Prop 8 Prevails in California -- Gay Marriage Discussion

[Gulp]

Originally Posted by EternalThanos86

Anarchist....



Freedom without restriction achieves nothing, as even freedom needs checks and balances since one man's freedom is another man's slavery. Freedom needs to be in balance with restriction, which is the whole reason people vote, to find out the majority opinion and achieve a balance based on those opinions.

Wow. I hope you didn't come up with that on your own. That's the dumbest crap I've ever heard. "Achieve a balance of majority opinion" ...

EDIT: I've apologized for being out of line in this post. The apology is here.

[Onacara]

(Onacara's mind goes into overdrive)

If they ever bring back the draft will gays want to be treated as equals then or would they conveniently utilize the "no gays in the military" discrimination too?

Just thinking aloud.

[EternalThanos86]

Originally Posted by Gulp

Wow. I hope you didn't come up with that on your own. That's the dumbest crap I've ever heard. "Achieve a balance of majority opinion" ...

Alright, perhaps I should rephrase. What I DO NOT mean is do whatever the majority wants. What I do mean is find out how the people balance issues like these in their own lives. Find out what is considered acceptable and what is not, based on the everyone. That way balanced policy can be applied, a bell curve of sorts. Rather than policy that is skewed one way or another.

[Gulp]

Originally Posted by EternalThanos86

Alright, perhaps I should rephrase. What I DO NOT mean is do whatever the majority wants. What I do mean is find out how the people balance issues like these in their own lives. Find out what is considered acceptable and what is not, based on the everyone. That way balanced policy can be applied, a bell curve of sorts. Rather than policy that is skewed one way or another.

But there are some things that are just bad whether or not we agree on them. And usually the main characteristic is that someone is having their right to free expression being restricted. Someone is saying "too much!"

Your ideas sound like they aren't treating the people involved like they are humans.

[EternalThanos86]

Originally Posted by Gulp

But there are some things that are just bad whether or not we agree on them. And usually the main characteristic is that someone is having their right to free expression being restricted. Someone is saying "too much!"

Your ideas sound like they aren't treating the people involved like they are humans.

I completely agree with you on this. But it's hard to think about the side who wants the restriction because to allow the freedom restricts others from saying, "Too much!" Freedom and restriction go hand in hand.

It sounds like my ideas don't treat people involved as humans on the "other" side because my ideas deal with real people on "this" side. In other words, who is protecting the freedoms for people who don't want something?

I certainly hope this makes sense. The only points I care to make are this:
1. Freedom and restriction require balance to achieve success in civilization.
2. There are two sides to every issue and both sides ought to be able to speak freely, even when one side has been chosen over another in policy.

[Gulp]

Freedom is the opposite of restriction... who cares? Maybe freedom likes restriction. It will be something that they disagree on, but they'll really come to know one another. That sounds really hokey pokey, to think that we're supposed to pay attention to some sort of natural order of thing.

That concept is thoroughly discountable.

[SuperflyTNT]

Freedom is NOT the opposite of restriction, it is the abscence of restriction.

Freedom in the US has restrictions while remaining freedoms - ie. you can't yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, but you still have 1st amendment rights.

Gulp, you talk about freedoms, but what about the freedoms of the people who would be forced to accept public schools teaching children that homosexuality is OK and a 'valid lifestyle choice" when they vehemently disagree and see it as disgusting, immoral, or are otherwise opposed to it? Are their rights, and the rights of their children less valuable than the rights of the homosexual folks who wish to be granted these special rights?

It's a really tough pickle, methinks. The problem with the whole thing is that this reaches into people's HOMES. There are very few things people will get as riled up about as interference in the moral teachings of parents to children. On one side you have the want of gays to marry, but on the other you have people who don't want to deal with:
A. Teachers undermining home morals
B. Parents undermining school discipline while disagreeing with teachers
C. Teachers undermining parents by treating them as closed-minded.

It seems to me that the current climate will not allow for homosexuals to marry.

I would also note some good news for the pro-SSM side: This morning I actually read the text of the CA constitution and it states that, "Only a marriage between a man and a woman will be recognized in California", and thus it does indeed disallow the RECOGNITION of the marriages in CA, but not the marriage itself. A small victory for the same-sex side, I think!

[Granite-M]

Originally Posted by SuperflyTNT

OMG...He said it. It all boils down to that, doesn't it....which side of the card you're on.

Now flip it around - why should someone be FORCED TO LIVE AGAINST WHAT FEELS NATURAL TO THEM TO MAKE OTHERS FEEL MORE COMFORTABLE. Well maybe having 2 gay guys being married makes someone uncomfortable? Your perceived needs trumps theirs?

Yes, it does. You know why? Because it's not ultimately about making gays comfortable, it's about giving them the same legal protections. If they are denied the rights that are given to hetero couples, they are being shunted into a second class citizen status. Whereas if they are granted the same protections, then the ultimate evil in your perception seems to be that it makes some people uncomfortable. That seems to be the greatest harm you've managed to come up with: "It makes me uncomfortable." That's simply not good enough.

So, when it's YOU who want to be more comfortable, everyone should bow down, but when it's THEM who want to be more comfortable, FUGGEM because they're just religious zealots or bigots and not progressive enough?

Not comfortable. Legally protected the same as you.

Do you see the sheer arrogance and false sense of entitlement? That's the only thing in this whole gay marriage thing that pi55es me off.

Oh, yes! There's a false sense of entitlement to human rights! Gays aren't entitled to those things!

I don't care whether or not a gay dude gets married to another gay dude. How does that REALLY effect me. If I'm a bigot, I tell my kids they're scum and are going TO HELL. If I'm more open, I tell my kids that some people are different, and it's OK. Either way, it's my choice. When the government starts telling people that they HAVE to accept something and start TEACHING it, that's where I get ornery.

That's the real harm and fear on the other side, I think. That once the government condones it that the government will TEACH it to my kids, that it's OK, when I may believe that it's not.

The government isn't proposing teaching anything. Nowhere in all of this has it been proposed that homosexuality be taught by any government institution. What's being fought for is simple legal protections. Look at it this way: during Prohibition, alcohol was illegal. Now it's legal. Where in the schools is it taught that our children should become alcoholics? As a matter of fact, I remember pretty clearly my teachers expounding at length about the inherent physical dangers of imbibing alcohol. Simply because the government protects your right to engage in an activity, doesn't mean that it's endorsing the activity, and it certainly doesn't mean it will be taught in the schools.

Are you serious? If it's a choice then what you're advocating is that a small group of people who CHOOSE to do something get a special, VERY controversial new civil right.

That gets into bigamy again - then there REALLY is no difference. Again, it's not analogous to the "It's Like Being Black, or a Woman" because they're born that way, with no choice. Now if it were to turn out that there is indeed a gay gene, well, that's an entirely different cup of noodles - then they would indeed be born that way, and thus should absolutely be afforded any protections under the law that any other people would get. It's the CHOICE thing that I think really tossed the case out the window - I can't think of any small group of people that gets special rights just because they choose to live differently than the majority of people.

I still don't understand why you think it matters if it's a choice or not. Let's go back to the examples. A person chooses to wear silly pants. Silly pants are frowned upon by society. Does this mean that we don't allow this person to have children, because he might expose them to ridicule? No. That's preposterous. If a person's choices aren't actively harmful to the rest of society, in a way other than "That icks me out," then you can't limit their legal rights.

Or, we could go to an even better example: the case of Loving v. Virginia. This was the case the determined that if blacks and whites wanted to get married, the government didn't have the right to prevent that. Sound at all familiar? Now, you may say that the people involved were born black and white, and therefore it's different. However, they did choose to marry outside their race. They were seeking a new, highly controversial, legal right-- the right to choose who they married, without the government punishing them for their choices. By your argument, it seems that they ought to have chosen not to marry a person of a different race, because the majority of society did not approve of their mixed marriage.

The majority opinion cannot hold sway over minorities' legal rights simply for reasons of aesthetic preference. That way lies madness.

[Hahma]

Originally Posted by Onacara

(Onacara's mind goes into overdrive)

If they ever bring back the draft will gays want to be treated as equals then or would they conveniently utilize the "no gays in the military" discrimination too?

Just thinking aloud.

Why wouldn't they want to be treated as equals in that situation? They're not the ones that say they shouldn't be in the military.

Besides, if they don't want gays in the military even during a time where the draft in necessary, then I bet there will be a whole bunch of straights acting gay just to get out of the draft.

[Grungebob]

I'm not sure I understand this homosexuality as a choice thing.

I couldn't just choose to be gay. I was born heterosexual and will stay that way.

How many of you heterosexuals out there feel like switching over to a gay lifestyle?

The idea that this lifestyle would spread is preposterous, so what is so wrong with it being condoned? It's not like your kids are going to go gay if they see it as acceptible.

[Ted_Danson]

That Terminator guy who is the governor of California is working to over turn prop 8!

Happy day!

[cavebehr]

It was truely a sad day when cali said yes to 8, I really hate when people use religion to justify discrimination for what should be a human right in America United, The right for anyone to marry should be writtin for all of the united states as follows One consenting human adult of leagal national age bonding with any one other consenting human adult of leagal national age at one time not allowing for any multiple marrages. it would be so simple for the government to do this as a law for all humans in america. Some people may not remember but in this country not more than a hundred years or so ago we used the bible to justify slavery and to keep those slaves from marrying because they were not citizens or even human they were property. Then when we freed those slaves the religious people of this nation used the bible to make laws saying people who were white could not marry people who were black, no race mixing, (for those who dont know the jews were told not to do this by thier god, old testament), the bible was also used to keep women from voting and running things in the political arenas because of verses that stated for women to be quiet in the church and subserviant to men. This is some examples of how religious people have trampled on the constition with using the bible to justify thier agendas. Our for fathers wrote the constition seperating church and state to keep our country free from religous nut jobs who can and will use thier interpretation of a mytholagical book written by men for thier own gains and ways to control and subjugate others. The funniest thing is it also states in the bible that thier god controls who is leader of all the countries of the world and to trust in him, so when religious groups get involved in politics they are in fact stating they have no faith in thier god! And for the record Christianity was the mandatory religion when god let rome fall! Wake up America laws should be based on common sense and equal freedom for every american, not on religious fascism, and one last note Hitler was a good christian in the eyes of his religious leaders as well!