Prop 8

[Janenmori]

Marriage can be viewed as a union in the eyes of the state or in the eyes of a church. It depends which definition you want to use. There is no rot in freedom. They have the same rights. They want MORE rights. They have a right to marry a woman if they are a man and to marry a man if they are a woman.

Religious beliefs have nothing to do with my stance on homosexual marriage. My greatest problem with the whole thing is the thought of "a plug + a plug =/= electricity". Must we as humans go so far as to defy nature that we create laws that enable its antithesis?

@ 2nd post: Define love and how you can tell that someone feels it and then you will have an argument. Look at what works naturally.

 

[Naxte]

How can you claim that banning homosexual marriage is discriminatory?

Because heterosexuals, being heterosexual, are allowed to marry who they want, but homosexuals. cannot

Whether marriage is a fundamental right or not doesn't affect this issue one bit. This is changing the definition of marriage, not who can marry. Whether homosexual marriages are legal or not legal it is still marriage that anyone can utilize.

Yes, but such marriage is useless to homosexuals, as they cannot marry who they want. They are not heterosexual, so they are uninterested in marrying the opposite gender; they want to marry someone of the same gender and there's no reason why they shouldn't be able to.

And it being a fundamental right does affect this, as it then would be unconstitutional not to extend the rights of marriage to homosexuals, due to the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection clause.

Pretty much, see Loving v. Virgina:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v_virginia#Decision

Due to the 14th Amendment, the Supreme Court found laws banning interracial marriages to be unconstitutional. "Everyone has the same right: to marry someone of the same race; wanting to marry between races is just asking for special rights" didn't cut it for the court; they found that people should be able to marry who they want, regardless of their race, due to the 14th Amendment.

With that as precedent, "everyone has the same right: to marry someone of the opposite gender; wanting to marry the same gender is just homosexuals asking for special rights" also wouldn't cut it. Homosexual marriage would also be protected under the 14th Amendment and thus laws prohibiting it are unconstitutional, under the same basis.

Both sides need to accept that this law isn't discriminatory and stop arguing about taking away or giving rights to homosexuals. It's about a law that would specifically cater to homosexuals.

No. It's about extending the same rights that heterosexuals have to homosexuals. There's no catering to homosexuals or special rights being given to them or anything; just the same rights as heterosexuals: To marry people of the gender that they want.

 

[gorm]

I don't really see why people are calling something allowing homosexual marriage "catering to homosexuals". It's not, it's catering to two people in love who want to live together for the rest of their life.

as far as the nomenclature "belonging" to religion, who really gives a fuck? it's a word. if you want to call it a christian marriage that's fine, i don't see a reason to prevent calling a homosexual civil union a marriage.

My greatest problem with the whole thing is the thought of "a plug + a plug =/= electricity".

your definition of marriage means that people have to have biologically compatible parts in order to fall and love and qualify for the benefits of a civil union?

Must we as humans go so far as to defy nature that we create laws that enable its antithesis?

calling homosexuality the antithesis of nature is pretty much stupid as homosexuality has been observed to emerge in many animal populations over the course of time. calling it "not natural" just because it doesn't produce offspring is not really a rational view.

falling in love is not natural?

this is about human love, not what is apparently natural to those who choose to reduce the meaning of marraige to "having children"

 

[Luduan]

Marriage can be viewed as a union in the eyes of the state or in the eyes of a church. It depends which definition you want to use. There is no rot in freedom. They have the same rights. They want MORE rights. They have a right to marry a woman if they are a man and to marry a man if they are a woman.

Religious beliefs have nothing to do with my stance on homosexual marriage. My greatest problem with the whole thing is the thought of "a plug + a plug =/= electricity". Must we as humans go so far as to defy nature that we create laws that enable its antithesis?

@ 2nd post: Define love and how you can tell that someone feels it and then you will have an argument. Look at what works naturally.

By this logic, interracial marriage should be banned still. After all, everyone was allowed to marry others in their own race. Why go about redefining marriage? Why let something as trivial as who the person loves get in the way?

What do you mean "what works naturally"? Homosexuality is extremely common in nature.

 

[Janenmori]

I thought it was about "taking away a fundamental right" not feelings. If there was a way to make everyone happy this country would have an anarchy style government even if anarchy means no government, you get my point. There are laws for a reason. We cannot base them on feelings that a minority has that go against what is biologically natural. Would any person conciously choose to be homosexual? Do homosexuals WANT to be homosexual?

@ Luduan: Homosexuality is not a RACE. How can you compare the two?

 

[tea_and_blues]

Religious beliefs have nothing to do with my stance on homosexual marriage. My greatest problem with the whole thing is the thought of "a plug + a plug =/= electricity". Must we as humans go so far as to defy nature that we create laws that enable its antithesis?

That sounds like it has everything to do with your religious beliefs. Your concept of what is 'natural' is obviously Christian, and not scientific, because you are committing what is known as a naturalistic fallacy: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Naturalistic_fallacy

There is no known "natural" prescription against homosexuality, in fact there are quite a few theories about how useful it could be insofar as kin selection goes. In short: It may be that while homosexuality is not highly advantageous to individuals' reproducing, it is instead advantageous to populations of social animals because it provides them with more fully functional adults that are less burdened by raising young. A predisposition towards gayness we be preserved not through gays passing on their genes, but through the brothers and sisters of gays passing on those genes.

It is just one of hundreds of competing theories, of course. But it is a popular and compelling one in science circles.

Of course, it seems you're a Theistic Dualist, so we will get nowhere, because you already believe that you know and understand The Very Foundations of the Universe! (Hey they should give you a PhD, eh?)

 

[IcyMan28]

This doesn't concern me too much. As far as I'm concerned, if you aren't gay, then you don't have any reason to care about it. Don't impose your religious beliefs on others when it doesn't directly affect you.

 

[gorm]

I thought it was about "taking away a fundamental right" not feelings. If there was a way to make everyone happy this country would have an anarchy style government even if anarchy means no government, you get my point. There are laws for a reason. We cannot base them on feelings that a minority has that go against what is biologically natural.

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. These three aspects are listed among the "inalienable rights" of man. I'd say marrying the person you love falls under the last one. don't use stupid arguments like "base laws on feelings" and discredit a homosexual person's love for another one.

Would any person conciously choose to be homosexual? Do homosexuals WANT to be homosexual?

i dont really see how this helps your case

@ Luduan: Homosexuality is not a RACE. How can you compare the two?

both are inherent traits of a person that they cannot change

As far as I'm concerned, if you aren't gay, then you don't have any reason to care about it.

that's pretty cold of you, you're pretty much saying it's ok not to care if people different than you are being treated badly because they are different?

 

[Luduan]

I thought it was about "taking away a fundamental right" not feelings. If there was a way to make everyone happy this country would have an anarchy style government even if anarchy means no government, you get my point. There are laws for a reason. We cannot base them on feelings that a minority has that go against what is biologically natural. Would any person conciously choose to be homosexual? Do homosexuals WANT to be homosexual?

@ Luduan: Homosexuality is not a RACE. How can you compare the two?

I can easily compare the two. Both groups were/are not allowed to marry based on foolish prejudices.

 

[IcyMan28]

that's pretty cold of you, you're pretty much saying it's ok not to care if people different than you are being treated badly because they are different?

You misunderstood me. I meant that if you aren't gay, you yourself shouldn't be so mean and vote against other people's happiness, especially when it doesn't impact you.

 

[gorm]

yes but icyman gay people marrying threatens the definition of marriages and teaches kids that it's ok to be gay we can't have that

edit: i guess you didn't not the sarcasm

 

[IcyMan28]

yes but icyman gay people marrying threatens the definition of marriages and teaches kids that it's ok to be gay we can't have that!

I never said that I was for it. Those of particular religions cannot have that; there are those to whom the issue is actually a non-issue.

IMO, this goes straight to the issue of the separation of church and state. If religion didn't exist, this probably wouldn't be the big issue that everyone makes it out to be. I'm against homosexuality, but that doesn't mean that I must impose my beliefs on other people.

As far as kids go, they already know more than we think. If they want to be gay, they WILL be gay.

 

[Janenmori]

"Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness " is one of the most famous phrases in the United States Declaration of Independence. These three aspects are listed among the "inalienable rights" of man.

Yes I know the inalienable rights of man. But when Thomas Jefferson was considering the works of John Locke and Voltaire and how they applied to the dreams of white voting males at the time I am fairly certain that he was not considering homosexual marriage to be an interpretation of them.

both are inherent traits of a person that they cannot change

So you are saying that if we grouped all the people who were allergic to let's say, onions, that we could form a race of onion-allergics?

The theory of Natural Selection also suggests that in nature homosexuals would not have the capability to pass down their genes and therefore their line would die out, along with their genome allowing a more adapted creature to take their stead and move forward with evolution. How then does homosexuality even exist? Is it a random mutation in a reasonable amount of the population? Or could it possibly be a psychological development issue? Who knows.

I do not even know why I am arguing about this. I will not change your stance or any one else's stance and you will not change my own. There will be an ongoing struggle to ban and un-ban these civil unions or marriages or whathaveyou until science has developed to a point that we can identify the source of sexuality and it can be prevented or remedied or whatever. And still people will allow their children to be homosexual because they do not want to change "who they are". Anyways I am rambling. I am done with this whole argument. There is nothing to ultimately be achieved. It is almost like emotion vs. rationality. There is no solution but perhaps a compromise. Oh well.

 

[tea_and_blues]

The theory of Natural Selection also suggests that in nature homosexuals would not have the capability to pass down their genes and therefore their line would die out, along with their genome allowing a more adapted creature to take their stead and move forward with evolution. How then does homosexuality even exist? Is it a random mutation in a reasonable amount of the population? Or could it possibly be a psychological development issue? Who knows.

You didn't read my post, and you have an extremely poor understanding of biology if you refer to evolution as moving forward (implying, therefore, that it has an aim). I'm not really sure where to start. Scientific consensus is pretty clear that homosexuality has a genetic component and that it is a harmless trait, although a few very vocal quacks would dispute that.

 

[gorm]

But when Thomas Jefferson was considering the works of John Locke and Voltaire and how they applied to the dreams of white voting males at the time I am fairly certain that he was not considering homosexual marriage to be an interpretation of them.

So we should operate based on what you assume they were thinking when they wrote those words? I'd rather operate based on the actual message, which you don't really have any argument against apart from "yeah but i think he was thinking of other stuff when he wrote that"

So you are saying that if we grouped all the people who were allergic to let's say, onions, that we could form a race of onion-allergics?

actually if you re read my sentence you'll see that i didn't mention the word race at all, but yeah that's about right. people allergic to onions don't really have a choice in the matter. "onion allergic people have the same rights as us: the right to eat food with onions. if we made a law letting them eat meals that don't have onions, then we're just catering to a minority"

I will not change your stance or any one else's stance and you will not change my own.

then either someone isn't trying enough to convince or someone isn't trying hard enough to listen. probably both.

The theory of Natural Selection also suggests that in nature homosexuals would not have the capability to pass down their genes and therefore their line would die out, along with their genome allowing a more adapted creature to take their stead and move forward with evolution.

i have terrible news for you. natural selection doesn't apply to the human race, or at least not in the way you are talking about it. visit a hospital if you want an example of this. using natural selection in a sociological argument is completely ignorant

How then does homosexuality even exist? Is it a random mutation in a reasonable amount of the population? Or could it possibly be a psychological development issue? Who knows.

I'm not sure why you bother with these rhetorics. I don't know why it exists either but it does. If it doesn't perform a biological function, who cares? neither to male nipples really. The point is they are here and it's just as stupid to trivialize homosexuality based on natural selection as it is to suggest killing everyone with downs syndrome based on natural selection.

people are people. there's really no reason to respect their legitimate desires.

 

[Janenmori]

So we should operate based on what you assume they were thinking when they wrote those words? I'd rather operate based on the actual message, which you don't really have any argument against apart from "yeah but i think he was thinking of other stuff when he wrote that"

But that is what you are saying by using it to defend homosexualty with it, is it not? You are subjecting it to your personal opinions and perogatives just as I did to contradict homosexuality. This is pointless.

 

[tea_and_blues]

Are you ignoring my posts, Janenmori?

Also, what on Earth do you mean by 'contradicting homosexuality'. You've done no such thing so far, and it really does not make any sense as a phrase. Are you using the wrong word? Oh, unless you're using an archaic meaning of 'contradict' - to mean 'oppose' - that is possible, and it would make sense then, but it is not the way that we use that word anymore.

 

[gorm]

But that is what you are saying by using it to defend homosexualty with it, is it not? You are subjecting it to your personal opinions and perogatives just as I did to contradict homosexuality. This is pointless.

actually i'm reading the sentence explicitely. also what do you mean defending homosexuality? homosexuality doesnt need defending. what exactly are my personal opinions/biases here? I'm pretty sure all ive said is that if you're in love with someone, you have the right to have that love validated, along with the state related benefits that others get. as far as i can see the only arguement against this is that you can't see an explicit biological function that this union of 2 gay people would support, and in case you haven't noticed the world doesn't exactly need procreation.

either way you're completely the actual issues here, namely that you are convinced that humanity should operate on the same basis as electrical fixtures

 

[Janenmori]

neither to male nipples really

Male nipples are actually formed in a stage of development of the fetus before the prominent sexual reproductive features have fully developed. We know why they are there even if they do not serve a reproductive purpose. We do NOT know why homosexuals are here even if they do not serve reproductive purpose. Two different comparisons, gorm.

 

[Luduan]

Male nipples are vestigial structures (like the appendix, etc.), so that doesn't really have anything to do with this issue. At any rate, homosexual behavior is not necessarily bad in evolutionary terms; around 10-20% of animals in nearly 1500 species have been observed engaging in homosexual behavior. Some of these have sex with females to reproduce yet form homosexual bonds throughout the rest of the year. Besides, reproduction is not an issue in human populations; we are currently facing an extreme problem of overpopulation -- if anything, homosexuality is beneficial for future human existence.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

We do NOT know why homosexuals are here even if they do not serve reproductive purpose.

What do you mean we don't know why they are here? Homosexuals are PEOPLE.

"I don't understand something, therefore I never want to coexist with it" is a pretty terrible way to live your life. This post of yours basically defines "ignorance".

The theory of Natural Selection also suggests that in nature homosexuals would not have the capability to pass down their genes and therefore their line would die out, along with their genome allowing a more adapted creature to take their stead and move forward with evolution. How then does homosexuality even exist? Is it a random mutation in a reasonable amount of the population? Or could it possibly be a psychological development issue? Who knows.

The exchange over the last half page has been embarassing and shouldn't have happened if you guys had actually read the thread, so I'll just address this last "point" you made.

If you are seriously suggesting that we follow natural selection when trying to decide whether or not homosexuals can get the priveleges guaranteed to them by the 14th amendment's equal protection clause, then you should have been thought about stepping out of this argument before you posted.

Heterosexual marriages are allowed to occur whether or not the couple is allowed to procreate or chooses to procreate, so obviously "natural selection" was not on the minds of those people who made marriage laws.

 

[Janenmori]

'contradicting homosexuality'

Just bad wording on my part is all haha. I meant homosexual rights.

And no I am not ignoring you, you just have me pegged as someone who bases everything on religious views. (I do not even know what religion I am all I know is that there is a God as far as I am concerned. More Deist than anything.) So I find that it would warrant no purpose to argue with you because you will not find any viability in my arguments that are based on my views and opinions.

 

[tea_and_blues]

And no I am not ignoring you, you just have me pegged as someone who bases everything on religious views. (I do not even know what religion I am all I know is that there is a God as far as I am concerned. More Deist than anything.) So I find that it would warrant no purpose to argue with you because you will not find any viability in my arguments that are based on my views and opinions.

Apologies. I only have you 'pegged' as such because you have made extremely religious claims about "nature". Nature is not prescriptive, it is merely something that we can describe. It is only if you believe there is some sort of magical guiding force (like a god) that you can start prescribing behaviour based on nature (or a distortion thereof).

The fundamental problem we have, in arguing with each other, is that you're not a materialist, so any material observations about the world (eg. science) mean nothing of any very serious import to you. You can, in theory, pick and choose what you want to keep from any observations we make about reality, and replace all the gaps (such as the question of whether homosexuality is acceptable or not) with a prescription from your deity/force/thing.

Male nipples are actually formed in a stage of development of the fetus before the prominent sexual reproductive features have fully developed. We know why they are there even if they do not serve a reproductive purpose. We do NOT know why homosexuals are here even if they do not serve reproductive purpose. Two different comparisons, gorm.

You don't know, because you refuse to take an interest today's science, clearly. I recounted earlier one of many, many, many valid theories. I repeat:

"[...]there are quite a few theories about how useful it could be insofar as kin selection goes. In short: It may be that while homosexuality is not highly advantageous to individuals' reproducing, it is instead advantageous to populations of social animals because it provides them with more fully functional adults that are less burdened by raising young. A predisposition towards gayness would be preserved not through gays passing on their genes, but through the brothers and sisters of gays passing on those genes."

 

[guoguo]

Yes I know the inalienable rights of man. But when Thomas Jefferson was considering the works of John Locke and Voltaire and how they applied to the dreams of white voting males at the time I am fairly certain that he was not considering homosexual marriage to be an interpretation of them.

By your interpretation of the inalienable rights, the phrase would not apply African-American slaves or women. Yet, as you can see, society has progressed so that they are included as well. Was he not considering these people or perhaps he purposely exclude them? Either way, these people have rights and equal protection under the law. Whether Thomas Jefferson intended to give these people rights or not is not an argument.

 

[Danigi]

Religious beliefs have nothing to do with my stance on homosexual marriage. My greatest problem with the whole thing is the thought of "a plug + a plug =/= electricity". Must we as humans go so far as to defy nature that we create laws that enable its antithesis?

Honestly, humans don't have a very good track record with going along with nature.

Considering that the the very nature of this communication is over something that probably could be considered to not exactly line up with what nature intended, it's a bit short sighted to believe we should not do something because it isn't in nature.

Of course that is rather irrelevant, given that homosexuality IS found in nature a lot more than one would realize.

And honestly? I could not care less what Thomas Jefferson would think about homosexuality when he penned those words. Old Tom didn't exactly have a pristine record when it came to maintaining the sanctity of marriage. When you add in that he wrote it a couple of centuries ago, and that Jefferson, being a human, may have been wrong in his beliefs, I don't see much point in thinking about that topic too seriously.