Prop 8

[Mathman]

^^First of all, aren't you like really really old? But at the same time so liberal, it's freaking amazing.

Well, you understand that if someone is as old as I am, then that person is the right age to have been a college student in the 1960s.

Back then we were all beatniks, hippies, flower children, civil rights activists, anti-war demonstrators, civil libertarians, draft-card burners, acidheads, and anarchists.

 

[jennylovskt]

I do not think that anyone on this board or those who are for gay marriage was talking about marriage with an animal. I do not tihnk it productive to keep changing the subject. First polygamy, next marriage with an animal, and what is the next example you would like to bring in? They may be common that they are all talking about love. But each of them has very different background, hostory, and social context. I think that there is a big leap in logics that mix all of these so roughly.

Bennett, to be fair, please go back to read the posts carefully. Who is talking about marriage with animals? I didn't go to that direction and I certainly did not have the intention to go to that direction. I was talking about people. It was Ant who has related it to the marriage with animals. So I have given him the FYI. That is all.

Polygamy is related to the topic because we are talking about "love".

To make it clear, as I have already said, I do not support polygamy or any kind of marriage other than one man and one woman marriage. The rest, I don't need to repeat.

 

[Mathman]

..where it is today if we always had been allowed to vote on equality. Women's rights? I mean, not all women were for them and only very few men - no majority for women's rights then. Freedom of religion? Friedrich Wilhelm III didn't ask the Prussian population before he gave equal rights to all Jews in Prussia...

I think an even more direct comparison can be made with the once-controversial topic of interracial marriage.

In the U.S., laws prohibiting "misengination" were not overturned until 1967. In the apt-named "Loving versus the State of Virginia" case, an interracial couple who had been married in the District of Columbia moved to Virginia, where they were arrested and sentenced to a year in prison for violating the State's "Racial Purity Act."

The trail judge said in sentencing:

Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for such marriages. The fact that he separated the races shows that he did not intend for the races to mix.

(I wonder if the judge meant that white Americans should leave the continent of the red man and go back to live in Europe, as God intended.)

On appeal the United States Supreme Court ruled:

Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law.

The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

By the way, Mr. and Mrs. Loving's case was championed by many churches and religious organizations, notably the Presbyterian Church and the Roman Catholic Church.

 

[Bennett]

Bennett, to be fair, please go back to read the posts carefully. Who is talking about marriage with animals? I didn't go to that direction and I certainly did not have the intention to go to that direction. I was talking about people. It was Ant who has related it to the marriage with animals. So I have given him the FYI. That is all.

Polygamy is related to the topic because we are talking about "love".

To make it clear, as I have already said, I do not support polygamy or any kind of marriage other than one man and one woman marriage. The rest, I don't need to repeat.

Sorry. I went back to the discussions between you and Ant and now understand the way the aminals happened to be brought into your post as a side note but that it was not your main point. I apologize. I also totally understand and acknowledge that you do not support any kinds of marriages other than marriage between a man and a woman, which has been very consistent throughout your posts. But I do not think that I misread your post in the regard that you are also worried that allowing gay marriage may function as a vehicle to open "the floodgate." And my question was if it could be the case. I understand that you believe A as the absolute truth. Then B through Z may be similar to each other in regard that they are not A. But B and C, B and D, .......and B and Z may be as different and distinct to each other as A & [B through Z] are in other aspects.

 

[Tonichelle]

Back then we were all beatniks, hippies, flower children, civil rights activists, anti-war demonstrators, civil libertarians, draft-card burners, acidheads, and anarchists.

they also spit on my family members who didn't draft dodge

not ALL of them... but neither were ALL of you in that era living in the hollywood-ized version of the time period.

 

[Mathman]

They also spit on my family members who didn't draft dodge.

Contentious times, to be sure. Each side was so certain that it knew THE TRUTH and everyone else was either foolish or evil.

For my part, I am sorry for the schisms and lack of tolerance. Although I didn't do any spitting, I remember all the arguments I had with my father. He thought that the Vietnam War was America's finest hour, because we were accepting sacrifice and hardship ourselves in order to help strangers (the Vietnamese people) half a world away.

My view was that we were rather inflicting suffering and hardship on the Vietnamese.

In any case, the war was a very divisive force in the U.S. body politic because the population was split pretty much down the middle.

 

[Bennett]

Well, you understand that if someone is as old as I am, then that person is the right age to have been a college student in the 1960s.

Back then we were all beatniks, hippies, flower children, civil rights activists, anti-war demonstrators, civil libertarians, draft-card burners, acidheads, and anarchists.

you seem to be like somewhat older than the average age of the faculty members at my school. like you yourself, they are all terrific discussants. i sense the flavor of the hippy atmosphere from them. but they are all social scientists. i think it cool for a math professor to be politically so aware. my parents only remained in their labs at that time.

 

[jennylovskt]

Is that really the core element of democracy? Voting on who deserves equality and who doesn't? Because that's what people voted - with their vote they said that a certain group of people doesn't deserve the same privileges and rights they have. These people think that they deserve more than the "gays". I mean, do they really believe that? ChrisH and jenny... - do you really believe that gays are undeserving of the same rights that you have? What makes you more deserving of those rights? What makes them less deserving? That the bible (insert any other book of faith) says otherwise? That they can't have children?

What makes you better than gay people, what makes your love so much more precious and better that it deserves to be sealed with a marriage - and theirs doesn't?

I do believe that gay people deserve the same right as we have. No one has been taking away anything from them. By choosing to live with the same sex, they have basically given up their own biological rights which were given to every living being equally. The same sex cannot produce the biological offsprings. That is the law of the nature. I don't know what more could be said about it.

Regarding to the adoptions and even more attempts as Joe has said, if those are accepted, it will open even more floodgates. It will affect not only this generation but also the next one.

Nature does not work this way, therefore, it should not be allowed to work on humans.

Sorry. I went back to the discussions between you and Ant and now understand the way the aminals happened to be brought into your post as a side note but that it was not your main point. I apologize. I also totally understand and acknowledge that you do not support any kinds of marriages other than marriage between a man and a woman, which has been very consistent throughout your posts. But I do not think that I misread your post in the regard that you are also worried that allowing gay marriage may function as a vehicle to open "the floodgate." And my question was if it could be the case. I understand that you believe A as the absolute truth. Then B through Z may be similar to each other in regard that they are not A. But B and C, B and D, .......and B and Z may be as different and distinct to each other as A & [B through Z] are in other aspects.

Apology is accepted. Thanks! I understand what you were saying. And I agree that in the culture that might accept gay marriage, may not accept polygamy marriage, and vise versa. The point is they are the similar concept. Without the basic function of the marriage, the concept will go wild, and be used by all sorts of people with all different claims. That will lead to a moral down hill if you ask me.

 

[antmanb]

Bennett, to be fair, please go back to read the posts carefully. Who is talking about marriage with animals? I didn't go to that direction and I certainly did not have the intention to go to that direction. I was talking about people. It was Ant who has related it to the marriage with animals. So I have given him the FYI. That is all.

That was to highlight the stupidity of the floodgates argument, and the fact that you were dragging the argument far off base by introducing polygamy into the mix. Most people who try the floodgates arguments use ridiculous one off examples to try to highlight their point. I introduced the idea of humans marrying animals more than anything to mock the floodgates argument.

Polygamy is related to the topic because we are talking about "love".

Polygamy has nothing to do with prop 8 nor with gay marriage but you are trying to say that allowing one will lead to allowing the other. That is not right nor is it relevant. You never answered my question about women's votes either.

Ant

 

[Bennett]

I believe the state should just eliminate the term "marriage". Leave "marriage" for ministers, rabbis, etc. Let all unions that the state conducts be called "civil unions", whether they are heterosexual or homosexual. Not "husband and wife", or "wife and wife", or "husband and husband", but just "partner and partner". This way the reasonable conservative won't feel like "marriage" is getting redefined, yet everyone would be treated equal.

I personally do not really understand the religious connotation attached to the term, "marriage". But it seems to be so in the contexts of many of Western countries.

I found it interesting to read about varying levels of equality between civil union and marriage in different countries in the following link:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union

I find it interesting to read about the states that make the civil union available both to heterosexual and to same-sex couples.

In France, the civil union seems available to both hetero- and same-sex couples. But marriage seems available only to heterosexual couples and marriage entails greater rights and responsibilities than civil union.

In contrast, New Zealand, which offers the civil union both to hetero- and same-sex couples, seems to grant basically the same rights and obligations to "all couples, whether married, in a civil union, or in a de facto partnership" and "[t]hese rights extend to immigration, next-of-kin status, social welfare, matrimonial property and other areas."

This is really an interesting legal situation. The civil union and marriage seem to be legally equivalent (except for that marriage is available only to hetero-sexual couples), but are called differently under the law. I do not find it quite logical from a legal standpoint. But from social and cultural standpoints, I think this solution pretty wise and convenient because it avoids the controversy over the re-definition of "marriage."

I wonder what proportion of gay couples in New Zealand still may want to get legally married and what proportion of them may be fine with the civil union.

ETA:
It seems that what happened in the Netherlands may suggest a possible response. By 2001, the Netherlands basically had the similar situation with the current New Zealand: registered partnerships were available to both hetero and same-sex couples with the same rights and obligations with hetero marriage.

For the law, registered partnerships and marriage convey the same rights and duties, especially after some laws were changed to remedy inequalities with respect to inheritance and some other issues.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_the_Netherlands

But they extended this to allow the same-sex marriage in Apr 2001. I wonder if they still have the "registered partnerships" that would be now completely equivalent to "marriage" from a legal standpoint. They seem completely equal but just have different names. Then what's the point of having them both?

 

[antmanb]

I do believe that gay people deserve the same right as we have. No one has been taking away anything from them.

If you do believe that gay people deserve the same rights as heterosexuals then you would believe that gay people deserve the right to marry each other. That right has been taken away. When gay people attempted to marry and the courts cancelled those marriages, they were taking away rights to marry and interpreting the laws in a way that refused the same rights to gay people as it did to heterosexuals.

Ant

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Is it just a passing fad, or do you really advocate discriminating against religious people as your posts have done while not discriminating against sexual orientation in any way? Do you believe that religious people should not be able to vote? A large majority of african-americans voted for prop 8. Should their votes not have counted either?

I tolerate all people which you seem not to be able to do. I don't pass judgements on groups who do not cause problems where no attempt is made to dissuade the ethical concept of living in harmony..

That said, I do not believe in the god of Abraham. (Stone me if you think that is sinful.) Who knows if this person ever existed as fact? You have to be taught that as a matter of Faith. Faith is not reality. It is no more than hopeful trust. Fact is reality.

The very fact that the results of the proposition show nearly 50 per cent of the god-fearing people voted NO! proves thinking people do not need a Minister to live in harmony.

While the Mormons put up the money, those other zealots are cheering them on. That's fact.

 

[jennylovskt]

If you do believe that gay people deserve the same rights as heterosexuals then you would believe that gay people deserve the right to marry each other. That right has been taken away. When gay people attempted to marry and the courts cancelled those marriages, they were taking away rights to marry and interpreting the laws in a way that refused the same rights to gay people as it did to heterosexuals.

Ant

You are missing the whole point and took the words out of the context.

What I was saying is this:

Nature does not work this way, therefore, it should not be allowed to work on humans.

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

they also spit on my family members who didn't draft dodge

not ALL of them... but neither were ALL of you in that era living in the hollywood-ized version of the time period.

Those draft dodgers were correct in their beliefs that the war was illegal; the same as which the War To Find Weapons of Mass Destruction was so obviously illegal. Only Bush saw WMD as an excuse, but what he really saw was OIL. How many innocent iraqis lost their lives for Bush's War? which also set up all the tensions in the Middle East. It was murder.

 

[jennylovskt]

You never answered my question about women's votes either.

Women fought to have the right they had never had and they should have.

Gay people have given up their own biological rights. They Give UP it. No body is taking it. They gave up it but in the meantime they eyed on the benefits as well as the TITLE that come with the resposibilities of those biological rights. That has started the whole "equal right" thing. See the difference?

Again, the adoptions and other attempts by gay couples should never be accepted because the reasons I have listed in the previous posts. The bottom line is Nature does not work that way.

 

[antmanb]

You are missing the whole point and took the words out of the context.

What I was saying is this :

Nature does not work this way, therefore, it should not be allowed to work on humans.

I fail to see how i took your words out of context. You claim to believe in equal rights but yet you don't allow them :scratch:. You talk about nature when marriage is a man made thing not something that occurs naturally in nature, unlike both heterosexuality and homosexuality.

You apparently hold biggoted views but don't have the balls to admit it, hiding behind phrases suggesting you do want equal rights for gays and respect them and then writing the exact opposite.

Ant

 

[antmanb]

Women fought to have the right they had never had and they should have.

Most people can see that the right to vote is a thing given to you by the state in a democracy. It is a right that has to be given just like the right of gay people to marry. Also i would turn the question back to you - why do you think women should have been given a vote?

Gay people have given up their own biological rights. They Give UP it. No body is taking it. They gave up it but in the meantime they eyed on the benefits as well as the TITLE that come with the resposibilities of those biological rights. That has started the whole "equal right" thing. See the difference?

I really can't believe that people as ignorant as you really exist in the world!! What biological rights? The biological right to marry? No-one is talking about the ability or the "right" to have children. It is the right to be married, take part in a civil union or something of that nature that is important. You might be tipped off by the term "Gay marriage". Marriage or civil unions are not a biological right - they are a MAN MADE RIGHT. It has nothing to do with biology. If Marriage is only about the biology of having children then you end up back at that nonsensical place where infertile married coulpes are no longer "married" according to your biological laws.

No one gave up any right in being who they are. Can't you see how ridiculous it is to tell someone they can't have the same rights are everyone else because of the gender of the person they love? Anymore than you can say it because of the gender someone is, the colour of someone's skin, the country where they are from. Can't you see how harmful and hurtful and unjust believing that is?

Again, the adoptions and other attempts by gay couples should never be accepted because the reasons I have listed in the previous posts. The bottom line is Nature does not work that way.

That is whole new can of worms you are more than welcome to open. My dissertation at university was homosexual rights of adoption so i have a lot to say on the matter! The only thing i would say for now, is that gay couples are usually given troubled abused children to foster and adopt. Those gay couples have done those children the power of good, picking them up, giving them some self worth again after they've often suffered, mental, physical and sexual abuse at the hands of their "natural" heterosexual married parents. If you truly believe that these children (and a shockingly high percentage of children taken into foster/adoptive care by gay couples have suffered this type of abuse) should have stayed with their natural parents and continued being raped, beaten mentally broken, then I truly do sit back in disbelief at the society that sits outside my door.

Ant

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Women fought to have the right they had never had and they should have.

Gay people have given up their own biological rights. They Give UP it. No body is taking it. They gave up it but in the meantime they eyed on the benefits as well as the TITLE that come with the resposibilities of those biological rights. That has started the whole "equal right" thing. See the difference?

Again, the adoptions and other attempts by gay couples should never be accepted because the reasons I have listed in the previous posts. The bottom line is Nature does not work that way

Then why should anyone assist those unfortunates who suffered from natural disasters? Shouldn't nature take care of them? I mean we shouldn't get so worked up and worry about what Nature has wrought. I think that is in line with your Nature Selection.

 

[Bennett]

Just wondering....

Would you (whether you are straight or sexual minority) want to be in a "marriage" or be in a "civil union/registered partnership" when both assure completely equivalent rights and obligations?

Sorry that this question kind of overlaps with my previous post, but it became so long that I wanted to have a separate one.

For me, I would think either would be fine with me.

Culturally speaking, "marriage" has both good and bad connotations. When I think of it as a straight female, I feel a bit afraid of being trapped by the gender role because I feel that "marriage" connotates something really traditional. I feel that the concept of the "civil union" seems to have had more liberal history.

On the other hand, I feel that "getting married" sounds a lot more straightforward than "forming a civil union." For example, your old grandma would certainly understand the former, but might not necessarily get the latter. Then you may feel that your relationship is more accepted by ppl when you are "married" than you are in a "civil union" even when both forms of relationships are granted the same legal rights/obligations. I also feel that the name/concept of the "civil union" may connotate the history of discrimination for gay couples.

This question is perhaps another way of asking "Why 'gay marriage'?," but not just a "civil union" with equal legal rights/obligations?

Any thoughts?

 

[antmanb]

Just wondering....

Would you (whether you are straight or sexual minority) want to be in a "marriage" or be in "civil union/registered partnership" when both assure completely equivalent rights and obligations? Names are just names, but still more than just names.

Sorry that this question kind of overlaps with my previous post, but it became so long that I wanted to have a separate one.

For me, I would think either would be fine with me.

Culturally speaking, "marriage" has both good and bad connotations. When I think of it as a straight female, I feel a bit afraid of being trapped by the gender role because I feel that "marriage" connotates something really traditional. I feel that the concept of the "civil union" seems to have had more liberal history.

On the other hand, I feel that "getting married" sounds a lot more straightforward than "forming a civil union." For example, your old grandma would certainly understand the former, but might not necessarily get the latter. Then you may feel that your relationship is more accepted by ppl when you are "married" than you are in a "civil union" even when both forms of relationships are granted the same legal rights/obligations. I also feel that the name/concept of the "civil union" may connotate the history of discrimination for gay couples.

This question is perhaps another way of asking "Why 'gay marriage'?," but not just a "civil union" with equal legal rights/obligations?

Any thoughts?

Personally no i wouldn't enter into a registered civil partnerhsip or a gay marriage because i do not believe in marriage. Just because i personally would not enter into a marriage that doesn't change my feelings about the fact that everyone should have right to marry regardless of my personal feelings about marriage, afterall i'm not trying to outlaw marriage! The civil partnerships in the UK are not exactly the same rights as those granted to married couples therefore i have a huge issue with it anyway.

Regardless of that i've known for a long time that i would not have the same rights to "marriage" as my straight counterparts therefore i do not believe in marriage, for a number of reasons, not least that the majority don't even work and end up in divorce. Seems pretty pointless to mary when that is the outcome.

I think the opression from the state to my relationship simply sets out my feelings that it is wrong for the state to sanction one form of relationship over another, based on arbitrary rules that are applied on the basis of mine and my partner's sex. I know that my relationship with my partner is a committed one. We are committed to each other because we want to be, not because we signed a contract to say we did, and not because it was then sanctioned by the church/state.

I know that my relationship has been stronger than many of the heterosexual relationships I have come across, most of which sadly have ended in divorce. The only thing that this tells me is that relationships between two people work because of the two people in that relationship. It has nothing to do with the gender of those two people and nothing to do with whether they signed papers/contracts any other form of documentation and whether that docuemntation was sacntioned by the state or the church. It is only about those two people.

The inequality, to me, is the unjust thing. In this country there are no tax breaks for "married" couples and there are very few benefits that cannot be achieved by doing other contractual things (like wills etc). The only one that can't be gotten around is the inheritance tax breaks. My partner and I may in the future register our civil partnership for that reason alone. If we do i will not give it the elevated sense of occasion that some people do and treat it exactly like is - a contract that allows me or my partner to not have a big inheritance tax bill when one of us dies.

As i have already said, just becaus it is not for me, and leaves a bad taste in my mouth, that isn't to say that i don't believe in equal rights for gay and straight people to marry. Besides a younger less jaded generation who is born in a world where gay marriages are allowed, might not feel so cynical about them as I do

Ant