| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Arthen |
Posted - 10/20/2008 : 5:24:43 PM
So, I have to bring this up here. It's terribly controversial and loaded with emotion, regardless. I also know there are only a few Californians who frequent the board, but it's an issue that needs to be discussed on the national level too. The issue of so called "Gay Marriage."
Currently in California, it is legal for same-sex couples to get married. Proposition 8 is attempting to get rid of that right. The whole issue is stupid on so many levels. People are arguing that they are "protecting traditional marriage." Yet to do so, they are going to violate the spirit of the Declaration of Independence (every man[person] has certain inalienable rights) and the Constitution of the United States. They are saying that in the eyes of the government one group should be entitled to one thing, and the other group nothing.
Here's my biggest problem with the whole idea of marriage. The state/government should not issue marriage licenses in the first place. The institution of marriage is solely religious, the institution of government is, at least supposed to be, secular. All the government should offer is a civil union, because in the eyes of the government "marriage" is a contract guaranteeing certain rights to people committed to each other and providing responsibilities for each party. If two religiously inclined people want to get married, they should obtain a "civil union" and then go to their church and have their church issue them some marriage certificate.
So, there. Interestingly enough, the first two words of the bill title are "Eliminates Right." We can't even blame Bush and his cronies anymore for eliminating rights, it's in the hands of the masses now. Democracy in action, oh boy.
Thoughts? |
| 34 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| dan p. |
Posted - 11/12/2008 : 6:12:49 PM
you are wrong because you smell funny.
it's been established that i am very, very old. the memory isn't as good as it used to be. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 11/12/2008 : 1:38:30 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
also, one fallacy we missed. logical fallacy: appeal to tradition.
and yes. i am truly ancient.
Sorry Dan, but we didn't miss that one. I just beat you to it a few posts back! Understanding fallacies are so important and yet here we are... |
| dan p. |
Posted - 11/12/2008 : 1:32:50 PM
my uncle (once removed) actually did get a mail-order bride from thailand. let's all assume they're happily and legitimately married because it's between a man and a woman.
also, one fallacy we missed. logical fallacy: appeal to tradition.
and yes. i am truly ancient. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 11/12/2008 : 11:52:47 AM
What do you mean you recall a time? That's happening now. Just google mail order brides and take your pick! |
| LoveToday |
Posted - 11/12/2008 : 09:26:46 AM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
i seem to recall there was a time when women were married off for a price or political advantage. could that be considered "traditional?"
Wow Dan P. You actually recall that? How the hell old are you? :)
Do you also recall that cavemen probably chose their brides based on whos ass smelled better? I always thought traditional marriages were between virgins? No? Am I wrong? Overseen by a priest? Right?
Marriage should be all about commitment (straight or gay)and less about weddings and tax deductions and sex. I also wish it was private and completely non governmental....haha... I said mental.
Sorry-silly day I guess. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 11/11/2008 : 11:40:56 AM
i seem to recall there was a time when women were married off for a price or political advantage. could that be considered "traditional?" |
| rubylith |
Posted - 11/11/2008 : 10:51:54 AM
If someone thinks that people who are gay shouldn't be able to get married or have "the right to pursue happiness" then those homophobes should take their bibles and shove it up there ass. TMIE TO MOVE FORWARD.
"Traditional Marriage"
bah.
1 in 8 people that get married nowadays meet online. Is hat considered traditional? Should married couples that met online not have the same rights. Gay couples have a smaller divorce rate anyway. The people who oppose it are some of the same fruitcakes that support the war. All in all, in almost every aspect of their logic, they're FLAWED.
/rant |
| LoveToday |
Posted - 11/11/2008 : 08:46:56 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Hopeful Rolling Waves
Straight people have made a total mockery of the institution of marriage for years; let the homosexuals class it up a bit.
Exactly! I have 6 (ish) parents that could be poster children for this comment. My second step mother is 2 years younger than I am and my first step father is gay now and for some reason, they are all married again. At this point, why bother? |
| Hopeful Rolling Waves |
Posted - 11/10/2008 : 9:29:17 PM
Straight people have made a total mockery of the institution of marriage for years; let the homosexuals class it up a bit. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 11/10/2008 : 7:45:29 PM
would you call that a red herring, though? i would call that slippery slope. "well if you let x happen, what's to stop y from happening?" |
| LoveToday |
Posted - 11/07/2008 : 09:08:16 AM
quote:
Originally posted by Ranting Thespian
in 50 years, this bickering about same sex marriage will just be a distant memory.
I can't wait to see how the academic history books will spin this one to our great grand children. Think they will correctly depict this as a sex issue as oppossed to a marraige issue? At least in 50 years all the dinosaurs that are freaked out about same sex couples having same sex sex (even though they paint it differently CLAIMING its about the institution under god) will be dead and the issue as well as the denial of the pursuit of happiness will be the distant memory.
Perhaps marraige as a whole (or hole) should be banned. |
| Ranting Thespian |
Posted - 11/07/2008 : 04:40:35 AM
in 50 years, this bickering about same sex marriage will just be a distant memory. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 11/07/2008 : 03:37:43 AM
Well, his whole point about pedophiles is a red herring, having nothing to do with the argument. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 11/06/2008 : 7:35:13 PM
i can see an appeal to tradition fallacy, but i'm not sure about red herring or straw man.
also: "What this shakes out to is gay marriage advocates wanting people to accept them, but then throw a fit and cry foul when people don't."
yeah, how dare those uppity gays get offended at being discriminated against. people should be able to be backward bigots if they want because it doesn't hurt anyone or society at large. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 11/06/2008 : 5:01:50 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
quote:
Originally posted by hoopdog187
tyranny of the majority. logical fallacy: slippery slope argument. logically fallacy: false dichotomy. lack of proof for gay marriage destroying "moral fiber." lack of proof for the existence of "moral fiber" in hetero marriages.
we should have been more specific: we need to hear from someone from california who can think logically and with perspective.
Don't forget the classic use of Straw Man argument, red herring, or appeal to emotion/fear/tradition. This is a text book case. If I ever get to teach a logic based class I'm going to give this to my students to tear apart. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 11/06/2008 : 4:36:08 PM
quote:
Originally posted by hoopdog187
tyranny of the majority. logical fallacy: slippery slope argument. logically fallacy: false dichotomy. lack of proof for gay marriage destroying "moral fiber." lack of proof for the existence of "moral fiber" in hetero marriages.
we should have been more specific: we need to hear from someone from california who can think logically and with perspective. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 11/06/2008 : 1:05:11 PM
So, gay marriage is on the same ground as people who want to have sex with 12 year olds. And being gay or falling in love with someone of the same sex is unreasonable. Wow. I'm not gay, but I'm completely offended that you would put two adults in a consensual relationship on the same level with pedophilia. That's a bullshit argument and has nothing to do with gay marriage. It is extremely ignorant and offensive.
Your whole middle paragraph about giving civil unions to everyone, is exactly like my first post, but then you go all over the place. Did you read what I offered up? Your argument is deluded. The courts initially overturned it because it is in essence unfair. Marriage is an institution, no? I remember hearing something about governments offering separate insitutions before, maybe with black people and schools and stuff, right? Oh yeah! Separate is inherently unequal! Neat! Hence it is unconstitutional under Equal Protection! Wow! Isn't logically using the Constitution of the UNITED STATES fun! And doesn't that supersede a state's constitution! Yep! Because if it didn't we'd have jim crow laws and every other damned thing still.
I also like the little bit in your post about "the will of the people" blah blah blah. Well, isn't that just special. If the will of the people believe something is wrong, truly, it must be! Just like how before the majority of the country believed slavery was a good thing! They must have been right too, they were a majority! Or are we ignoring the concept of tyranny of the majority, surpressing rights and freedoms of a smaller group in society? I think we are. There are so many fun and ignorant things we can keep going over in your post. Let's move on!
You know if two men get married and have a bunch of gay sex, that wears out the moral fabric of society. Obviously. Because it is immoral for two men to have sex and be united. Uh? Personally, I think two men having sex is the least attractive thing on the planet and I'd rather do anything else, but I'll be damned if I sit here and let someone tell me its immoral. Good thing we are "protecting marriage" so idiots like celebrities and Britney Spears can get married while they are drunk and then have it annuled hours later.
Your argument about marriage continues to get muddied. If the government only issued civil union liceneses, why would athiests get married in a church? You are assuming that Gays want to get married, just to get married. Wrong. They want to get married because that is something offered by the state to every other segment of society except them. Take marriage out of the equation and there is no problem.
You resort to history to make your argument, but then quietly ignore that all through history constitutions change as we realize our heads are up our asses. Gay marriage would not destroy society, it would not ruin our moral fabric, it would not destroy the education of children, it would not cause earthquaks, floods, pestilence. If you woke up tomorrow and gays could get married, and you didn't know they could, you wouldn't even notice. Life would continue the same as always. |
| hoopdog187 |
Posted - 11/06/2008 : 09:36:24 AM
OK, so someone wanted to hear from someone from California. Well, here I am. Arthen wrote that we are "getting rid" of gay marriage. Actually, we never should have had it in the first place. Here is why.
Several years ago, there was a proposition on the ballot that would allow same sex couples to marry in this state. The people of our California voted overwhelmingly against it, thus keeping the status quo.
The "will of the people" wasn't satisfactory for the proponents of the issue and they took it to court. Gotta love lawyers! They found a court to review it and then overturn the vote claiming it was unconstitutional. What a bunch of garbage!
Let's look at a few things;
IF gay marriage was truly "unconstitutional", the courts could, and probably would, have changed our state constitution without requiring it to go to ballot. No doubt that group tried that route and they and their lawyers were told that that change would require a majority vote by the voters in this state... which is why it went that path. No, I'm guessing their lobbying group went judge shopping and finally "convinced" someone with authority to lean their way. With the court on their side, they changed the state constitution to allow same sex marriage AGAINST THE WILL OF THE PEOPLE. The voters were outraged then, not just because of gay marriage being allowed, but because the will of the people was negated.
Fast forward to now and what you have are proponents of Prop 8 trying to restore the California constitution to its original state.
I am hard pressed to believe that ANY issue of substance and sensitive in nature (this would be one) would not run the gambit of lawyers to ensure that everything is written properly before submitting it for ballot so misinterpretation does not occur. Let's get real... these folks that want this are going to cover every base, dot every "I", and cross every "T" to make sure their issue is air-tight.
What this shakes out to is gay marriage advocates wanting people to accept them, but then throw a fit and cry foul when people don't. Tolerance can be forced, but acceptance cannot. The "elimination of rights" are simply removing something that shold have never been there in the first place. Thank the lawyers for creating the quagmire we are all now stuck in.
Let's take a walk... Historically, marriage was originally a religious institution entered into by a man and a woman..sometimes more than one of each, depending on the religion. There we go... RELIGION. At some point, the government figured out they needed to get involved in that process... probably to make money and keep tabs on their percieved enemies. So then the "state" got involved in the "church's" business and so it has remained through present.
How about if we return the jurisdiction of "marriage" back to the church and keep the government out of it? If athiests marry, is there union negated if they take their vows in a church or in a religious setting? If they take an oath that requires them to say "so help me God", is their oath or obligation moot because they don't believe in God?
If the government wants their coin, they can sell licenses for "Civil Partnerships". That way, anyone can enter into that legal arrangement, which can later be dissolved and the spoils from that partnership argued over in court. Let recognized religious groups conduct marriage ceremonies without the government's involvement. That way, if people want to be married in the eyes of their respective church or religion, they can. But if they want the benefits of a "Civil Partnership", they have to apply for a license and submit it to the State/County for approval and legal recognition. If people want to divorce and there is no "Civil Partnership", then the courts needn't hear those issues as it can all be handled by their church or religious leaders.
There are solutions out there, but it is unrealistic to believe that all people will embrace the middle ground on this issue.
There are those in this State that seek to have the legal age of consent for sex lowered to age 12 and age of consent for marriage to 14. A group called NAMBLA believes having sex with young boys is an acceptable practice. Those people believe there is nothing wrong with their views.
I think most parents would disagree, but the reality that these issues, which most people consider obsurd, will be working their way into the middle and higher courts in years soon to come. If those proponents lose, will they take another shot at changing the law in the same manner as the opponents of Prop 8? Will they accept the will of the people and go away quietly? I'm thinking not.
Moral fabric is a delicate thing. If not properly cared for, it will be consumed and destroyed by subtle predators. Some say you cannot choose who you fall in love with. Perhaps. But we can choose how we act upon our feelings and impulses. The ability to reason and act beyond our instincts is what separates us from the other animals on this planet.
S.M.I.B. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 10/24/2008 : 8:12:19 PM
i'm sure you do  |
| LoveToday |
Posted - 10/24/2008 : 1:22:51 PM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
if prostitution becomes legal, women are going to have to change their dating tactics.
Meow Dan P. I resemble that remark. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 10/23/2008 : 3:20:56 PM
if prostitution becomes legal, women are going to have to change their dating tactics. |
| Arthen |
Posted - 10/23/2008 : 2:50:09 PM
quote:
Originally posted by LoveToday
What about this Proposition X I have been hearing about? Is San Fran truly trying to legalize prostitution?
Ha ha. It essentially rules out the local police force from investigating acts of prostitution. They can't legalize it, as it is still a state law but they're getting as close as they can. From everything I've heard, the prop won't pass. |
| LoveToday |
Posted - 10/23/2008 : 08:23:38 AM
What about this Proposition X I have been hearing about? Is San Fran truly trying to legalize prostitution? |
| Arthen |
Posted - 10/22/2008 : 5:44:12 PM
quote:
Originally posted by LoveToday
here in massachusetts, where same sex marraiges are considered legal we never got to vote on a ballot. the law, ordinance whatever was passed by congress is that whats going on in California or will the people get to vote on it?
Our State Court overturned a ban which resulted in the allowance of same-sex marriages. This is a prop in response to that court decision. People get to vote to overturn it and ban same-sex marriage. |
| dan p. |
Posted - 10/22/2008 : 3:42:53 PM
quote:
Originally posted by jsemon2
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
3. the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman - the definition of words change over time.
i understand this and agree with it to an extent because i feel some words stay the same no matter how much people try to redefine a meaning of a word.
as far as making marriage separate from government, i like that. but i guess i see even more "religious sects" popping up claiming their own religion. granted i think there are rules and regulations for any "joe smoe" starting up their own church. i'm not sure.... but keeping it separate sounds like a good idea, the government i feel, has more then enough to worry about then same sex marriages.
what words have stayed the same forever? it is the nature of language to change. this is not a result of people actively pushing to change it, but a natural process. language reflects the culture that uses it. nothing more, nothing less. the opposite side of your argument is that some words change not matter how much people cling to the outmoded definitions.
also, one religion is about the same as any other regardless of origin or following, so i guess i don't see what you're trying to say?
but yes, we have bigger fish to fry than gays who want to enjoy the same rights and psychological fulfillment as everyone else. for instance, i hear the economy is in a bad way. |
| LoveToday |
Posted - 10/22/2008 : 10:13:31 AM
here in massachusetts, where same sex marraiges are considered legal we never got to vote on a ballot. the law, ordinance whatever was passed by congress is that whats going on in California or will the people get to vote on it? |
| jsemon2 |
Posted - 10/22/2008 : 09:45:56 AM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
3. the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman - the definition of words change over time.
i understand this and agree with it to an extent because i feel some words stay the same no matter how much people try to redefine a meaning of a word.
as far as making marriage separate from government, i like that. but i guess i see even more "religious sects" popping up claiming their own religion. granted i think there are rules and regulations for any "joe smoe" starting up their own church. i'm not sure.... but keeping it separate sounds like a good idea, the government i feel, has more then enough to worry about then same sex marriages. |
| LoveToday |
Posted - 10/22/2008 : 08:39:36 AM
[quote]Originally posted by dan p.
legitimized cocksucking will destroy society.
hahaha. tell that to bill clinton. imagine if the person he was caught "not having sexual relations" with was a guy? that would have been awesome.
I completely agree with churches being responsible for issuing marraige licenses. Or at least an entity other than a government one. City hall being involved is just another way for big brother to keep tabs and little brother to get paid. At least they have done away with the blood test. |
| Ranting Thespian |
Posted - 10/21/2008 : 05:40:23 AM
quote:
Originally posted by dan p.
1. god said it's wrong - if we ignore the obvious religious argument, i believe our current set up is that religion stays the fuck out of government, and government says the fuck out of religion.
2. it damages society's social fabric - prove it.
3. the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman - the definition of words change over time.
4. if we let gays marry, next thing you know we'll let people marry animals - logical fallacy: slippery slope argument.
5. i hate faggots - good luck with that.
Those are the only excuses people have, which is disturbingly stupid why we segregate homosexuals and bi-sexuals (like myself) from heterosexuals. I can tell you in time we are going to look back on this like we are looking back on women's rights movements and the civil rights movements.
I specifically love the second one. It's like saying right now that if you give money to the guys on top, it will trickle down. I say to that as well: PROVE IT! |
| dan p. |
Posted - 10/20/2008 : 11:26:17 PM
legitimized cocksucking will destroy society.
seriously, though. government and marriage need to be separated. if a group of people's superstitions dictate that gays shouldn't be married, fine. let that group not marry gays. who cares, they're obviously backwards. but don't deprive gays of the rights provided to all people by the constitution.
there is literally no valid argument in being against gay marriage. let's go through them.
1. god said it's wrong - if we ignore the obvious religious argument, i believe our current set up is that religion stays the fuck out of government, and government says the fuck out of religion.
2. it damages society's social fabric - prove it.
3. the definition of marriage is between a man and a woman - the definition of words change over time.
4. if we let gays marry, next thing you know we'll let people marry animals - logical fallacy: slippery slope argument.
5. i hate faggots - good luck with that. |
| GuitarGuy305 |
Posted - 10/20/2008 : 8:12:43 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Ranting Thespian
P.S. However, I smiled when Lieutenant Sulu got married
That's Captain Sulu. Show some respect dammit. |
| Ranting Thespian |
Posted - 10/20/2008 : 7:27:09 PM
I don't believe in marriage at all anyways. Why do you stand in front of someone, pay tons of money for things that are pointless and will be of no use in an hour of using them, and supposedly saying "I do" changes everything?
I understand about civil unions though.
Also, anyone can get married to anyone else or even anything! It is all religion and faith base stuff. Just the government will only recognize certain marriages and ignore others.
I agree that marriage should be taken out of any government hands, and only civil unions should be in for everyone.
P.S. However, I smiled when Lieutenant Sulu got married |
| GuitarGuy305 |
Posted - 10/20/2008 : 7:08:21 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Arthen
Here's my biggest problem with the whole idea of marriage. The state/government should not issue marriage licenses in the first place. The institution of marriage is solely religious, the institution of government is, at least supposed to be, secular. All the government should offer is a civil union, because in the eyes of the government "marriage" is a contract guaranteeing certain rights to people committed to each other and providing responsibilities for each party. If two religiously inclined people want to get married, they should obtain a "civil union" and then go to their church and have their church issue them some marriage certificate.
I could not agree more, even coming from a traditional man/woman standpoint. I don't understand why couples have to be "married" and have some sort of officiant affiliated with a church perform the ceremony, when neither of them may believe in god or be in the least bit religious.
On a side note, the minister that performed our marriage ceremony is gay. |
| gnome44 |
Posted - 10/20/2008 : 6:41:36 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Arthen
The state/government should not issue marriage licenses in the first place. The institution of marriage is solely religious, the institution of government is, at least supposed to be, secular. All the government should offer is a civil union...
You are 100% correct, sir. |
