The real issue is not whether gays should marry, or be allowed to marry. The issue is that the State should have no say in it all. Marriage has been a religious institution for thousands of years and it should stay that way.
So the State should honor any marriage, gay or not, by a recognized and ordained pastor or clergy person. The State should not be involved in it at all.
So it should be up to the religious institutions to decide who they should and should not marry. So if there is a church that allows gays to marry, fine.
The real reason prop 8 in California passed is because if the State decides gays can get married and pastors or clergy refuse to marry them they could get legal action against them. And since over 90% of all religions do not allow or support homosexually, that would be a real concern for most.
[quote]makkun wrote:
PRCalDude wrote:
[…]Freudian analysis isn’t the only game in town.
I know.
Makkun[/quote]
Gee, do you think it would be cool to begin some research into the psychological/social causes now, or will the gays pitch another fit and chalk it all up to religious fundamentalism?
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
The real issue is not whether gays should marry, or be allowed to marry. […]
The real reason prop 8 in California passed is because if the State decides gays can get married and pastors or clergy refuse to marry them they could get legal action against them. And since over 90% of all religions do not allow or support homosexually, that would be a real concern for most.[/quote]
Interesting perspective. Do you think that thought has affected the voters’ decisions - or just informed the lobbying?
[quote]PRCalDude wrote:
[…]Gee, do you think it would be cool to begin some research into the psychological/social causes now, or will the gays pitch another fit and chalk it all up to religious fundamentalism?[/quote]
I guess that would depend on who conducts the research. If it’s pseudo-research by the Institute for Family Values and Morality, there may even be some heteros like me pitching a fit.
Also, ‘the gays’ are quite a diverse group which may even have individual views on the issue - so I guess I can’t really answer that question.
[quote]makkun wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
The real issue is not whether gays should marry, or be allowed to marry. […]
The real reason prop 8 in California passed is because if the State decides gays can get married and pastors or clergy refuse to marry them they could get legal action against them. And since over 90% of all religions do not allow or support homosexually, that would be a real concern for most.
Interesting perspective. Do you think that thought has affected the voters’ decisions - or just informed the lobbying?
Makkun[/quote]
Yes. I think most voted for 8 because of the fear of what could happen to them and not whether gays should actually marry or not. Because the State is involved it could force homosexuality to be taught in schools as part of sex ed and allow law suites for those who do not accept it.
So I believe the yes vote was about what might occur to non-homosexuals, not about if they should marry or not.
Oh, and an interesting point, many are saying that it is the Black vote that caused prop 8 to pass. The Obama election brought out a huge number of Blacks to the polls and approx 76% voted for prop 8 as opposed to 43% for Whites.
You hit the nail on the head. The anti-gay sentiment stems from religiosity rather than conservatism. Those that truly believe in getting the government out of their lives tend to support equal rights for gays, when they aren’t bogged down by the belief that homosexuality is offensive to their god.[/quote]
Completely false, and you’d do well to improve in between stump speeches.
In that drastically lopsided thread that lasted over 90 pages, I gave you an argument against gay marriage that never once included an appeal to religious doctrine.
And, to repeat myself again - conservatives are not and never have been absolutists in “getting government out their lives”. I suppose that PhD must not be in Political Science.
[quote]Floortom wrote:
Does anyone doubt that gay marriage will be widespread and accepted within 20 years? It’s happening.[/quote]
I doubt it (though not strongly), primarily because college students are notoriously liberal, and often move back toward the center (or right, in my case) after a few years of “real world” experience.
What is up with the “lifestyle choice” drivel I keep reading. That is utter bullshit. If you’re a straight male, you know just how overpowering the allure of an attractive female is. Could YOU overturn that desire and sleep with men?
It’s not a lifestyle choice. Gay men have the same urges when the see a male that we do when we see a female.
Read first, respond second. Nowhere did I advance that argument. I agreed with the observation that it is ironic that conservatives claim to be for privacy and anti-government interference except when it comes to things they don’t like, such as gay marriage.[/quote]
It would only be “ironic” if conservatives, in fact, had a blanket, unapologetic principle to “get government out of your life”. Since conservatives don’t endorse that - no irony.
And, if there were such an “irony”, it would apply equally to left-liberals who also claim to be for privacy and no government interference “except when it comes to things they don’t like” - see anything related to money, the Fairness Doctrine, hate speech sanctions, and so forth.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Read first, respond second. Nowhere did I advance that argument. I agreed with the observation that it is ironic that conservatives claim to be for privacy and anti-government interference except when it comes to things they don’t like, such as gay marriage.
It would only be “ironic” if conservatives, in fact, had a blanket, unapologetic principle to “get government out of your life”. Since conservatives don’t endorse that - no irony.
And, if there were such an “irony”, it would apply equally to left-liberals who also claim to be for privacy and no government interference “except when it comes to things they don’t like” - see anything related to money, the Fairness Doctrine, hate speech sanctions, and so forth.[/quote]
An unfortunate effect of labeling people in neat little boxes. Nobody is fully conservative, and nobody is fully liberal.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Read first, respond second. Nowhere did I advance that argument. I agreed with the observation that it is ironic that conservatives claim to be for privacy and anti-government interference except when it comes to things they don’t like, such as gay marriage.
It would only be “ironic” if conservatives, in fact, had a blanket, unapologetic principle to “get government out of your life”. Since conservatives don’t endorse that - no irony.
And, if there were such an “irony”, it would apply equally to left-liberals who also claim to be for privacy and no government interference “except when it comes to things they don’t like” - see anything related to money, the Fairness Doctrine, hate speech sanctions, and so forth.
An unfortunate effect of labeling people in neat little boxes. Nobody is fully conservative, and nobody is fully liberal.[/quote]
I’m to the right of Ghengis Khan. Except on drug illegality.
[quote]Lorisco wrote:
The real issue is not whether gays should marry, or be allowed to marry. The issue is that the State should have no say in it all. Marriage has been a religious institution for thousands of years and it should stay that way.
So the State should honor any marriage, gay or not, by a recognized and ordained pastor or clergy person. The State should not be involved in it at all.
So it should be up to the religious institutions to decide who they should and should not marry. So if there is a church that allows gays to marry, fine.
The real reason prop 8 in California passed is because if the State decides gays can get married and pastors or clergy refuse to marry them they could get legal action against them. And since over 90% of all religions do not allow or support homosexually, that would be a real concern for most.
[/quote]
Is this why a wedding ceremony holds no legal standing, or that two people can get married without any religious service or churches consent whatsoever?
Legal marriage has nothing to do with any religion. It’s incredible how wrong you are about this.
[quote]Ryan P. McCarter wrote:
Here’s a deal, I’ll work on my reading comprehension if you work on your ability to express yourself in a semi-intelligent manner. It’d be nice if you could defend some of your views without resorting to childish name-calling, but I’m not going to hold my breath.
[/quote]
Your inability to understand is no sign of my inability to communicate.
I say something, and you make up an argument that I never presented. it’s called a straw man. You have pulled it at least twice now - and now you want to accuse me of not communicating intelligently?
My position is quite clear. It is one sentence long, and I have said it several times. If you can’t understand my position - you never will.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
The real issue is not whether gays should marry, or be allowed to marry. The issue is that the State should have no say in it all. Marriage has been a religious institution for thousands of years and it should stay that way.
…
Is this why a wedding ceremony holds no legal standing, or that two people can get married without any religious service or churches consent whatsoever?
Legal marriage has nothing to do with any religion…
[/quote]
A question follows, then.
Lets presume the fact that in 900 years of common law, there is absolutely no understanding of something called “same sex marriage.”
Lets also understand that I am completely disinterested in who “marries” whom and why anyone would do something so extrovert and foolish.
The question:
In California, Adam marries Steve in a same-sex marriage. It is a beautiful ceremony.
But one becomes disabled, and they move to Nevada, a low-tax state.
Is Nevada obliged to recognize the union for legal purposes and benefits, inheritance, etc? Does California have a say in any of this?
Must private companies legally recognize benefits–insurance, trusts, family leave?
Is the Federal Government obliged to provide benefits–Social Security benefits, for example, paid for by current workers–to the surviving spouse if one dies? Why?
Would not a legal contract–a legal union–be a better choice?
Even in an ideal society free of bias, why would something so important have been so poorly thought-out?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
GDollars37 wrote:
The liberals do have a point when they say conservatives should care just as much about out-of-wedlock births and divorce laws as they do about gay marriage.
They do.
So where are the propositions to amend state constitutions to ban no-fault divorce? [/quote]
Lots of states don’t have no-fault divorce. New York is one. Maybe no efforts to amend the constitution to ban it. But there’s been plenty of efforts to stymy those trying to get it. And believe me, many are trying. I believe opposition to no-fault divorce is a a fucked up misguided position too. But, hey, at least there’s consistency.
You hit the nail on the head. The anti-gay sentiment stems from religiosity rather than conservatism. Those that truly believe in getting the government out of their lives tend to support equal rights for gays, when they aren’t bogged down by the belief that homosexuality is offensive to their god.
Completely false, and you’d do well to improve in between stump speeches.
In that drastically lopsided thread that lasted over 90 pages, I gave you an argument against gay marriage that never once included an appeal to religious doctrine.
And, to repeat myself again - conservatives are not and never have been absolutists in “getting government out their lives”. I suppose that PhD must not be in Political Science.[/quote]
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Lorisco wrote:
The real issue is not whether gays should marry, or be allowed to marry. The issue is that the State should have no say in it all. Marriage has been a religious institution for thousands of years and it should stay that way.
…
Is this why a wedding ceremony holds no legal standing, or that two people can get married without any religious service or churches consent whatsoever?
Legal marriage has nothing to do with any religion…
A question follows, then.
Lets presume the fact that in 900 years of common law, there is absolutely no understanding of something called “same sex marriage.”
Lets also understand that I am completely disinterested in who “marries” whom and why anyone would do something so extrovert and foolish.
The question:
In California, Adam marries Steve in a same-sex marriage. It is a beautiful ceremony.
But one becomes disabled, and they move to Nevada, a low-tax state.
Is Nevada obliged to recognize the union for legal purposes and benefits, inheritance, etc? Does California have a say in any of this?
Must private companies legally recognize benefits–insurance, trusts, family leave?
Is the Federal Government obliged to provide benefits–Social Security benefits, for example, paid for by current workers–to the surviving spouse if one dies? Why?
Would not a legal contract–a legal union–be a better choice?
Even in an ideal society free of bias, why would something so important have been so poorly thought-out?
[/quote]
This has been thought out over centuries of common law. If a couple is recognized in one state as being legally married, they are legally married if they move. This has been tested in courts as it related to anti-miscegenation (prohibitions against mixed race marriages) laws and marriages to minors. In the famous Loving vs. Virginia, Virginia did not state the the Loving marriage was invalid, they simply said that the Lovings could not live in Virginia. This was unanimously rejected by the Supreme Court when it struck down the Virginia law as unconstitutional.
I’m sure that we are going to see the Supreme Court rule on these issues as they related to Gay Marriage. I’m sure that the Loving vs. Virginia will be referenced. There are obvious differences, but this is often regarded as a useful precedent.