Prop 8

[Mathman]

The bottom line is Nature does not work that way.

Still, I do not find that argument convincing.

If we want to study God's Law, the place to do that is the mosque, temple and church. If Natural Law is our concern, we have the biology lab.

What we are talking about here is Civil Law -- the body of agreements that people work out to facilitate a just society.

In the United States, the Declaration of Independence asserts as a "self-evident truth" that all men are created equal. This claim seems absurd. People are different. But what the founding fathers were referring to is equal rights and protections under the law.

...when both assure completely equivalent rights and obligations?

Aye, there's the rub. Separate but equal. The same but not the same. As Joe quoted above, from Animal Farm, all unions are created equal, but some are more equal than others.

 

[Bennett]

Aye, there's the rub. Separate but equal. The same but not the same. As Joe quoted above, from Animal Farm, all unions are created equal, but some are more equal than others.

Yes, most of the states grant the civil union less rights/obligations than the marriage. But I was referring to the cases in New Zealand and the Netherland where they seem to assume equal rights/obligations. Yet, the Netherland still took one more step and introduced gay marriage. Then I wondered what are the differences between them (by this question, I am not implying that they should not have done so).

 

[antmanb]

Still, I do not find that argument convincing.

If we want to study God's Law, the place to do that is the mosque, temple and church. If Natural Law is our concern, we have the biology lab.

What we are talking about here is Civil Law -- the body of agreements that people work out to facilitate a just society.

In the United Satets, the Declaration of Independence asserts as a "self-evident truth" that all men are created equal. This claim seems absurd. People are different. But what the founding fathers were referring to is equal rights and protections under the law.

Aye, there's the rub. Separate but equal. The same but not the same. As Joe quoted above, from Animal Farm, all unions are created equal, but some are more equal than others.

Ah MM, you always manage to write what i think in such a concise and clear way

Ant

 

[jennylovskt]

Still, I do not find that argument convincing.

If we want to study God's Law, the place to do that is the mosque, temple and church. If Natural Law is our concern, we have the biology lab.

What we are talking about here is Civil Law -- the body of agreements that people work out to facilitate a just society.

In the United Satets, the Declaration of Independence asserts as a "self-evident truth" that all men are created equal. This claim seems absurd. People are different. But what the founding fathers were referring to is equal rights and protections under the law.

If you want to talk about the Civil Law, this marriage civil law is originally based on the nature of all kinds. I don't know how this nature which is related to the civil law could be totally seperated and limited into the biology lab.

Thanks to Ant for introducing the word "floodgate" into my so limited English vocabulary. (Although I am ignoring all the words such as "stupid", "idiots", "ignorant", "ridiculous"... and trying not to go down the same road as he has been. And it is very clear that who disrespect who.) By accepting this kind of "the body of agreements that people work out to facilitate a just society", it will open a floodgate which will create a lot more trouble and lead the way to demoralize the society. It has already done so. MM, the result of total liberal is the moral standard going total down hill. You do believe that there should be moral standard in the human society, don't you? And that moral standard is not religions related. Even though religions have helped to maintain it in a very positive way.

 

[Mathman]

MM, the result of total liberal is the moral standard going total down hill. You do believe that there should be moral standard in the human society, don't you?

It’s tricky. On the one hand there is the right of society to determine and to enforce standards of behavior upon its members. On the other is the right of the individual to live his life unmolested by disapproving neighbors.

Which duty of government is the more urgent? To enforce the will of the majority or to protect the rights of the individual?

I would not characterize this as either a “liberal” or a “conservative” concern. Rather, I would say, it is a dilemma of the human condition. If we are going to live together, we have to work out ways to get along with one another.

(That's what I think, anyway. )

 

[psycho]

My moral standard is "Do whatever you want as long as you don't harm others or yourself."

Gay marriage = harms no one. Only makes people happy. Case closed.

 

[Medusa]

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?

Right, let's start with the women. For hundreds, even thousands of years, the vast majority of societies and cultures on Earth considered the woman an inferior being. Nearly every religion/philosophy on this planet considers/considered the woman to be inferior to the man. Nearly every ethical and moral standard included that the woman is supposed to be a demure and obedient being, completely dependant on her father, brother or husband. So just like marriage has always been between a man and a woman (or should I say: marriage has often been about one woman being the property of one man?), women always have been the weak element of mankind.

And nature supports those ethical standards, religions and the history of mankind: the woman's role in reproduction predestines the woman to be the one who has to be protected, the one who stays put, the one who can't take risks. The average man is physically much stronger than the average woman and strength is what shapes nature: the stronger one is the superior one. The average man has twice as much muscle mass as the average woman has.

So everything we know about biology, history, nature, religion, morality and society basically says that the woman is inferior to the man. Then why am I here and planning my life as an independant, self-confident and ambitious woman? Why am I not sitting somewhere in a cave, caring for my two kids (because the rest of them died), waiting for the alpha male returning from the hunt?

Because humanity is about change and choice. At some point someone chose to paint the walls of a cave instead of preparing the food for the alpha male and the kids - and therefore created art. At some point someone decided that instead of hunting and gathering one should try to plant some of the berries into the earth - because they observed that that can produce more berries.

Our ability to think enables us to change and to choose. That is what makes us unnatural - it was unnatural for that woman to paint the cave, it was unnatural to observe the life cycle of the berries instead of just keep collecting the berries. No monkey or any other animal we know of has ever done that. We keep finding new solutions, new laws, new rules. That's how at some point parts of humanity could accept that women can be just as successful, independant and strong as the men - because it's not just about the physical strength or the original law of nature. And at some point humanity will accept that every man and every woman can form family units with another man or woman, ranging from two people in love to two people in love and their dozen children. Humanity broke the law of nature a long time ago, I think it's too late to return to the caves (plus, there aren't enough caves for the 8 Billion people on this planet). We have our own laws now, like this

What we are talking about here is Civil Law -- the body of agreements that people work out to facilitate a just society.

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.

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.

So you think that homosexuality is a choice. Good to know. And you think that gays give up certain rights by deciding to be gay. So basically they are like criminals, born with all the rights but they forfeit those rights because of a decision - the criminal decides to break the law by stealing a car and therefore loses the right to be free, the right to vote etc. The gay decides to become gay and therefore loses the right to marriage and all the privileges that come with that right. Interesting theory - and quite logical in itself actually, just two tiny things: being gay is not a choice and not a crime - and since it is not a crime it shouldn't result in a loss of rights.

"The concept will go wild" - which concept are you talking about? The concept during those thousands of years where the man owned the woman, could beat her, abuse her, jail her? Or the one that was present till the 50ties, 60ties and 70ies of the 20th century - that basically still said that the woman has to obey, has to ask the husband before making bigger purchases, has to ask her husband for permission to work? Or the current concept where more than half of the marriages end in a divorce?

You do believe that there should be moral standard in the human society, don't you? And that moral standard is not religions related. Even though religions have helped to maintain it in a very positive way.

I certainly believe that there should be a moral standard in society, a standard based on tolerance, justice, acceptance, honesty, equality, individuality, freedom, compassion and solidarity. Live and let live. Si vis pacem cole iustitiam. Nihil nocere. United in diversity. Liberté, Égalité, Fratternité.

 

[Buttercup]

You do believe that there should be moral standard in the human society, don't you? And that moral standard is not religions related. Even though religions have helped to maintain it in a very positive way.

Of course there should be moral standards. But I like Medusa's just fine, and don't require a moral compass based in religion to live my life.

As for religions maintaining morals in a positive way, that's awfully simplistic. Sure, there have been some wonderful works by religious scholars, and certainly there are many good and moral people who are. But it doesn't follow that relious beliefs are by definition more moral than non-religious values. Also, religious institutions have been behind some of the most abhorrent episodes in recorded history: the inquisition, heresy and witchcraft trials, and massacres of so-called infidels are some examples. In modern times, we see attempts to impose beliefs on others by law or, in some places, by violence.

Religion can be a force and a justification for good or for evil. It is a choice of those who are religious how they express their faith and share it with others.

Medusa, I happen to like the boys myself, but I totally have a crush on you right now!

 

[Medusa]

Medusa, I happen to like the boys myself, but I totally have a crush on you right now!

Oh, how flattering... We could just hang out because I happen to like the boys too. We could swoon over Joubert - after talking for days about philosophy, politics, arts and everything else we agree or disagree on.

And thanks for commenting on the "Even though religions have helped to maintain it in a very positive way." - I forgot that. You are totally right about it, religion is actually a neutral force on our planet, the same way as every philosophy is. And basic human rights, basic democratic ideas and ideals (Plato's Utopia anyone?) where thought of hundreds of years before the word Christianity or Christ was even spoken.

Then again Plato was also the guy who once wrote that the love between two men is purer than the love between men and women - only to write a few years later that any homosexual relationships should be forbidden (in the same dialogues he wrote that freedom of religion is inacceptable, as is capitalism etc. - I guess the man just became senile). But Plato's school, the Platonic Academy, should stay a place of deep thinking - and "Greek Love" - for centuries, Polemo and Crates, two successive "heads" of the school (called scholarchs) are said to have been buried together. The old Greeks were fantastic, like one big, though quite sophisticated, soap opera...

 

[Tonichelle]

religion is more than just Christianity or Christ... and the basics on how people view murder, theivery, and the like were established well before Christ's appearance on Earth... depending on which religion you follow God set down the moral compass... and man has chosen to refine/ammend it as they see fit...

The 10 commandments, which did help our country found the laws of this land, is not a "Christian" thing... it was way before the "First Christian"....

 

[Joesitz (RIP)]

Still, I do not find that argument convincing.

If we want to study God's Law, the place to do that is the mosque, temple and church. If Natural Law is our concern, we have the biology lab.

What we are talking about here is Civil Law -- the body of agreements that people work out to facilitate a just society.

In the United States, the Declaration of Independence asserts as a "self-evident truth" that all men are created equal. This claim seems absurd. People are different. But what the founding fathers were referring to is equal rights and protections under the law.

Aye, there's the rub. Separate but equal. The same but not the same. As Joe quoted above, from Animal Farm, all unions are created equal, but some are more equal than others.

Excellent Post. Does anyone think S.Africa had the correct method by giving Blacks separate but equal rights? Hmm Glory to Apartheid with god's blessing.

I think America has always given Blacks the equal rights except with so many exceptions and restrictions. A bailerina I knew who happened to be Black would not be permitted to dance with the company in the Southern States. They could only be maids and handy men in movies and Blacks could not kiss in movies. That's just a few , and there are so much more, with separate public water fountains, etc, etc.

Unfortunately equal but separate just doesn't work. Either the Constitution is wrong and needs to be amended or it is correct and total Equality is the norm of this discussion. Otherwise we are practicing Apartheid.

However, I believe there are enough homophobics in America who could get the Constitution changed. Then we can keep the gays from moving into our communities, and not worry about our husbands rushing off with a gay.
We could ban music by Leonard Bernstein; Burn the books of James Baldwin, and Forbid any production of Tennessee Williams plays.

These actions will keep our heterosexual existence pure. Will it not?

 

[oleada]

Then again Plato was also the guy who once wrote that the love between two men is purer than the love between men and women - only to write a few years later that any homosexual relationships should be forbidden (in the same dialogues he wrote that freedom of religion is inacceptable, as is capitalism etc. - I guess the man just became senile). But Plato's school, the Platonic Academy, should stay a place of deep thinking - and "Greek Love" - for centuries, Polemo and Crates, two successive "heads" of the school (called scholarchs) are said to have been buried together. The old Greeks were fantastic, like one big, though quite sophisticated, soap opera...

Not only love between to men - love between a man and a young boy if I remember correctly. The Ancient Greeks were certainly an interesting bunch.

As for homosexuality not being "natural" - examples of homosexuality in nature have been extensively documented in a number of species - whales, dolphins, bonobos and penguins, for example.

 

[Bennett]

Separate but equal

I could see that the "separate but equal" stance can be deceiving. But I am not still sure if "the civil union" is deceiving even when it's given the same rights/obligations as marriage. MM, are you talking more about discrimination experienced in everyday life, not necessarily in the realm of the laws?

 

[Bennett]

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.

Different groups in our society have different versions of "justice" and it is when we start imposing our own version of "right" and "just" onto others, we have the war.

Some cultures do not consider homosexuality immoral or sinful. Gay marriage may be a moral question for some ppl. But not for others. I personally do not really understand how gay marriage could be a moral or religious question perhaps because I do not have a Christian background. So I am personally not worried about a moral downhill or floodgate that you think may be introduced by gay marriage.

But I do acknowledge that the concept of gay marriage could cause great concerns in many others who think of the definition of the marriage as a moral and/or religious question.

I think that the "civil union" is a tactical concept that separates bet. the religious/moral backgrounds and the legal definition of intimate relationships.

The US seems to be at a transitional stage. Like a half of the American public do not seem to be willing to accept the concept of gay marriage. So I think it smart to limit the concept of the same-sex union to the legal realm at this point of time.

But if the civil union comes to become completely equivalent in terms of the rights/obligations (and I think it is likely that it eventually would in future), I personally speculate that this might be eventually replaced by "gay marriage" in some states in future because it does not seem to make much logical sense to have two institutions that are legally equivalent.

Yet, if the majority of the public continue to worry about changing the definition of marriage, they may keep two separate institutions despite becoming legally equivalent.

I guess the outcome would depend on how public discussions go.

 

[antmanb]

Thanks to Ant for introducing the word "floodgate" into my so limited English vocabulary. (Although I am ignoring all the words such as "stupid", "idiots", "ignorant", "ridiculous"... and trying not to go down the same road as he has been. And it is very clear that who disrespect who.) By accepting this kind of "the body of agreements that people work out to facilitate a just society", it will open a floodgate which will create a lot more trouble and lead the way to demoralize the society. It has already done so. MM, the result of total liberal is the moral standard going total down hill. You do believe that there should be moral standard in the human society, don't you? And that moral standard is not religions related. Even though religions have helped to maintain it in a very positive way.

But i notice that you didn't address a single point that i made in my previous posts. I take it you have no answer for those?

Ant

 

[antmanb]

Entire post!

Thank you Medusa for such a well thought out, calm and rational post. Unfortunately i tend to react rather emotionally to this topic (as everyone can tell) and don't take the time to form the cohesive arguments that you so clearly put in your post. Thank you again for a such a wonderful post!

Ant

 

[Bennett]

Ant, just wanted to say I was moved by the way you described the relationship with your partner. It is wonderful that you have such a loving, trustful bond, if you do not mind my saying so despite not having had a chance to meet you in person. Thank you for sharing.

 

[antmanb]

Ant, just wanted to say I was moved by the way you described the relationship with your partner. It is wonderful that you have such a loving, trustful bond, if you do not mind my saying so despite not having had a chance to meet you in person. Thank you for sharing.

Thank you for your kind words Bennett - it's been a real pleasure discussing matters with you in the this politics part of the board!!

Ant

 

[Tonichelle]

Ant - I think you have been very rational - and yet passionate - in your responses. I respect a lot of what you offer on this subject, as well as the rest of the board. Just felt the need to say...

 

[jennylovskt]

But i notice that you didn't address a single point that i made in my previous posts. I take it you have no answer for those?

Ant

Why? Challenge me? You know my position so well so that you know the answer. Besides, the points in your last a couple of posts, either I have already stated my position clearly in my previous posts, or I see no points to discuss it further because without A, there is no point to discuss B.