trying to just be happy. Why must the lil comments and the greater than thou attitudes all ways be there? No secret we can't change you and i don't want to, so why can't it just be " you know what i don't agree with it, but i'm glad you found a little peace"?

[Dravin]

I'm trying to explain why some want marriage, so no one can say it's just some silly gov fix that means nothing.

Except as I pointed out they still can. See below about your issue not being (in your hypothetical) the law but society not agreeing with your choices.

That being said, taking measures to limit the amount of mocking isn't social acceptance, it's trying to find peace.

Depending on what you mean by measures yes it is. Just like it would be seeking social acceptance from Baptists to make them not call me Unchristian anymore.Your hypothetical is that legal parity has been reached, you are satisfied with the law and yet you are demanding more from society to make them shut up and approve your life decisions, that's seeking social acceptance. Your beef at that point isn't the law but society itself and how it doesn't approve of your choices (And the legal, albiet sometimes rude) expression of this disapproval and thus it ends up being counterproductive to an actual goal of legal parity.

You are talking about changing the law of the land based solely on the fact that some won't keep their mouth shut or accept your union as legitimate. Seeking social acceptance isn't de facto bad or wrong, the LDS Church seeks social acceptance as evidence by many of the advertisments they run, they aren't trying to change the laws of society to make Baptists accept that they are Christian despite demanding all they care about is the legal right to proselyte and be legally recognized as a religion.

Take all the social action you want, run adds, hold Q&A, heck send out door knockers, to try to change societies opinion of you. The Church does it. But talking about you have parity but demanded more so society can't socially denigrate your union (not speaking in a legal degrading of legally granted rights sense) is trying to use legislation to force social acceptance of your life choices. Which understandably is gonna make some people wonder where you are going to draw the line.

I don't care if you ever accept me as a social normality,

Except you do, enough so that you speak of demanding more than legal parity in an effort to have people stop disapproving and discrediting your life choices in a certain manner.

my question is where in the scripture it says "mock, belittle and crush the sinner and let them feel my love"

You'll have to ask that question of someone who feels it is.

Problem is Dravin the argument i made was they aren't leaving us alone. they now say it's just a money grab proving we don't love we just are greedy. So even getting the equality we are still a joke and less than other people. Why is it a horrible thing to have people understand that when i say I'm in love It can be just as strong and real as you?

Being left alone in this context has nothing to do with legal parity but social acceptance. So if you goal in changing a law is to get people to leave you alone by no longer calling your union immoral then your goal is to use legislation in an attempt to promote social acceptance.

I certainly understand the desire to be left alone, to not have people point out their disagreement with your life choices, often in insulting manners (remember the rude Baptists I keep referencing?). I just don't think seeking more than legal parity is going to achieve that and actually is counter productive, particularly because legal parity is not a reality. So you are setting yourself up to be viewed as get an inch take a mile activism and so when you go to take that inch over actual legal parity instead of social acceptance you aren't going to be trusted.

Edit: We are probably talking past each other. I'm not saying you are crazy to want peace and society to shut up about their disapproval of their life choices. I'm just saying that assuming legal parity going for more is a poor tactical choice, and presenting marriage as not a move to legal parity but social acceptance is another poor tactical choice. You'll get far more people who are willing to accept a movement for legal parity than you will social acceptance and the post I originally responded too suggested that is what it is going to become or already is, at least segments of it.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Dravin

[MarginOfError]

Why is it a horrible thing to have people understand that when i say I'm in love It can be just as strong and real as you?

why can't it just be " you know what i don't agree with it, but i'm glad you found a little peace"?

Because people suck. Sorry.

But I'd be happy to hold your hand and sing kumbayah!

_______________

I don't mean to make light of your questions. It's just that the simple answer to your questions really is that people often less than of stellar quality. I really do wish there were a better answer to that.

[CrimsonKairos]

From the stand point that our constitution was set forth to separate church and state and to establish and protect the rights of each individual, I don't have a problem with a gay couple having rights under the law.

Thomas Jefferson coined the "separation of church and state" phrase in a letter to a Baptist group. His point was that the government should not be allowed to show special favors to one religion (no taxes for Mormons) while violating the rights of another religion (double taxes for Catholics).

Separation of church and state has nothing to do with letting religious morals guide our elected representatives or the laws they frame.

There is no such thing as an unbiased, amoral individual. Everyone believes certain things are right or wrong. I believe gay marriage is wrong, gays think my views are wrong. Everyone subscribes to a set of morals no matter what they say, and they want their morals given the effect of law.

Marriage has multiple definitions:

Look through history, cultural tradition and especially the American cultural tradition.

Marriage has only ever been about members of the opposite sex joining together in a legal relationship beyond mere sexual intercourse for the purpose of pooling funds, resources and abilities in the pursuit of having and raising children.

Marriage has nothing to do with love.

Let me repeat, because I get so tired of the mantra, "You can't tell me who to love!"

Marriage has nothing to do with proving whether or not you love someone.

Marriage is about a commitment to stick together and raise children together, even when you can't stand to be in the same room with your spouse because of an argument or something.

Heterosexual people shack up all the time without being married and no one says they don't "love each other."

I simply refuse to let the issue be twisted out of context because marriage is not a right, marriage is not how you prove to the world that you love the one you're with, and not being married does not mean you don't love people in your life.

Let me put it this way: There are plenty of people who don't love each other but are married to each other, and there are plenty of people who love each other who aren't married to each other.

Given that religious practice and religious entities do not own the rights to the definition of marriage they can't dictate what the federal, state and local powers-that-be label the union as.

If they have enough votes, they can define it to mean whatever they want. The fact that one man in CA can erase the will and votes of 7 million Californians is pretty screwed up.

In case people haven't studied U.S. history, this country's organic, founding documents were written by openly Christian or at the least Deist statesmen.

Their assertion that we all have rights is tied inextricably with their belief in a Supreme Being, a "Creator" or our God. That was their claim to fame, as it were. In essence they said, "The King of England may think we get our rights from him, but the source of our rights supercedes even the King...God gives us our rights, and no one is sovereign over God."

If those of a mind to object to the term, marriage being used by gays, I propose it is the religious entity that needs to change...

Not really. Marriage is not just a title or a conceptual relationship. Marriage carries with it certain legal benefits that exist in order to "give couples a break" since most married people are trying to have families and let's face it, kids are expensive (mine is, anyway).

Homosexual relationships are biologically incapable of creating babies without the external intervention of science and technology. Therefore, since marriage is about two people raising kids and the government and society acknowledging that and giving them certain legal benefits to assist them, gays by definition cannot be married and do not need the legal provisions afforded to married couples.

I'm sorry, but adopting a child is a whole world away from bearing a child in your belly for 9 months and then having to recover from either a vaginal or C-section birth. Maternity leave and paternity leave all recognize that fact. What need does an adoptive parent have for maternity/paternity leave?

My parents adopted a girl from Thailand in addition to having four boys so I've seen both sides of the coin, and I say that to forestall needless claims that "I don't know what it's like."

Yes, I do.

Adoption is not the same thing as conceiving and carrying a child.

Yes, it is possible for two lesbians to get artificial insemination and have babies the natural way, but whether or not you believe in a God it is clear that is not the way life was created until the present day and that is why marriage has traditionally been about men and women.

Since two men can't get pregnant (yet, who knows what they will invent), they also do not need the title of "marriage" to define their relationship.

...not demand an entire nation be forced to comply with a religious demand. Is that not what our constitution is to protect us from?

Nope. Study the constitution, and just as importantly, study the writings and thought processes of the constitution's writers to get a glimpse at what they were trying to establish. They came from England where for many years the situation was either "Protestants are evil," or "Catholics are evil" depending on the religion of the monarch at the time.

So the church/state thing was meant to correct that and say, "It doesn't matter whether Mormons or Jehovah's Witnesses control the government. In either case, they should not be able to take the property or lives of others JUST because they belonged to a different religion."

Nowhere did ANY of the founders that I'm aware of, state that they did not want the moral and ethical influence of religious thought to shape and inform the laws of the land.

Quite the opposite. In fact, they never foresaw a time when so-called "amoral, non-religious, non-biased, non-judgmental" individuals would clamor for all of the ancient customs of religion and society to be discarded in an attempt to impose an infantile understanding of absolute, pure and unadulterated "equality" for all.

Just one example. John Adams wrote:

"We have no government armed with power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Avarice, ambition, revenge, or gallantry, would break the strongest cords of our Constitution as a whale goes through a net. Our Constitution was made only for a moral and religious people. It is wholly inadequate to the government of any other." --October 11, 1798

I challenge you to dig through the founders' writings and find one major mover and shaker of the times who did not weave allusions to God and religion into their political thought consistently.

The Constitution is meant to govern a religious and moral people. If you want to eject religious and moral influence, then either move to another country or amend the constitution. Oh wait, they already amended the constitution in CA, but that wasn't good enough, let's overturn it despite the clearly manifested will of the majority.

One does not have to agree with the morality surrounding the choice to act on same sex attraction but as citizens we need to stamp out discrimination wherever it rears it's ugly head.

Not all discrimination has an ugly head; some discrimination is quite beautiful actually. When you are deciding which restaurant to go to, you discriminate based on your personal preferences and/or allergic reactions.

When you decide which car to buy, you discriminate based on your color preference or brand loyalty or safety ratings or whatever.

Thoughtful discrimination is to be sought after and applauded. People who are very selective are said to have "discriminating tastes" whether or not food is involved.

Unfortunately, our culture has been brainwashed by a few atheists-in-civil-rights-champions-clothing who want to eradicate the concept of morality, wise bias and prudent discrimination.

We should seek more discrimination, not less.

The trap you're falling into is believing that the word "discrimination" automatically and solely refers to racism or cruel treatment of others who are different.

That is not the case at all. Discrimination operates in all people's lives.

Our government (however flawed) protects the rights of each and everyone of us. Not just the few we call elect.

Having the ability to do something, and the right to do something, are not the same thing.

The founders of our government had no concept of a God-given right to have children or get married.

If there was a right to get married, then government would be permitted to COMPEL you to marry me if I am unmarried because hey, God meant for everyone to be married whether they want to be or not.

If there was a right to have children, government would similarly be permitted to force you to have intercourse with someone of the opposite sex because childless people are having their God-given rights violated.

Now, there IS a right to life, and government IS permitted to punish and/or execute anyone who violates your right to life in whole or in part.

The issue gets so clouded and confused because people lump God-given rights together with man-made-government-issued "rights" that are nothing more than a preference or expression of "how the world ought to be."

If it is immoral for an individual to do something, it is immoral and improper for government to do that thing.

If we lived in a state of nature without a formal government (think Wild West), do you honestly think God gave you the right to come to my hut and force me to sell my beads to everyone because I'm being mean by not selling beads to our black-skinned neighbor? Further, do you think God meant for you to have the right to take my beads and kick me out of my hut unless I complied with your concept of equality?

No.

Since the adoption of the Constitution, mankind has so busied itself with inventing and legislating new "rights" that the concept of an inalienable right having to come from God is forgotten and inalienable rights can now come from the local legislature.

Back to our Wild West analogy: If I built a bridge over a river on my property and charged people to cross it, maybe I'd charge less for a couple with three kids in tow because I know how hard it is to raise kids. What right would you have to come and put a knife to my throat and say, "You will charge less for everyone whether or not they can have children, or I'll burn your bridge!"

That would infringe my right to private property and liberty, to name a few. It would be wrong and I would be justified in physically repelling and/or killing you if you did not leave me alone.

But it is somehow okay if a "government" does it to me. Government is merely the union of individuals. Yet that is precisely what government is doing. They are telling me that I have to use my tax dollars to offer legal benefits to people who cannot have children together when those benefits were created to ease the burden of people who DO or CAN have children together.

There is no Constitutional right to maternity leave, yet people act like there is.

There is no Constitutional right to child tax credits, yet people act like there is.

So please, let's keep the discussion of gay marriage on track and in the context of what marriage is: a legal union of members of opposite genders for the purpose of pooling their money and resources to aid them in having and raising a family, a legal union that society recognizes carries with it financial burdens that unmarried or childless people do not face.

Edited August 5, 2010 by CrimsonKairos

[Soulsearcher]

Dravin, you said the church wasn't trying to change the law of the land, but they did try to change the law in California, prop 8 was all about changing a law on the books already.

I'm not demanding anything. I am hoping that the people who swear they are acting in Christs name act like it a lil more. The Church fought a battle for what they thought was right, i do not fault them for that, but why is it bad the other side fights back? Has the church never went to court to try and change anything they thought might not be right but society agreed with? Has the Church ever used legal means to try and get something that a majority of society didn't agree with? Sometimes groups try and change how society perceives them. It's not all about changing society, but trying to ease a burden.

If people accepted that civil unions were more than just money grabs then yes a lot of people would be happy to settle for it. Personally I'm happy with it. That being said during a lot of the prop 8 fight the pro side made it very clear that in the end they were worthless as anything more than a contract is the reason people didn't want to just settle for that. So the question becomes why is it a surprise that when you tell a group that all they have means nothing, they might try for more? If you work so hard to make something seem like nothing, why is it shocking people aim for something? When has any group of people in history been happy being told you don't amount to anything, and please don't ever try?

I fear we are both missing the other persons point and i'm not sure how to solve it. I get what you are saying and I'm trying to show i agree but that you are also missing my point. It's not about law or morals or changing everyone to me. It's about trying to find a way that people might show some respect. Like the 11th article of faith, you don't have to agree, but do have to show a certain reasonable amount of respect. Yes i know it applies to faith only, but that's kind of the principal i'm working off. I can't and won't ever change the view of this as a sin, but i don't see why it's a surprise people are looking for a legitimate way to no longer be just a sick joke to people.

As said I know I'm not making my point very well, which is quite frustrating.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Soulsearcher

[CrimsonKairos]

Has the Church ever used legal means to try and get something that a majority of society didn't agree with? Sometimes groups try and change how society perceives them.

I think its apples and oranges. In the case of the LDS church, we were initially involved in so many court cases because the government and local militias were targeting us solely because of our personal beliefs. That's a violation of the "separation of church and state" that so many people cite but so few people understand.

When the majority is violating your God-given right to believe as you wish (not act however you wish), then the minority is obligated to use the law to amend the crisis.

If people accepted that civil unions were more than just money grabs then yes a lot of people would be happy to settle for it.

It's not my job to make people feel all warm and fuzzy about the lifestyle they choose to live.

All lifestyles were NOT created equal.

On the other hand, I don't want to go around making people feel miserable for their choices either. But I certainly can say, "I don't agree with your choices and I don't think the law should be able to force me to financially subsidize a lifestyle I disagree with."

...they were worthless as anything more than a contract is the reason people didn't want to just settle for that.

That's a rather crude way of putting it. Prop. 8 proponents were saying that marriage carries with it legal benefits meant to assist couples in raising children, and that they didn't think those legal benefits should be extended to people who biologically cannot have children together.

If you work so hard to make something seem like nothing, why is it shocking people aim for something?

This was an issue long before anyone had an intelligently articulated stance against gay marriage. The issue is people hate religious folk who think they know what's right, and people hate being judged so much that in revenge they want to use the law to make religious values meaningless.

It's sort of like a kid in a wheelchair popping the tire of another kid's bike just because the wheelchair-bound kid can't ride one. Real mature.

When has any group of people in history been happy being told you don't amount to anything, and please don't ever try?

The law has no duty to make sure everyone feels "happy" and "accepted" by society.

The law is meant to be the absolute least amount of force required to protect our God-given rights to life, liberty, and property chiefly.

It's about trying to find a way that people might show some respect.

I think it's about much, much more than getting respect.

If everyone against gay marriage were to tell gay couples, "I wouldn't choose to live the way you do, but I don't wish you ill and I have no desire to harm you or belittle you," they wouldn't perk up and say, "Well gee, all this time we were just waiting for someone to say that!"

It's more like someone being told the Chevy truck they bought isn't as good as a Dodge truck, and the Chevy owner getting ticked off and asking the city to force the Dodge owner to help pay for his Chevy as an act of retribution and anger.

Like the 11th article of faith, you don't have to agree, but do have to show a certain reasonable amount of respect.

No one is saying, "You have to believe as I do."

What we are saying is, "We think it is wrong for the law to require us to financially support a lifestyle we disagree with."

[Soulsearcher]

This was an issue long before anyone had an intelligently articulated stance against gay marriage. The issue is people hate religious folk who think they know what's right, and people hate being judged so much that in revenge they want to use the law to make religious values meaningless.

So now I hate religious people? I had no clue. Thanks for clearing that up for me, it all makes so much sense now.

[CrimsonKairos]

So now I hate religious people? I had no clue. Thanks for clearing that up for me, it all makes so much sense now.

Goodness, just substitute the words "strongly dislike" in place of "hate".

It was a figure of speech.

Instead of focusing on the diction and syntax, let's deal with the ideas.

[Soulsearcher]

Your theory is still flawed. i don't have a problem with religious people. I do take an issue with people trying to tell me how to live my live. People complain about gays trying to force their view on others, but both sides are equal on this.

[Dravin]

Dravin, you said the church wasn't trying to change the law of the land, but they did try to change the law in California, prop 8 was all about changing a law on the books already.

No I didn't. I said the Church wasn't changing the laws in order to make Baptists accept they are Christian. Please don't straw-man or this is not going to get anywhere. The Church is seeking social and legal nonacceptance of homosexual unions, they admit this up front and I imagine it doesn't exactly fill the homosexual union lobby with trust of their intentions. Now imagine that Church denied this was their goal, do you see this increasing or decreasing the wariness those against them view them with?

The issue is not that you want legal parity, or that you want social acceptance. The issue is it has been claimed that it is the former not the later that is desired (through legal action) and that there is no intention of seeking the later. Large segments of the population are suspicious of this claim.

Sometimes groups try and change how society perceives them. It's not all about changing society, but trying to ease a burden.

Is that burden a legal one? Or a social one? You presuppose legal parity so it's not a legal burden. That means it's a social one. Feel free to embrace it, but accept that fact that you are talking about seeking social acceptance through legal action. The problem is to date that has steadfastly been denied as a goal in an effort to make the platform more palatable. Embrace it and try not to be defended by the triumphant shouts of, "I done told you what they wanted was to make everyone accept them!"

Yes i know it applies to faith only, but that's kind of the principal i'm working off. I can't and won't ever change the view of this as a sin, but i don't see why it's a surprise people are looking for a legitimate way to no longer be just a sick joke to people.

It isn't a surprise. But denying you are seeking social acceptance and only seeking legal parity and then upon reaching that goal doing a 180 does not help you convince people that you have nice stable immutable goals that once reached will end. Just as you want to be accepted people don't like the thought of being forced, particular by the courts, into accepting something they don't want to. It makes a harder fight for you in achieving your goals.

People are worried you want to force them to accept your life style choices, talk such as yours feeds those worries no matter how natural it is to want to be accepted by the society you live in. How many Mormons seeks acceptance as Christian by the Christian groups at large? They spend considerable effort (some more than others) in trying to find that social group's acceptance. So trust me I understand in nature if not degree, it is entirely natural, but let's call a spade a spade shall we?

And let's also face reality, if someone thinks your union is immoral they aren't going to somehow think it is any more morally legitimate because it has the label marriage instead of civil union.

[CrimsonKairos]

People complain about gays trying to force their view on others, but both sides are equal on this.

Incorrect. I don't require that gays believe as I do.

What I require is the ability to live my life without my government taking my money to assist lifestyles I disagree with.

I think you'll agree (but I could be wrong) that gays don't think heterosexuality is "wrong." In fact, they claim over and over that there is no "right or wrong" only "fair treatment for all no matter what."

So if homosexual tax dollars are used in any way to support a heterosexual lifestyle, it's not like they're saying, "But wait, I fundamentally disagree with men and women being married!"

On the other hand, apparently a majority of heterosexuals DO think homosexuality is "wrong" and they ARE saying, "But wait, I fundamentally disagree with men and men or women and women being married!"

So the issue is completely different because one side is coming from a religious tradition of "right and wrong" that is millenia old, and the other side is coming from a "there is no right and wrong" progressive stance decades old.

[Dravin]

Maybe I'm being too verbose:

1. It has long been stated that the Homosexual Lobby (for lack of a better term) is seeking legal parity not social acceptance.

2. Many don't buy that claim, they think the ultimate goal is forced social acceptance.

3. Talking about going beyond legal parity and seeking social acceptance through the court flames (if not outright confirms) the suspicions of those who don't believe it when it is said the goal is simply legal parity.

4. Yes, it is entirely natural to want people to accept your life choices.

5. This doesn't change points 1 through 3 which are primarily my point.

6. Tangent: You can't make people accept your unions are moral or otherwise socially acceptable. The guy who berates your civil union as not being a real marriage in the eyes of God is also gonna berate you that your legal marriage is not a real marriage in the eyes of God.

7. Tangent: Combining 3 + 6 means such is actually counterproductive to achieving legal parity goals; It doesn't give you social acceptance from the guy you are seeking it from and it just makes him fight you all the harder as now he 'knows' your real agenda is the make him accept your life style choices as as valid as his.

8. It appears your primary point is point 4.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Dravin

[Wingnut]

Incorrect. I don't require that gays believe as I do.

That's you personally. That isn't the Christian base. Soulsearcher is right.

[CrimsonKairos]

That's you personally. That isn't the Christian base. Soulsearcher is right.

Even if I agreed that this was true (and I don't) you and others are then basically saying we should not do what we think is right if our behavior is abrasive.

That's like saying, "Well you're being a jerk, so you can't tell me not to speed," with the speed limit being a metaphor for religious beliefs about there being a limit on what marriage should consist of.

I'm not saying gays have no basis for feeling angry and wanting to change things. That's a given.

I AM saying that gays have no basis for claiming there is a right to marriage.

Here is the issue, at its core, and we all need to remember this or we'll just end up in needless fights. By the way, I think that many Christians have no idea why they oppose gay marriages other than that they've been told its wrong and God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. Still, their ignorance does not diminish the correctness of their position, which is:

- By nature, only heterosexual couples are biologically capable of creating children on their own; and,

- Traditionally, across many cultures and continents, marriage is a contractual relationship meant to grant benefits to those who have or may have children, recognizing that children increase a couple's financial and physical burdens; thus,

- Couples that are not biologically capable of creating children on their own cannot enter into a marriage contract or receive the benefits attendant thereto, though they are free to love and live together.

Marriage is not about whether your emotional connection to someone else is valid or not.

[Soulsearcher]

I think i might have found the issue. Define social acceptance. This might be where you and i are not connecting.

My view. In the beginning of this fight, gay people wanted the equal benefits of marriage, truly having no intention of ever trying to seek more. Some places gave full equal benefits, some gave close to equal. There being step one of the problem. Almost equal. Next came a large number of people on the right then flaunting that the civil unions were worthless and meant nothing. So people trying to find not only equal comfort but also comfort were now being very consistently told that all they had was pretty much garbage by society and started wondering what they could ever achieve that might mean something to people. Marriage, a word that society actually values. If these people could be married then maybe while not being accepted by society it might show that they were serious about their devotion to their partners. Here the fights starts. One sides says marriage can only ever be between a man and a woman. the other side says, we'll we have these civil unions but you tell me they are worthless, can we find middle ground. Some on both sides find the middle ground( hey civil unions don't just mean you are a money grubbing pervert, you actually care about this person) , but the extremes on both sides hold on to the grudge. I want what you have so you might see i'm serious about what i say, the other side says I'll never let you have what i have because you can't ever be serious.

To me social acceptance is making people see it as a norm and accepting it as such. I have no delusions that all of society will ever feel this way. Some could over time and we are seeing that. To me this is seeking a chance to prove that hey I might be a dirty sinner, but i am committed to some of the ideals of marriage and this seems to be the only way someone might take me serious. We know secular marriage isn't exactly something to be proud of considering the stats in this country, i mean take a look at the chapels in vegas and our celebrities and see this isn't what you are protecting. The sacred holy unions of the temple or with the respective clergy of peoples faiths are amazing and i for one was iffy on prop 8 because i needed to know that there was no way gay marriage could ever force anything upon these ceremonies. To me there is a huge difference between those ceremonies and the justice of the peace kind, and i know that might lead to more argument, but to me there is a difference. I don't speak for the entire community, i speak for me. This is how I've viewed the argument. To me it's silly telling a couple that knew each other for 20 min in vegas who were too drunk to learn eachothers names, are really so much more worthy of fitting the bill than a couple who has been together for a few years and demonstrated real care for each other, but who are same sex. I guess i don't see this as a matter of forcing anything on anyone, if the law is on the books then it is, i don't have to drink or accept drinking is good, but it's legal. Something being legal doesn't mean we accept it, but it means we aren't fully restricting peoples lives either.

[Soulsearcher]

- Couples that are not biologically capable of creating children on their own cannot enter into a marriage contract or receive the benefits attendant thereto, though they are free to love and live together.

There are hundreds of couples every year that prove this wrong. Many couples either unable ot have kids due to fertility problems or senior couples past childbearing age get married legally every year and get full legal benefits. So how do they do it if by your definition they can not?

[Dravin]

I think i might have found the issue. Define social acceptance. This might be where you and i are not connecting.

To me social acceptance is making people see it as a norm and accepting it as such.

You want society to accept what you are and your choices more than they do now.

Marriage, a word that society actually values.

And why do you want it? Because you crave that society will attach some of that value to you and your relationship. You desire that society will accept it as equal, or equivalent or somehow more equal to a heterosexual marriage than a civil union.

If these people could be married then maybe while not being accepted by society it might show that they were serious about their devotion to their partners.

You want your choices of relationships to be accepted by society (not in a legal sense) as meaningful and valid, you desire that society show acceptance to that choice by respecting it as social parity. To the point where without regard to legal aspects (according to you) the word marriage was sought because if you force them to let you marry they would have to accept your relationships as something equal or at least greater than a civil union. This is not a legal acceptance you are talking about, your hypothetical states that is a non issue, so this isn't about society letting you see your partner in the hospital according to you. This is about society seeing your choice as valid, as equal in importance.

All these aspects you talk about are social aspects, not legal. You want them seen as valid, justified, respected, in short you want society to accept your choices and what you mean when you make those choices as more valid than society accepts them now.

Wanting someone to accept your love of your partner isn't an issue of legal acceptance, it's an issue of social acceptance. You aren't talking about what the law thinks of your relationship, you are talking about what people, what society thinks about your relationship and you (according to how you portray it) sought marriage to change that, not to attempt to change the legal realities but the social.

Edited August 5, 2010 by Dravin

[CrimsonKairos]

Something being legal doesn't mean we accept it, but it means we aren't fully restricting peoples lives either.

Again, the issue is not ethereal, conceptual or hypothetical.

Tax dollars go towards subsidizing the benefits that married couples receive.

If I believe that couples who can't biologically have kids don't require the assistance that marriages have traditionally conferred, I shouldn't have to pay to support their relationships.

It's a tangible, concrete and financial issue and nothing gets people angrier than the government taking their hard earned money away.

Paying the troops? Sure, I could use the money but we need an army so take some taxes from me to finance a defense force.

Easing the financial burdens of George and John? Sorry, that's not something I'd support or pay for.

And that is the issue.

Many couples either unable ot [sic] have kids due to fertility problems or senior couples past childbearing age get married legally every year and get full legal benefits. So how do they do it if by your definition they can not?

That's a bit confusing but I think what you're saying is, "If I claim that marriage is about children, and if a heterosexual couple cannot or will not have children, then not all heterosexuals should be able to get married, or the definition of marriage should be changed."

Your examples would require Big, Big Brother in order to perfectly fulfill the spirit of the law (of marriage). If a couple could only get married if they COULD have kids and WERE going to have kids, how would you determine that?

Medical exams confirming all the plumbing works?

Psychoanalysis confirming their desire to have kids after they're married?

Lie-detection to confirm the above confirmation?

Regular check-ups to continually assure society that children are on their way or are at least planned soon?

What I said is that traditionally marriage is about giving assistance to those who can or do have children.

How are we to determine 100% that a couple who decides not to have children will not change their minds one year in the future? The questions go on and on.

What is not debatable is that traditionally (read: before modern scientific advances) men with men could not conceive children, and women with women could not conceive children.

That is why marriage is traditionally between men and women, because there's no way to guarantee they WILL have children, but it is at least POSSIBLE biologically for them to conceive children which would then entail the financial and other hardships that raising children gives rise to.

The issue is: Will the traditional purpose of marriage remain, or should scientific advances change a millenia-old purpose and role?

And 7 million people in California said no, science will not change the traditional role and purpose of marriage.

[Soulsearcher]

I'm not demanding anything, hoping and wishing yes. Not sure why seeking a lil respect and understanding is bad. And as i said this is how i see the issue, but not my way of thinking. I'm fine with civil unions because i know people will always be human. I'm sure there's more to it for the people really fighting it hard. I know there's a lot of facts i don't have. Again Having the law on the books doesn't change society in the least, it opens a door, what some people get out of it i don't know. i know for me personally it would be about equal parts benefits and having something some people in society would now see as a real relationship. Not all society, not even the majority, but some people. My personal feelings can't be seen as the entire gay lobby, lol i'm still one of the closeted self hating ones who is too scared to go on a date cause i'll get beaten. Marriage is a long way off for me, doesn't mean i haven't formed personal opinions on it. My view is it's a mix of legal, social and respect. as for the lobby, i can't speak for them.

I also see a line between someone accepting me and someone showing me respect. I'm not looking for acceptance, i am however looking for simple respect. Can we agree you can respect someone with out accepting all they are?

Edited August 5, 2010 by Soulsearcher

[Soulsearcher]

Again, the issue is not ethereal, conceptual or hypothetical.

Tax dollars go towards subsidizing the benefits that married couples receive.

If I believe that couples who can't biologically have kids don't require the assistance that marriages have traditionally conferred, I shouldn't have to pay to support their relationships.

It's a tangible, concrete and financial issue and nothing gets people angrier than the government taking their hard earned money away.

Paying the troops? Sure, I could use the money but we need an army so take some taxes from me to finance a defense force.

Easing the financial burdens of George and John? Sorry, that's not something I'd support or pay for.

And that is the issue.

That's a bit confusing but I think what you're saying is, "If I claim that marriage is about children, and if a heterosexual couple cannot or will not have children, then not all heterosexuals should be able to get married, or the definition of marriage should be changed."

Your examples would require Big, Big Brother in order to perfectly fulfill the spirit of the law (of marriage). If a couple could only get married if they COULD have kids and WERE going to have kids, how would you determine that?

Medical exams confirming all the plumbing works?

Psychoanalysis confirming their desire to have kids after they're married?

Lie-detection to confirm the above confirmation?

Regular check-ups to continually assure society that children are on their way or are at least planned soon?

What I said is that traditionally marriage is about giving assistance to those who can or do have children.

How are we to determine 100% that a couple who decides not to have children will not change their minds one year in the future? The questions go on and on.

What is not debatable is that traditionally (read: before modern scientific advances) men with men could not conceive children, and women with women could not conceive children.

That is why marriage is traditionally between men and women, because there's no way to guarantee they WILL have children, but it is at least POSSIBLE biologically for them to conceive children which would then entail the financial and other hardships that raising children gives rise to.

The issue is: Will the traditional purpose of marriage remain, or should scientific advances change a millenia-old purpose and role?

And 7 million people in California said no, science will not change the traditional role and purpose of marriage.

Your exact quote was......

- Couples that are not biologically capable of creating children on their own cannot enter into a marriage contract or receive the benefits attendant thereto, though they are free to love and live together.

So with out you clarifying before hand and by making it a statement that was absolute, no couple that can not have children can be considered for marriage. You made the statement. you've just eliminated marriage for seniors and non-fertile couples. Most seniors know they are past child bearing years(females at least) and there are a number of people who know they can't have kids before they are married, so being both of those examples are 100% sure they can not produce off spring, by your rule they can not have a marriage. Let's see what other rules we can set up.