Prop 8

[Calax]

I disagree on both points. There's no guarantee that the SCOTUS will consider this issue. ...And I don't think it's in the best interest of the activist groups for the SCOTUS to do so. Oh, don't get me wrong, it would be if the issue were certain. The SCOTUS is the final word. It has the gravitas that state courts simply lack. However, there is no certainty that the decision would fall the way the activists want, and that gravitas cuts both ways, no?

 

Finally, I don't think social convservatives need to worry based on the popular unrest. The homosexual groups threw everything they had into this issue both times and lost. Now, I know my views on this are unpopular. I think homosexuals should have the right to marry. After all, why should I want to deny homosexuals the right to do something when that right doesn't hurt me personally or cause harm to society. However, society does have the right to decide the issue. ...And they have. Twice.

 

If, on the other hand, homosexual groups can find ways to draw off voters, they can do something much better than win in court. They can make a counterproposal that explicitly allows gay marriage. Won't that victory be much sweeter? ...And it has the added advantage of not promoting the encroachment of the judiciary into legislative power.

the whole unrest thing is because people seem to be looking at the prop and saying "OH CRAP what did I just do?"... at least where I'm standing. Also it doesn't help that the campaigners for prop 8 lied in their campaign to get it through.

[Aristes]

Calax: I don't think that the voters have a tremendous amount of buyer's remorse just yet, but I think they can be swayed from their current position. Prop 8 won by a significant but not particularly forceful margin 2.5% switch in votes and you've got it. Of course, Prop 8 also came up during probably the most significant presidential election in my lifetime. What does the turnout mean for homosexual marriage? I don't know. I would much rather see this issues played out at the legislative level than judicial. I'm glad that we're strating from scratch.

 

Kitty: I'm not trying to antagonize you. I know this issue is very much personal for some of the members here. ...But societies always decide the rights and who has them and who doesn't. It must. No one here wants to see the age of sexual consent lowered to 5. How about no age limit? Driver's licenses for blind people? Does the state have the right to execute criminals? Do individuals have the right to end theirs lives because of terminal illnesses? These are all questions that society faces. The process of deciding who can do what is the only reason to have laws in the first place. I'm not saying that homosexual marriages are the equivalent of allowing blind folks to operate vehicles on the freeway. I, personally, don't see any harm in permitting homosexual marriages. I do, however, see harm in allowing the State Supreme court to infringe on legislative power.

 

Hey, I can't help it that, in this screwed up state, the legislative process falls under mob rule on a regular basis. I hate it. I would definitely support a consitutional convention to overturn the ballot initiative process. Maybe then our cowardly and despicable legislators would do their job. ...But we don't have that and the Supreme Court had no basis for overturning the ammendment.

[Hell Kitty]

I'm not saying that homosexual marriages are the equivalent of allowing blind folks to operate vehicles on the freeway.

 

Than why ask such ridiculous questions? Lowering age of consent to infancy? What the hell?

[Aristes]

What I was trying to establish is that all society does is deny rights and some of the time there isn't any question that it should. Good Lord. Folks only complain about society denying rights that they wish to have.

 

Look, you said: "I don't think society should have the right to decide the issue, when the issue is denying rights."

 

My point was that society denies rights as its normal function. I was also establishing that some things should be prohibited. I was making the most ridiculous example because I wanted to be clear that no-one complains about exluding things like child abuse from the list of 'rights.' I went from that extreme up to blind people having the 'right' to drive. I went from there to the death penalty and ended up in euthanasia. I wasn't trying to bait you in any way. However, my point still stands. Society decides what rights are and then immediately jumps in to decide who gets them. Sometimes, the vast majority of the population agrees. Sometimes they don't. ...But society always decides. THAT was my point.

 

The specific question is ridiculous on its face, but as part of the larger discusion, I don't think it is. The age of consent is variable around the world. I'm not saying that homosexuals are child molestors and I'm saying you are and I'm sure as hell not saying I am either. However, what is the real difference between 18 and 17.5 years? Yes, it's a dreaded question, but I think it's legitimate. How good of eyesight does someone need to have before society will trust them on the road? Blind is clearly out of the question, but what is the law? If you can settle this question in everyone's mind, you'd have your homosexual marriage right now: Is homosexual marriage an unalienable right on the same level as heterosexual marriage? If you convince enough people that it is, then you've got your ammendment.

[Meshugger]

The specific question is ridiculous on its face, but as part of the larger discusion, I don't think it is. The age of consent is variable around the world. I'm not saying that homosexuals are child molestors and I'm saying you are and I'm sure as hell not saying I am either. However, what is the real difference between 18 and 17.5 years? Yes, it's a dreaded question, but I think it's legitimate. How good of eyesight does someone need to have before society will trust them on the road? Blind is clearly out of the question, but what is the law? If you can settle this question in everyone's mind, you'd have your homosexual marriage right now: Is homosexual marriage an unalienable right on the same level as heterosexual marriage? If you convince enough people that it is, then you've got your ammendment.

 

I wuold say that it is a compromise; either you have a law that strictly draws the line to a certain age, or you have a annual standardized test starting from an arbitrary age to determine whether you are an adult or not.

 

Of course, that would ensue some quite hillarious situations, where Johnny is 13, but deemed as an adult according to the test and can be sentenced to death for murder, and Jacky is 41, but not allowed to vote, since he is a bit "childish".

[Humodour]

I don't think society should have the right to decide the issue, when the issue is denying rights.

 

Indeed (assuming you mean directly decide). It bemuses me why this is allowed in California. I don't believe it is in other US states is it?

[Oerwinde]

I think government just needs to get out of Marriage. Have marriage as a religious/symbolic ceremony as its always been, with no recognition under the law for same-sex or opposite-sex couples, then have civil unions being the legally recognized union. Everyone's happy because everyone is equal.

Edited May 28, 2009 by Oerwinde

[Humodour]

I think government just needs to get out of Marriage. Have marriage as a religious/symbolic ceremony as its always been, with no recognition under the law for same-sex or opposite-sex couples, then have civil unions being the legally recognized union. Everyone's happy because everyone is equal.

 

Agreed, but the Prop 8 people hate this option just as much.

[Calax]

I don't think society should have the right to decide the issue, when the issue is denying rights.

 

Indeed (assuming you mean directly decide). It bemuses me why this is allowed in California. I don't believe it is in other US states is it?

Because the California Constitution was designed that way... it's probably one of the easiest to change in the states

 

I think government just needs to get out of Marriage. Have marriage as a religious/symbolic ceremony as its always been, with no recognition under the law for same-sex or opposite-sex couples, then have civil unions being the legally recognized union. Everyone's happy because everyone is equal.

For the same reason they were pushing through prop 8 is the reason this would never happen. It's backed primarily by religious fundies who think that gays are abominations and should burn in hell. They wouldn't let us "devalue" their marriage because it's a sacred thing and should be back to the fullest extent of the law!

 

... Basically they're the guys who, in a "perfect" world, would have us teach the bible in history class.

[Hell Kitty]

I was making the most ridiculous example because I wanted to be clear that no-one complains about exluding things like child abuse from the list of 'rights.'

 

That's because child abuse has victims. Who are the victims of gay marriage?

 

Allowing blind people to drive would be dangerous. In what way is gay marriage dangerous?

 

...But society always decides.

 

Sure, I think society needs a good reason for coming to that decision, you, seemingly, do not.

[Humodour]

What I was trying to establish is that all society does is deny rights and some of the time there isn't any question that it should. Good Lord. Folks only complain about society denying rights that they wish to have.

 

Look, you said: "I don't think society should have the right to decide the issue, when the issue is denying rights."

 

My point was that society denies rights as its normal function. I was also establishing that some things should be prohibited. I was making the most ridiculous example because I wanted to be clear that no-one complains about exluding things like child abuse from the list of 'rights.' I went from that extreme up to blind people having the 'right' to drive. I went from there to the death penalty and ended up in euthanasia. I wasn't trying to bait you in any way. However, my point still stands. Society decides what rights are and then immediately jumps in to decide who gets them. Sometimes, the vast majority of the population agrees. Sometimes they don't. ...But society always decides. THAT was my point.

 

The specific question is ridiculous on its face, but as part of the larger discusion, I don't think it is. The age of consent is variable around the world. I'm not saying that homosexuals are child molestors and I'm saying you are and I'm sure as hell not saying I am either. However, what is the real difference between 18 and 17.5 years? Yes, it's a dreaded question, but I think it's legitimate. How good of eyesight does someone need to have before society will trust them on the road? Blind is clearly out of the question, but what is the law? If you can settle this question in everyone's mind, you'd have your homosexual marriage right now: Is homosexual marriage an unalienable right on the same level as heterosexual marriage? If you convince enough people that it is, then you've got your ammendment.

 

I heard your like Proposition 8 so I put a Proposition 8 in your Proposition 8 so now you can Proposition 8 while you Proposition 8.

[Aristes]

...But society always decides.

 

Sure, I think society needs a good reason for coming to that decision, you, seemingly, do not.

 

So, what you're saying is that society should not have the right deny rights without establishing that having the right would cause harm? Look, whether or not I think that gays should not have the right to marry is one thing. This ammendment should not have been overturned. I have a very good reason for thinking that should be true. The ammendment passed through the legitimate legal process. The ruling was 6-1. That 1 was way out of line. Even the folks making the argument to overturn the ammendment weren't optimistic because they were merely making the best argument they could and it was a bad argument in the first place.

 

I've discussed this issue in good faith. I wasn't even argumentative or reactionary when Krezack called me a bigot in one of the earlier threads. I've taken folks at their face value. I've given up hope that folks would take me at mine. You might hate my conclusion, but at least I'm willing to set about discussing the issue honestly. Certainly a lot more honestly than folks answering poll questions here before the vote. I'm perfectly happy if the state permits homosexual marriages. I do not want these marriages imposed by the judiciary.

[Aristes]

I think government just needs to get out of Marriage. Have marriage as a religious/symbolic ceremony as its always been, with no recognition under the law for same-sex or opposite-sex couples, then have civil unions being the legally recognized union. Everyone's happy because everyone is equal.

 

I'm happy to have this option. The fact is, we'd just end up with two different ceremonies. One would be civil and the other would be religious.

[Hell Kitty]

...But society always decides.

 

Sure, I think society needs a good reason for coming to that decision, you, seemingly, do not.

 

So, what you're saying is that society should not have the right deny rights without establishing that having the right would cause harm?

 

Basically, yeah. I think if the law allows the majority to deny rights to the minority without reason then the law is wrong.

[Gorgon]

I think government just needs to get out of Marriage. Have marriage as a religious/symbolic ceremony as its always been, with no recognition under the law for same-sex or opposite-sex couples, then have civil unions being the legally recognized union. Everyone's happy because everyone is equal.

 

I'm happy to have this option. The fact is, we'd just end up with two different ceremonies. One would be civil and the other would be religious.

It's not really the business of government to reform the homophobic philosophies of many religious organizations. What is important is that the union between two people is equal under the law regardless of sex.

 

There are churches out there who will join a gay couple and call it marriage, the heterocentric (is that a word) churches do not retain exclusive copyright on the word, and people who are offended by it basically just need to get over themselves.

[Walsingham]

What annoys me is the hypocrisy. As I understand it - and I'm ready to be showed otherwise - the grounding is mainly Leviticus. But Leviticus also says that we should take people of other faiths and stone them to death. And it is also an abomination to eat shellfish. So, if this is religious Cali should ban lobster thermidor.

 

On the other hand I know plenty of military types and rugby players who are homophobic, and they're as religious as a pile of puke.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

I think government just needs to get out of Marriage.

 

[Maria Caliban]

What annoys me is the hypocrisy. As I understand it - and I'm ready to be showed otherwise - the grounding is mainly Leviticus. But Leviticus also says that we should take people of other faiths and stone them to death. And it is also an abomination to eat shellfish. So, if this is religious Cali should ban lobster thermidor.

 

Leviticus is a book of Jewish laws. In Acts 15 the apostles and elders decide that non-Jewish Christians need only

[Oerwinde]

I think government just needs to get out of Marriage. Have marriage as a religious/symbolic ceremony as its always been, with no recognition under the law for same-sex or opposite-sex couples, then have civil unions being the legally recognized union. Everyone's happy because everyone is equal.

 

I'm happy to have this option. The fact is, we'd just end up with two different ceremonies. One would be civil and the other would be religious.

 

The way I envision it is the civil union is just a contract, if you want a religious marriage to also be a civil union you just sign the contract during the ceremony. If you want a civil ceremony its also an option but not necessary.

[HoonDing]

People used to use Bible passages from the same Leviticius to condone slavery, now they use it to condemn homosexuality which is as old as humanity itself (what do you think our Cro Magnon ancestors did when they were away from home for weeks/months to hunt sabre tooth tigers?).

 

Example:

"And whosoever lieth carnally with a woman, that is a bondmaid, betrothed to an husband, and not at all redeemed, nor freedom given her; she shall be scourged; they shall not be put to death, because she was not free. And he shall bring his trespass offering unto the Lord, unto the door of the tabernacle of the congregation, even a ram for a trespass offering. And the priest shall make an atonement for him with the ram of the trespass offering before the Lord for his sin which he hath done: and the sin which he hath done shall be forgiven him."

Leviticus 19-22

[Walsingham]

And.. I

[Pidesco]

And.. I

[kirottu]

And.. I’ve written a huge amount based on one paragraph. Go me!

 

Well, I enjoyed it.

 

 

Same here. Well written, concise and informative. How often do you see that on an internet gaming message board? Kudos to you, Maria.

 

I personally couldn

Edited May 29, 2009 by kirottu

[Gfted1]

That would be a female boot kiro-san, not in fact, a dido with an L in it.

[Gorgon]

Waht...

 

Scans post for penises, batman and boots.