Proposition 8 Sponsors Seek to Nullify 18 000 gay marriages

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dalaena
Actually, you both fail. It's clear that they (Ari and Theairoh) were both talking specifically about blacks in the US, not blacks all around world. Makes sense since we're discussing US law and legalities at the moment.

Time to pull out your civil rights history books. The point is that blacks were not citizens because they were considered sub-human. This is re-enforced because when blacks got the right to vote, they still only counted as 1/3 of a vote. Again, sub-human when compared to whites. Thus Ari's "AND human" comment. They were already considered citizens when they received 1/3 vote but clearly not considered to count as a full human. People fought for blacks to have full rights, not because they were the same as whites in every aspect, but because they deserved the same as whites for the sheer simple fact that we're all human.

---

Historical context helps, thanks. Amazing how much one forgets after just a few years :(

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dalaena

Again, no one here is arguing that homosexual couples should not be able to marry or have a civil union. The argument is that saying homosexual and heterosexual marriages are exactly the same. They're simply not. You can go as far as breaking it down to the most basic fact: one is a marriage between different sexes and one is a marriage between opposite sexes. See? Not the same. The end.

Otherwise, you might as well start saying that polygamy is the same as heterosexual and homosexual marriages. (In case you're wondering, they're not the same. One involves 2 people and one involves more than 2 people. It breaks down very similarly, doesn't it?)

---

I wasn't addressing the argument that hetero/homo marriages are/are not the same here. I agree, they're different. See below.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dalaena

Um, no. First of all, the argument is for why homosexual marriages differ from heterosexual marriages, NOT why homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry. Most of the arguments AGAINST homosexual unions are emotional ones. (It'll bring about Armageddon. It breaks down the sanctity of marriage. It's evil.) That's why it sounds so illogical to many, many people who aren't operating on emotional responses to the situation. Those same people are also the ones who are going to balk at those emotionally crying, "Homosexual marriages are exactly like heterosexual marriages!" They're simply not. That doesn't in any way mean that homosexual marriages should not be perfectly legal. People don't have to be "the same" to deserve the same rights.

---

As I said, I wasn't trying to address the difference/sameness aspect of their argument. For many anti-gay people, the fact that gay marriage cannot produce offspring is, for them, a big part of the argument against legalizing gay marriage.

What I was trying to imply is that someone who says gay couples shouldn't be allowed to marry because they can't reproduce together, but has no issue with known sterile hetero couples marrying, is logically and philosophically inconsistent.

Sure, the most common argument tends to center around religion and morals... but, ask a person to ignore those for a moment, and then ask again, "Why shouldn't gays marry?" Bereft of their safety blanket and trying to think for themselves, they'll usually say something along the lines of, "It's just not natural!" Bringing it back to the homosexuals can't reproduce with each other argument.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Sebboe
The problem with this entire argument is that you are basing marriage only on certain religions.

What if someone formed the church of homosexuality and THAT church recognized marriages only as between spouses of the same sex.

People are now married in holy matrimony, just by a different set of holy rules.

What these laws do is they determine which churches are right and wrong which completely contradicts the entire separation of church and state.

I think people should understand that there is a different between holy matrimony and legal matrimony.

The same sex marriage types for the most part of seeking legal matrimony. Those who are seeking it with a blessing from any major religion are going to be disappointed.

---

According to my argument in my first post: If you create a church of homosexuality, then wed people.....It should be a gloriously religious event with no legal ties. Which is EXACTLY how I wish a Catholic priest marrying a man and a woman should be. A glorious religious event with no legal ties. If that "married" couple wishes to share legal whatevers with each other, they should have to go sign legal paperwork to do so. No ceremonies. Perhaps an oath. Though really, I doubt that would matter.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Aristotle
You're kidding, right? The fact that one type of relation is necessary for THE CONTINUATION OF THE SPECIES is pretty darn significant.

---

Yes, breeding has this purpose and goal and outcome.

I think Theairoh's point and several other people's point is that the baby issue is trivial to the discussion. The fact that people are putting in the baby issue as some sort of Ace is nonsensical because: What does marriage have to do with babies?

A) Breeding is a coupling to produce offspring can be done by anybody. Even those who "prefer" not to.
B) Marriage is a coupling that has zero to do with nature, breeding, or anything other than what the rites say. Rightly so, as it is an invented construct.

Sure, married straight people often have kids. Unmarried straight people often have kids. Anybody can do it. Lots and lots of gay people have kids. What does this have to do with marriage? See (A).

Quote:

---

Biologically, it can't. And we are talking about the nature of the two relations themselves. They are not the same, and they are not even close to the same, for this one extremely significant reason.

---

Nobody is arguing that homosexuality and heterosexuality are the same. People are arguing that homosexual and heterosexual marriages are the same. And nobody is arguing about anybody's rights to produce children. We've made it abundantly clear on this planet that we are going to exercise this right to the extreme.

Quote:

---

Fail. My argument would be like giving blacks the right to vote because they are citizens AND human beings, but not because blacks are the same as whites. They aren't the same, and they don't need to be the same in order to deserve the right to vote. Sameness is not the relevant qualifier for equal rights.

---

Two different bodies - superficial, trivial differences = ???

Quote:

---

Jidoe:
Well... we are a democracy. Our Federal Constitution has delegated decisions about health, welfare, and morals to the States. If nothing in California's Constitution prevents something like Prop 8, and it would seem like there is nothing now - as Prop 8 is a constitutional amendment... then it should be upheld as constitutional.

It is a bit sad that we have to amend State constitutions in ways that directly impact on other people's lives, however, that is the nature of our system. People in California who do not like this have a couple of options:

1- Move to a different State; (Article 4 of the Federal Constitution provides this)
2- Try to undo Prop-8 democratically;
3- Try to amend the federal const;
4- Pray that the California Courts help;
5- Pray that the U.S. Supreme Court steps in.

Again, I do not like Prop 8, however, I cannot ignore that the measure was passed legally, and democratically in California. The voters have spoken.

---

Quote:

---

Thomas Jefferson: All, too, will bear in mind this sacred principle, that though the will of the majority is in all cases to prevail, that will to be rightful must be reasonable; that the minority possess their equal rights, which equal law must protect, and to violate would be oppression.

---

We've been having this debate for centuries now, and while proposition 8 may have succeeded in a legal fashion, it is inherently prejudiced and violates the rights of a specific protected class.

There's a very simple reason that it violates the rights of a specific protected class: and that is because it enfringes on a very fundamental American concept that all power should be in check - that should also include the popular majority.

I'm not content that Proposition 8 passes because there's no provision in California's constitution to protect the rights of minorities: honestly, no one should be. It's no comfort to me at all that a legal means of oppression exists in any way in my country which claims liberty as its primary tenet. The voters do speak, and sometimes they err against the principles we thought we should try to supplant the greatest army in the world, at the time, to build a government on.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Gromgor
According to my argument in my first post: If you create a church of homosexuality, then wed people.....It should be a gloriously religious event with no legal ties. Which is EXACTLY how I wish a Catholic priest marrying a man and a woman should be. A glorious religious event with no legal ties. If that "married" couple wishes to share legal whatevers with each other, they should have to go sign legal paperwork to do so. No ceremonies. Perhaps an oath. Though really, I doubt that would matter.

---

My bad. I missed that part of the post.

^Very much agreed, Cais.

I had a look at the statistics of the voters who voted yes/no on Prop 8 and I concluded that the main reason for it's passage was just plain ol' homophobia. The amendment itself is totally against equality, anyone who isn't mired up in homophobia can see that. And the more that I think about it the more I think the amendment is unconstitutional in the first place.

There base rights in this country that we are afforded which no vote can undo. If we'd cast a ballot for putting OJ Simpson under capitol punishment, and had it passed we still wouldn't have been able to really do so without violating the base statures set out by our government. It's silly that people think they can just amend the constitution in whatever way that they wish for their own personal gain. I think that came up in another thread the other day.

Inevitably, the court will have to 'undo' the unions in California that already exist, based on the wording of the new amendment, and in doing so they will be violating the first article of the federal constitution. I think that is when this whole thing is going to take a big turn.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dalaena
(I actually don't believe you should have to be a homosexual to marry someone of your sex. Hopefully, that doesn't offend anyone.)

---

I agree with this statement and it is largely why I felt that Chuck and Larry was a retarded movie.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Jyn
Sure, the most common argument tends to center around religion and morals... but, ask a person to ignore those for a moment, and then ask again, "Why shouldn't gays marry?" Bereft of their safety blanket and trying to think for themselves, they'll usually say something along the lines of, "It's just not natural!" Bringing it back to the homosexuals can't reproduce with each other argument.

---

Oh, right! I think I tend to forget that that's their whole "It's not natural" argument because it's so hard to see their logic in it sometimes.

For some religions, marriage was solely about procreation. I recall that Judaism and Catholicism have several religious rule surrounding procreation, so obviously, it was a very important part of their religion. (It may still be. I just remember it from historical readings on both religions, but I'm not a practicing member of either.) In the past, the number of children you had determined so much about your fortune, your ability to generate more income, and your ability to pass on your wealth. Some of that is still true, but it's a lot less true now.

I can't see homosexuality as unnatural simply because it exists in more than just human beings, and it probably serves a biological purpose. I also believe that same-sexed marriages should be allowed to occur regardless of sexuality.

P.S. Can anyone actually find a copy of Proposition 8? I'd like to read it for myself, and I can't seem to find it anywhere.

P.P.S. I think I found it, but I'm not sure. Can someone confirm?

Proposition 8

Cais - the post you replied to was written by Joreth and not myself. I can't say I know enough about American/Californian constitution to have an opinion on the matter.