Originally Posted By FaMulan <a href="http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957" target="_blank">http://www.newsweek.com/id/229957</a> A couple of tidbits from the article: "The simple fact is that there is no good reason why we should deny marriage to same-sex partners. On the other hand, there are many reasons why we should formally recognize these relationships and embrace the rights of gays and lesbians to marry and become full and equal members of our society." "When we refuse to accord this status to gays and lesbians, we discourage them from forming the same relationships we encourage for others. And we are also telling them, those who love them, and society as a whole that their relationships are less worthy, less legitimate, less permanent, and less valued. We demean their relationships and we demean them as individuals. I cannot imagine how we benefit as a society by doing so." "I understand, but reject, certain religious teachings that denounce homosexuality as morally wrong, illegitimate, or unnatural; and I take strong exception to those who argue that same-sex relationships should be discouraged by society and law. Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual. To a very large extent, these characteristics are immutable, like being left-handed. And, while our Constitution guarantees the freedom to exercise our individual religious convictions, it equally prohibits us from forcing our beliefs on others." Author Theodore B. Olson will be arguing to overturn Prop 8 in Federal Court. His reasoning is legally sound and I wish him well.
Originally Posted By SuperDry He touches on the issue but doesn't address what the problem is: it's not a conservative issue, it's a religious issue.
Originally Posted By Princessjenn5795 It isn't even just a religious view- I know a lot of Christians that, like myself, are fully in favor of gay marriage. It is more a societal view. Just like discrimination towards interracial marriage in the 60's what you have is a lot of people twisting religion to validate their prejudices. And, just like interracial marriage, I believe that in time gays will have the full legal rights as the rest of us and it will eventually become a non-issue for most people.
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt The people who continually act to strike down marriage equality are very short sighted.
Originally Posted By Mr F People should get a life and stop telling others what they should do with theirs.
Originally Posted By DAR Then you'll be in favor of the government not forcing restaurants or bars to ban smoking. Or telling us what kind of foods we can't eat or what we can drink.
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<Then you'll be in favor of the government not forcing restaurants or bars to ban smoking.>> Then you should also be in favor of the government not forcing automobile passengers to wear seat belts, nor forcing motorcycle riders to wear helmets, nor forcing citizens to limit their water consumption during droughts. Tell me, DAR... which of those three are you against?
Originally Posted By Dr Hans Reinhardt "Author Theodore B. Olson will be arguing to overturn Prop 8 in Federal Court. His reasoning is legally sound and I wish him well." The trial begins today in a federal court here in San Francisco. It appears that the marriage equality fight may be on a path to the Supreme Court. <a href="http://www.mercurynews.com/nation-world/ci_14165380?nclick_check=1" target="_blank">http://www.mercurynews.com/nat..._check=1</a> From the article: "At trial, [Judge] Walker intends to ask lawyers on both sides to present the facts underlying much of the political rhetoric surrounding same-sex marriage. Among his questions are whether sexual orientation can be changed, how legalizing gay marriage affects traditional marriages and the effect on children of being raised by two mothers or two fathers." I'm VERY curious to hear what legal arguments the proponents of Prop 8 will use to make their point on these issues without resorting to their personal religious beliefs.
Originally Posted By gadzuux It's all about the children. They'll be saying what douglas says - that marriage is about procreation and that society's interests are served by encouraging stable male-female households in which children can be raised. They'll even go so far as to say that it amounts to cruelty to subject children to same-sex parents. None of this can stand up to scrutiny. For instance, what other actions are these pro-8ers doing to encourage procreation? Nothing. What are they doing to prevent divorce and/or single parents? Nothing. The only solution that they see for preserving the sanctity of marriage is to prevent same sex couples from obtaining the same rights oppo-sex couples already have. The real question is whether the presiding judge will have the strength of character and integrity to reach the only conclusion supported by the facts - that same sex couples are being unfairly categorized into a group that doesn't receive equal treatment under the law. Either way, it's headed for the supreme court. And I have more faith in this superior court judge than I do in the supreme court, which is more prone to political posturing. My crystal ball says that the CA case will decide in favor of same sex couples, it will be appealed to the supreme court, the supremes will stay the CA decision until they rule, and they'll eventually rule in favor of the prop 8ers - not based on facts at hand, but on political and ideological reasoning alone.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Then you should also be in favor of the government not forcing automobile passengers to wear seat belts, nor forcing motorcycle riders to wear helmets, nor forcing citizens to limit their water consumption during droughts. Tell me, DAR... which of those three are you against?>> If someone choses to do any one of those three things, then they face the consequences that come with them.
Originally Posted By mawnck >>what other actions are these pro-8ers doing to encourage procreation? Nothing. What are they doing to prevent divorce and/or single parents? Nothing.<< 98% of the churches I know of, mainstream or kooky, have programs that are designed to do these very things, in particular that second one. Better arguments will build a better case. ;-)
Originally Posted By Sport Goofy I'm not sure I like the way this argument is framed as a conservative vs. liberal issue. From my perspective it is non-partisan. I think efforts to inject partisan ideologies into these sorts of arguments will ultimately fail. I also dislike the characterization of homosexual orientation as being something that orginates at birth. I'm sure this is the case for some people, but I'm also sure that it isn't the case for others. To broadly characterize a whole population's motivations for who they love is and over-generalization that can't possibly address the needs of every couple. In the end, our society needs to be accepting of others. We should promote health, monogamous, and enduring relationships. Relationships that are officially recognized by society in a binding way (marriage) will result in a society that has better public health, economic stability, and reduced civil strife. Those reasons alone should be enough to allow same-sex couples to marry. Forget all the other three ring circus arguments about religion and the origins of sexual orientation -- they are non-sequitors that have no basis in the final argument.
Originally Posted By gadzuux >> I also dislike the characterization of homosexual orientation as being something that orginates at birth. << It doesn't matter. Even if no one is "born that way" they still should have the right to marry the person of their own choosing.
Originally Posted By gadzuux I understand that we're arriving at the same conclusion through different routes, but you touched on a pet peeve of mine. The inference is that gays and lesbians should be granted equality because "they can't help it, they were born that way" as if it's some kind of disability or handicap. In point of fact I suppose it can be, but that's only because of the oppression and bullying coming from those who feel entitled to judge others as being somehow less than they are. Besides which it really doesn't matter to the point at hand - do same sex couples get equal treatment under the law or don't they?
Originally Posted By skinnerbox <<If someone choses to do any one of those three things, then they face the consequences that come with them.>> And so do we all, DAR. Therein lies the problem. No helmet or seat belt? Smash goes your head followed by permanent severe disability which we the taxpayers pay for, in terms of long-term care. Flagrantly use too much water during a drought? If enough people do it, then there isn't enough fresh water for everyone, to meet basic needs. Not to mention depriving farmers necessary water for growing our food. All of these bans were put in place because of consequences affecting EVERYONE, and not just the people whom the bans act on directly. But in the case of gay marriage, it has yet to be substantially proven if traditional marriage is weakened or if the "moral fabric of society" is weakened by same sex spouses. If anything, Massachusetts makes a strong case in favor of gay marriage, since the divorce rate has steadily declined since gay marriage became legal in that state. Some bans are necessary to protect the greater good, such as the public smoking bans, seat belt & helmet laws, etc. The gay marriage ban ain't one of 'em.
Originally Posted By ecdc >>Then you'll be in favor of the government not forcing restaurants or bars to ban smoking. Or telling us what kind of foods we can't eat or what we can drink.<< Different issues. These are public health issues. We can't ignore public health because we're all connected, like it or not. The smoker down the street does impact all of us because lung cancer is a serious problem that costs our society millions of dollars - including you. That said, I do think we go a bit crazy sometimes on the anti-smoking, anti-drinking campaigns. But there is a legitimate balance to be struck somewhere in the middle.
Originally Posted By DAR <<Some bans are necessary to protect the greater good, such as the public smoking bans, seat belt & helmet laws, etc. The gay marriage ban ain't one of 'em.>> I've never been against gay marriage because I don't care how two adults who love each other choose to spend their lives. And if that same gay couple would like to smoke while riding a motorcycle without a helmet, then that's their right too.
