SPLIT--> California's Proposition 8 on Same-Sex Marriage
- Thread starter phillyfan26
- Start date
The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
- Status
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
You're equating "for better or worse, richer or poorer, in sickness and in health, so long as we both shall live" with social engineering?
Because "marriage is primarily a license to have children," and the best configuration that has evolved over time is a mother and a father who love each other and their children.
It is in fact for the promotion of an ideal society that laws are even brought into being. Don't believe citizens should steal from each other? Codify laws dealing with property rights. Don't believe citizens should murder each other? Codify laws dealing with murder. Ideals are promoted all the time. Are they inherently prejudicial? Or just the ones you don't agree with?
My friend Heather was the one who brought it up. Her question was, "if we remove the ability to define marriage, shouldn't anyone be able to do it?" For her the question was rhetorical in one direction -- for me it was rhetorical in another. Either way, she's the one who opened the door.
But does it confer illegitimacy? And shouldn't voters be allowed to decide either way?
Only in the all or nothing, Absolutist construct you've created. I've never said that, and I don't believe that. As I've said before, there are exceptions to the rule all the time. But does the exceptions eliminate the rule? And should the exceptions be the ones who get to decide?
And yes, there are some pretty crappy parents out there.
From earlier in the thread:
Article 16.
(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.
Sounds pretty aspirational to me....
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Democracy's a pain in the neck sometimes...do you have another system you'd like to suggest?
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
you're the one who's said that i'm not worthy of taking such a vow, that only heterosexuals can make these vows to one another and have it mean anything in the eyes of the law. yes, that is social engineering.
i'm arguing for the expansion of marriage, that's it.
"marriage is primarily a license to have children," is your own formulation, no one else's. lots of married people do not have children, lots of people who have children are not married.
this has nothing to do with the question before us. nothing.
and love is quite a new concept.
this isn't the promotion of an ideal, nathan. this is where i think you've really confused yourself. why don't we steal? because someone loses property. why don't we murder? because someone loses their life. these are prohibitions against certain behaviors, not endorsements of a specific kind of behavior that we wish to promote our citizens to aspire to.
there are clear consequences to murdering or stealing. that's why they are illegal. you're prohibiting specific kinds of behavior. *that's* what laws do.
that sounds like you've really twisted her words.
and, again, i don't care what Heather's position on polygamy is. she's misunderstood the entire question, as i've laid out for your in the previous post.
when said Auntie Toms are trotted out by those opposed, to quote David Letterman, "something doesn't smell right." you can pay Armstrong Williams lots of money and he'll talk about how he thinks that vouchers are good for African-American kids. that doesn't make it so. and when you, yourself, point to the writer's self-appointed "liberal" status as one of his qualifications for making the point, you, yourself, have undermined his credibility.
again, it's perverse to have to vote to extend civil rights to a group of people. liberal democracies also protect against the tyranny of the majority and seek to secure equal protection under the law of minorities.
you know, the thing that allows you to worship in the way that you so choose -- would you like to have to pray the rosary every morning and worship Mary?
that's what the judiciary is for. seems to me that having straight white christians in Kansas voting on equal protections for gay people is much like having white southerners in Alabama voting on allowing black students to enter the state university in 1957.
sounds like legal rights, not aspirations:
1. people are allowed to get married and divorced, no one shall prohibit them from doing that
2. no one has the right to force another into marriage
3. families should be given protection by the state
i also see nothing that prohibits same-sex marriage. my guess is that it was intentionally written to be so vague so that it could include the inevitability of same-sex marriage.
and, in fact, #3 is a perfect argument for same-sex marriage -- gay people form their own families, always have, don't their kids deserve equal protection? what about the kids?
or are those kids not "ideal"?
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
i admire it when the three branches of government all do their jobs.
preserving the rights of a minority against the tyranny of the majority is the job of the judicial branch.
Yes.
Just like when all those civil rights issues were voted on in Mississippi.
I don't expect that this will be addressed.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
It's been pretty successfully avoided so far, hasn't it?
phillyfan26
Blue Crack Supplier
- Joined
- May 7, 2006
- Messages
- 30,343
The bottom line is that those who disagree that same-sex marriage is a civil right consequently do not equate it with the civil rights of African-Americans, and thus, to them, simply stating that the two are not equal is sufficient in and of itself. That's all they need to say, because to them, it's practically a statement of fact.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
But he was talking about the oppressed group waiting for a vote for access to rights, not necessarily the civil rights aspect of it.
Plus, both INDY and nathan frequently dodge questions. INDY's especially accomplished at it.
Yes it seems they are making the same point - that questions of civil rights should be open to a referendum in a democratic society since the granting of those rights will somehow fundamentally alter our society.
Then it is fair to ask when it is that the fine citizens of Mississippi got to vote for granting blacks the right to vote, the right to attend white schools and the right to sit at the front of the bus.
Then it is fair to ask when it is that the fine citizens of Mississippi got to vote for granting blacks the right to vote, the right to attend white schools and the right to sit at the front of the bus.
Irvine511
Blue Crack Supplier
i think that's correct.
though it's tough to tease it out, the only explanation that i can think of is the believe that sexual orientation cannot be compared to race or gender. that there is no such thing as a sexual orientation. that there are no homo or heterosexuals. there are just people. and those with same-sex attraction are defective in some way.
or that it's a sin.
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
I understand that it's convenient for you to say that, but I never did. You're the one speaking in Absolutist terms. I'm the one who's said there are exceptions to the rule all the time.
And that's absolutely your right. But in a democratic society, there are others who can argue that such an expansion would redefine family, gender, etc. Do we have the right to vote, or is your argument the only one that is allowed to stand?
Ironic, since that's a quote.
Most married people, however, as I've said before, do. So it has everything to do with the question before us. Everything.
For the promotion of a fair and civic society.
She's the one who raised the issue.
They also protect against the tyranny of the minority as well. So the knife cuts both ways.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Set me straight (no pun intended). When again did we vote to change the laws about married women having access to property rights? 'Cause that sure changed the definition of family and I don't remember voting on that.
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
So you think denying Irvine and Memphis the same legal rights as a couple that you and I have access to results in a fair society?!
When did you vote for no fault divorce?
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
A_Wanderer
ONE love, blood, life
Only one of the options maximises liberty, I fail to see the tyranny of equal rights.
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Besides the fact that you're taking my words out of context, I sure think that the ability to vote on a radical definition of a core social institution is one of the best ways to affirm a fair society.
And since the question was raised, the rights of women to own property, regardless of marital status, is implicit in the Constitution. Neither does the right to property fundamentally alter the definition of marriage as one man/one woman, since it's clear -- at least as far back as Old Testament times -- that women held such rights regardless of marital status.
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Is a democratic government fundamentally one that is "of the people, by the people, and for the people," or is it rule by an isolated few who decide for all?
She wasn't talking about women owning property.
She was talking about women being chattels.
dazzlingamy
Refugee
When it comes down to it, after all the fighting and beating round the bush of the issue, the reason why they don't want it to happen is because its WRONG. How dare mom and pop go to their precious daughter's wedding to chip and the next wedding after them is two MEN with a whole bunch of fruity people and lesbians all being HAPPY over some disgusting and WRONG thing. How can they turn the happiest day of my life, seeing Judy marry Chip and then to KNOW what is happening afterwards. Where is the decency in the world? Where this type of PERVERSION is allowed to happen...blah blah blah.
People who are against same sex marriage just don't want the gays to be happy. They should be feeling ashamed and suicidal and going to the jesus classes to make em straight cause they're just choosing to be like that and its wrong, and they've got a mental condition called the devil in there and need it fixed. They don't want to see them dressed up, celebrating their love publicly and being so gawd damn happy about it.
I just love that they think, well if a man and a man get married then what defines marriage anymore, may as well let a man marry a pig or a woman marry 10 men since its all gone to shit now with the perversion.
Hmmmm.....
bigotry
affairs
mistresses
swingers parties
wife swapping
Britney Spears
oh the straight marriage is so pure and lovely.
Why change it??
People who are against same sex marriage just don't want the gays to be happy. They should be feeling ashamed and suicidal and going to the jesus classes to make em straight cause they're just choosing to be like that and its wrong, and they've got a mental condition called the devil in there and need it fixed. They don't want to see them dressed up, celebrating their love publicly and being so gawd damn happy about it.
I just love that they think, well if a man and a man get married then what defines marriage anymore, may as well let a man marry a pig or a woman marry 10 men since its all gone to shit now with the perversion.
Hmmmm.....
bigotry
affairs
mistresses
swingers parties
wife swapping
Britney Spears
oh the straight marriage is so pure and lovely.
Why change it??
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
One, it isn't implicit anywhere. When California wrote its Constitution in 1849, it was one of the first states to grant married women the right to own property after marriage. It wasn't happening in the rest of the States. Married women's property automatically reverted to her husband upon marriage. Look it up. Or do you remember voting to "allow" me to hold property in my own name after I married.
Two, I was indeed referring to women as property. When did you vote against that? Or did you.
Those of you who keep trotting out the "traditional marriage" BS really don't know much about the history of the institution you're trying to "defend."
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Maybe the all who decide for the few is more to your liking?
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
What else would you suggest in a system of representative government?
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
According to whom? Camille Paglia?
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Fairness and equality before the law.
Same-sex marriage affects you in no way, so it's a fair deal. But, since you're all about the "fairness" piece, and the "rights" of the majority before the rights of the minority, I'll ask you. (I asked your buddy INDY, but he's very very good at unanswered questions.)
Since elected officials followed the will of the majority when they did it, that means you're ok with early California legislators legally preventing the Chinese from getting married, right. I mean, it WAS the will of thje majority, and the majority's sensibilities must be protected and defended, right?
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
Fairness and equality before the law.
Just because you don't agree with my points about family as the basis for social order, don't make it so. Are you really so afraid of democracy? Because deciding that democratic principles should be ignored smacks of the kind of tyranny you're ranting against, doesn't it?
I can disagree with whatever conclusions I like, then as now. If Prop 8 collapses because people vote against it, I'll disagree with the ruling, but I'll accept the will of the people. Are you saying it should be a different way?
nathan1977
Rock n' Roll Doggie
You should try thinking someday. See? We can both do it. But this isn't terribly constructive, is it?
Hasta manana...
martha
Blue Crack Supplier
Not with you it isn't.
If you really think that just feminists write the history of marriage, then you really need to get out more.
- Status
Similar threads
