CA Supreme Court overturns gay marriage ban.

[Robor]

Still waiting for your justification of equal marriage rights for gays, Corbett.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Robor
Still waiting for your justification of equal marriage rights for gays, Corbett.

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Corbett
Craig, it seems you are having a hard time following this thread. You see, it started out with Tab claiming homosexuality was illegal some time ago and asking me if I would vote to keep homosexuality illegal. My answer, of course, was no. I asked him to post proof of homosexuality being illegal and he did not. Instead, you came along and posted a law on sodomy being illegal.

What you are failing to understand is that sodomy does not equal homosexuality. And though homosexuals take part in sodomy, so can heterosexuals. You see, SODOMY DOES NOT EQUAL HOMOSEXUALITY.

*The OP is about gay marriage. How about answering that question I asked earlier?

You must have missed it

Originally posted by: Corbett
Because homosexual sex to me is a sin. And even though I believe it is a sin, I dont believe people here on earth should be punished for such a sin as to throw them in jail for it. What they do in the privacy of their own home (in this case) is their own business. I dont support banging down peoples doors to see if they are partaking in homosexual sex, and then throwing them in jail because of it. In this day and age, that is just a preposterous idea and we all know that.

But when you talk about making that homosexual relationship equal to that of a traditional heterosexual relationship, that is where I draw the line. I believe homosexual marriages are not warranted by God. Much like homosexuality isn't either. The difference is, I dont believe in punishing people for being homsexuals, I just dont believe the should have the same priviledges pertaining to marriage that heterosexuals have.

Promoting and allowing are two very different things. I believe voting for anything is to promote it, like voting for homosexual marriages, or voting to ban homosexuality all together. Either of those would be promoting it if you voted for it. However, I dont believe my positon of "allowing" privacy in ones bedroom is contradicatory in any way.

 

[Robor]

Originally posted by: Corbett

Originally posted by: Robor
Still waiting for your justification of equal marriage rights for gays, Corbett.

Originally posted by: Robor

Originally posted by: Corbett
Craig, it seems you are having a hard time following this thread. You see, it started out with Tab claiming homosexuality was illegal some time ago and asking me if I would vote to keep homosexuality illegal. My answer, of course, was no. I asked him to post proof of homosexuality being illegal and he did not. Instead, you came along and posted a law on sodomy being illegal.

What you are failing to understand is that sodomy does not equal homosexuality. And though homosexuals take part in sodomy, so can heterosexuals. You see, SODOMY DOES NOT EQUAL HOMOSEXUALITY.

*The OP is about gay marriage. How about answering that question I asked earlier?

You must have missed it

Originally posted by: Corbett
Because homosexual sex to me is a sin. And even though I believe it is a sin, I dont believe people here on earth should be punished for such a sin as to throw them in jail for it. What they do in the privacy of their own home (in this case) is their own business. I dont support banging down peoples doors to see if they are partaking in homosexual sex, and then throwing them in jail because of it. In this day and age, that is just a preposterous idea and we all know that.

But when you talk about making that homosexual relationship equal to that of a traditional heterosexual relationship, that is where I draw the line. I believe homosexual marriages are not warranted by God. Much like homosexuality isn't either. The difference is, I dont believe in punishing people for being homsexuals, I just dont believe the should have the same priviledges pertaining to marriage that heterosexuals have.

Promoting and allowing are two very different things. I believe voting for anything is to promote it, like voting for homosexual marriages, or voting to ban homosexuality all together. Either of those would be promoting it if you voted for it. However, I dont believe my positon of "allowing" privacy in ones bedroom is contradicatory in any way.

That is your opinion and while I don't agree with it that is your right. However, this is US law we are talking about. Where is the separation of church and state when biblical beliefs are used to discriminate against homosexuals? It's things like this that scare me about McCain and his promise to nominate 'conservative' supreme court judges.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

So does it follow that AIDS transmission, then, is not destructive to society?

I'm not following you.

Agh. What's the point. Brain is tired.

Atreus, your post reflects an outstanding example of bigotry in your logic.

You said that if gays have a hgiher rate of divorce, it shows they don't want monogamy.

Now, the error in your statement is easy to see. Conisder "if blacks show a higher rate of divorce, it shows they don't want monogamy". Oh, now it's suddenly clear it's silly.

Try other groups. Divide couple into any two groups that have different societal factors, and you are likely to see one group with a higher rate than the other. Same logic.

What's interesting is why you made the error. It's because you started out with a predisposition to say that gays are not 'legitimate' couples, and you grabbed on to the nearest bright shiny object and called it proof of your point. Oh, a higher divorce rate! Suddenly, gays don't even have the SAME DAMN MOTIVE for marrying, and so giving them marital rights would be just silly, pretending erroneously that they're the same kind of human beings as non-gays.

Point made?

Buth then you move into the even more baseless and offensive - what the hell does AIDS have to do with the right to marry? AIDS is nothing more than a disease that's more easily transmitted by homosexual sex than heterosexual sex. That's it - no larger point to the issue of gays having the right to marry. Even the fact that gay marriage REDUCES gay promiscuity and therefore the spread of AIDS is not the reason for gay marriage, it's just a coincidental side benefit. The reason is because it's unjustified bigotry.

But then again, unjustified bigotry is the reason for your opinion, so you might not find that a problem.

The entirety of the AIDS discussion came to the surface with a previous argument earlier in this thread between Eskimo and I.

I asked why polygamy was illegal. He responded that the government outlaws it because it's damaging to society, in that polygamous relationships are synonymous with sexual molestation, rape, and extreme male domination. I concede that.

But I do ask that we apply that premise uniformly. If the government has the right to outlaw something because it's damaging to society, one would think that homosexual activity, with an alarming tendency to spread HIV or other terminal STDs, would also fall under the governments capacity to outlaw.

The answer, of course, is that the government isn't supposed to discriminate based on statistics. Just because homosexual activity is conducive to the spread of AIDS doesn't mean you will catch AIDS if you engage in it.

So then, if the government is outlawing polygamy by an argument based on a flawed premise, why do we support them in outlawing marriage of more than two, if we don't support them in outlawing marriage between two of the same sex? Why do we judge polygamous marriages by different standards?

By the way, before you start throwing the word bigotry around, consider the fact that if you're intolerant of bigotry, you're bigoted.

Actually, after I read further, I recognized the context of your remarks was a response to his polygamy argument on abuse, and that changes things. Your point is accepted.

I could say I think Eskimospy is on weak ground with this polygamy/abuse argument, but he himself already acknowledges that pretty much, he was looking for some analogy.

I think the discussion would be well-served to choose another analogy.

Regarding your last point, I see benefit to distinguishing between discrimination that's justified, and discrimination based on bigotry.

My views on gay issues as a child were based on bigotry. I didn't know it at the time, but they were. My views on some issues still are, unfortunately, possibly including polygamy.

That's the function as I see it of discusing discrimination, to try to help get past what's justified and what's not. Gay marriage is a great case where there are several justifications offered up by opponents that just don't stand up to scrutiny, revealing that their real motivation is a pre-disposition against it for bigotry, and their 'reasons' are sought after the fact to defend the bigotry.

To pick one of the clearer examples, many opponents cite 'gays can't have children, and marriage is all about children, so that excludes gays from marriage'. It's convenient that they say this before thinking much, because that gives you the chance to raise the examples of elder and infertile couples marrying, which they don't object to, and which clearly show that marriage isn't just about kids - the topic of adoption and artifical insemination not even yet raised.

It utterly destroys their 'argument' about children and leaves them pretty defenseless on the issue. That's the point at which they should recognize they must have some other predisposition why they are so against gay marriage, to latch on to such an invalid argument, but sadly most seem to just race to the next argument looking to justify their position, rather than to notice why they are so determined to have that position.

You say that opposing bigots is a form of bigotry. Using my definitions, I'd say that I acknowledge it's a form of discrimination, but I think it's justified.

I appreciate your honesty.

Throughout this debate, the point I've been hinting at is this: I think people believe things like polygamy and child labor and things like that are wrong, and have no reasons for believing so other than, "It's just wrong." It's based on a principle. Yet, if you asked me to tell you exactly why child labor is wrong, I don't think I could explain it except to say it's just a horrible idea.

All I ask is that people acknowledge that it's very difficult to prove why any activity is wrong, or any objective truth, and very easy to prove that someone is being treated unequally.

It's easy to know something's wrong. It might be impossible to prove it.

 

[Corbett]

Originally posted by: Robor
That is your opinion and while I don't agree with it that is your right. However, this is US law we are talking about. Where is the separation of church and state when biblical beliefs are used to discriminate against homosexuals? It's things like this that scare me about McCain and his promise to nominate 'conservative' supreme court judges.

I dont believe this has anything to do with seperation of Church and State. All people are guided by their beliefs. Some get it from inspirational books, others get is from the Bible.

 

[Craig234]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I appreciate your honesty.

Hopefully, there's no need to say thanks for that I appreciate your posts' qualities as well.

Throughout this debate, the point I've been hinting at is this: I think people believe things like polygamy and child labor and things like that are wrong, and have no reasons for believing so other than, "It's just wrong." It's based on a principle. Yet, if you asked me to tell you exactly why child labor is wrong, I don't think I could explain it except to say it's just a horrible idea.

All I ask is that people acknowledge that it's very difficult to prove why any activity is wrong, or any objective truth, and very easy to prove that someone is being treated unequally.

It's easy to know something's wrong. It might be impossible to prove it.

Well, you're absolutely right and make an important point when you say that what's 'right and wrong' is something largely determined in people's opinions by many things, that it's not as if we're proving math here when dealing with political issues. The problem is, I'd take your statement about just knowing it's wrong a step further and say that sometimes, perhaps many times, people just know something is wrong that isn't wrong, e.g., inter-racial marriage.

You ask for acknowledgment it's difficult to 'prove' why any activity is wrong, and I am glad to give it to you.

For what it's worth, the fallacy I often think I see from lawyers is a keen analysis put to ensuring that an issue meets some level of a concept or of consistency with other things, but it's an entirely different matter to step back and ask the larger societal questions. I think a blind spot in our civilization's admiration of 'enlightened reason' is just how hard it is for people and therefore societies to change a lot of entrenched views. It does seem it can take years, decades, if not centuries, not just a quick 'rational discussion'.

This is why it's fascinating to lay out the spectrum of slavery (we 'know' it's wrong) to racism ('dark gray, it's wrong, but what are you referring to specifically?'), to inter-racial marriage ('it should be legal, but I understand some people just aren't comfortable'), to gay marriage (cutting edge, but clear when you rationally apply equal protection), to polygamy (are we ready yet for the idea?), and you can gain a much better understanding of the way humans deal with these issues when you recognize how much they all have in common.

I don't mean the issues themselves, but how many people have phases of reaction common to reacting to each of those issues. It really helps illustrate other divisions and bigotry. We expect the Israelis and Palestinians to get along with all their differences, when our own culture has preachers blaming hurricanes on gay parades with far less actual reason for conflict?

I recall seeing a quote that caught my eye from a JFK press conference, where he was asked whether the rate at which the nation was changing on race issues was satisfactory, and his answer revealed that he very much saw the issue in terms of the rate at which the nation can accept change, and felt it was acceptable. My first reaction was, what's this about rate of change, you just lay out the right position, and that's that. But that was naive.

I think we can improve our ability to help bigots, and I include myself, to recognize their own bigotry and reduce it. Unfortunately, that's not often easy to do.

I think a misconception many have of bigots is that they're fully aware they're bigoted and simply don't care and are happy to be 'evil' to others. But I meet few bigots who fit that.

To be cute about it, that goes back to your quip about being against bigots being bigotry. In that sense, there's some truth to it, when you are against a phony caricature of bigots.

 

[LunarRay]

Originally posted by: OrByte

Originally posted by: LunarRay
Kindly tell me how sodomy laws relate to Lesbians... the homosexual ones... or are they all hetro but confused or what...

edit: perhaps this is another of those separate but equal sorta things
edit: And tell me if you can, is one homosexual only if one engages in homosexual sex what ever that may entail... and does a hetro male who engages in oh.. say oral sex with a woman become partially lesbian IF that is a Lesbian sex act... heheheheheh
amazing..

Could it be anymore clear that those who are in opposition to gay marriage are simply on the latest version of a morality crusade??

The folks who don't support 'Gay Marriage' in California were forced to accept the equal part of the equation (domestic partnerships) but can not accept not being separate in the term. They, I suppose, want public restrooms to say Us only or Them not allowed. They are bigots in my opinion who reach for any thing to justify their position. Utterly amazing... What is more amazing is the often forgotten Lesbian side of it all.. Guess men don't or can't accept women are part of it all too.