Metanet Forums

This topic only applies if you live in California. Also, I have this exact same topic on my own forum.

This topic relates directly back to the other topic about gays in this category. I just wanted to create a separate one for specifically talking about Prop 8. And I know that it's probably in the 5 pages somewhere of the other topic, but I really don't want to have to sift through all of those pages.

I beleive that Prop 8 is unnecessary. It has nothing to do with schools. Californian teachers aren't required to teach anything about marraige at all. It is purely about taking the rights away from homosexual people. Which is unconstitutional, according to the line, "All men are created equal." Whatever happened to that belief? The only people who vote 'Yes' on Prop 8 are homophobic people. Speaking of which; why are some people homophobic? There's nothing wrong with gay people. THey can't change who they are. It's not like being obese, it's like being colorblind or deaf; YOU CAN'T CHANGE IT. You can try to not be, but if you are, then you are. So I say 'No' on Prop 8 with every fiber in my being. I want to hear what you all say.

I would also like to add another thing. Taking rights away from gays is like taking rights away from women or 'blacks' (I don't see people in black in white, but I had no other way of describing it. That's why it's in parenthesis.). You wouldn't take rights away from them (unless you are racist or sexist), so why would you take them away from gays?

why me wrote:The only people who vote 'Yes' on Prop 8 are homophobic people.

This is not true. Why do you say this?
People could vote yes on prop 8 because they believe it would protect marriage as the union between a man and a woman, without them having anything against homsexual couples in, say, domestic partnerships. Homophobia may have nothing to do with it.

why me wrote:THey can't change who they are. It's not like being obese, it's like being colorblind or deaf; YOU CAN'T CHANGE IT. You can try to not be, but if you are, then you are.

Why do you say this? I was under the impression the cause of homosexuality was debatable.

Well there are two kinds of gays; those who are trying to be gays, or who are actually straight but want to be gay for some reason, and there are true gays. Those are the people I'm talking about. The people who don't fake being gay. If you are truly gay, then you are gay. You can try to be straight, or act as if you're straight, but the truth is that you are gay. There is nothing you can do to change that. And for your first statement, that may be true with some people, but lots of homophobic people use that as a way of 'pretending' that they aren't homophobic, because they don't want to admit it to the public. It's the same with the school excuse. That one is entirely preposterous. No school in California is even remotely required to teach anything about marriage.

Why me wrote:Well there are two kinds of gays; those who are trying to be gays, or who are actually straight but want to be gay for some reason, and there are true gays. Those are the people I'm talking about. The people who don't fake being gay. If you are truly gay, then you are gay. You can try to be straight, or act as if you're straight, but the truth is that you are gay.

No offence, but that doesn't sound well researched. I'd go so far as to say you're just saying stuff off the top of your head.

Here's my most recent take on it (been revised a few times after much conversation):

The purpose of the law is to protect your rights from being violated when you aren't violating others' rights; it is illegal to take others' rights away from them. This is why theft, murder, rape, etc., are illegal. The legal system is not here to prevent your feelings from being hurt. It is not illegal to shout racist remarks, to call someone fat, or to turn down a girl asking to dance, and such things have no place as law.
Consenting gay couples getting married does not violate anyone's rights. Whether Proposition 8 passes or not does not violate the rights of non-gay couples, but only affects the rights of homosexuals. Because no rights are being violated, the proposition is attempting to legislate personal preference. This cannot be tolerated. There is a reason that laws necessarily must protect violation of rights, and that reason is that proposed laws that do not protect rights are attempts to legislate opinions, which is intolerably oppressive and tyrannical in the extreme, regardless of the reasons that go into support or otherwise for the proposition.
The appropriate realm for preference is the culture, not the legal system, and it's hard to find a more democratic system than a culture. You are completely free to say your position and convince people to adopt the same beliefs you do. If you are successful and people listen, then the idea becomes integrated into the culture. So if you don't want same-sex marriage, start a social movement and influence your culture toward intolerance of same-sex marriage, but stay the hell away from the legal system because that's not the place for it.
Here's a fine example of a body of people with strong personal beliefs: Jews. Jews believe that eating certain foods is abhorrent. So what do they do? They don't eat those foods. Simple as that. But they don't try to ban non-kosher foods in the US, because that would be beyond stupid. It's the same case for same-sex marriage: if you're against it, don't do it; it is wrong to make something illegal just because you don't think you'll ever do it. There has to be more to it than that if it's to be considered for inclusion in state law.

SkyPanda wrote:

Why Me wrote:THey can't change who they are. It's not like being obese, it's like being colorblind or deaf; YOU CAN'T CHANGE IT. You can try to not be, but if you are, then you are.

Why do you say this? I was under the impression the cause of homosexuality was debatable.

The cause of homosexuality has nothing to do with it being a choice, which it clearly isn't.

My thoughts are that marriage shouldn't be defined in law as anything. I'd rather marriage be a purely religious concept and let everyone have civil partnerships.

(P.S. ' ' are apostrophes, these are parentheses.)

Tsukatu wrote:Here's my most recent take on it (been revised a few times after much conversation):

The purpose of the law is to protect your rights from being violated when you aren't violating others' rights; it is illegal to take others' rights away from them. This is why theft, murder, rape, etc., are illegal. The legal system is not here to prevent your feelings from being hurt. It is not illegal to shout racist remarks, to call someone fat, or to turn down a girl asking to dance, and such things have no place as law.
Consenting gay couples getting married does not violate anyone's rights. Whether Proposition 8 passes or not does not violate the rights of non-gay couples, but only affects the rights of homosexuals. Because no rights are being violated, the proposition is attempting to legislate personal preference. This cannot be tolerated. There is a reason that laws necessarily must protect violation of rights, and that reason is that proposed laws that do not protect rights are attempts to legislate opinions, which is intolerably oppressive and tyrannical in the extreme, regardless of the reasons that go into support or otherwise for the proposition.
The appropriate realm for preference is the culture, not the legal system, and it's hard to find a more democratic system than a culture. You are completely free to say your position and convince people to adopt the same beliefs you do. If you are successful and people listen, then the idea becomes integrated into the culture. So if you don't want same-sex marriage, start a social movement and influence your culture toward intolerance of same-sex marriage, but stay the hell away from the legal system because that's not the place for it.
Here's a fine example of a body of people with strong personal beliefs: Jews. Jews believe that eating certain foods is abhorrent. So what do they do? They don't eat those foods. Simple as that. But they don't try to ban non-kosher foods in the US, because that would be beyond stupid. It's the same case for same-sex marriage: if you're against it, don't do it; it is wrong to make something illegal just because you don't think you'll ever do it. There has to be more to it than that if it's to be considered for inclusion in state law.

Thank you for saying that. That is all true.

maestro wrote: The cause of homosexuality has nothing to do with it being a choice, which it clearly isn't.

And thank you for backing me up on that. Over half of my family members are gay. I know some things about gays.

maestro wrote:(P.S. ' ' are apostrophes, these are parentheses.)

Heh, heh.....whoops. My bad. I typed the wrong word.

maestro wrote:The cause of homosexuality has nothing to do with it being a choice, which it clearly isn't. My thoughts are that marriage shouldn't be defined in law as anything. I'd rather marriage be a purely religious concept and let everyone have civil partnerships.

I agree that whatever the cause of homosexuality is, it's not likely to involve choice. I don't think that sexuality is set in concrete, either, but that's not really relevant to the current prop 8 debate.

I like your ideas about marriage maestro. On a similar line of thought, are there any reasons why domestic partnerships/civil unions/some equivalent and marriages shouldn't be legally the same?
Some of the problems with bans on same-sex marriage are that people in a same-sex marriage don't enjoy the same tax benefits, legal rights, right? So, would it be practical to simply award the same rights to persons in a civil union or domestic partnership as those in a marriage?

Some of the problems with bans on same-sex marriage are that people in a same-sex marriage don't enjoy the same tax benefits, legal rights, right? So, would it be practical to simply award the same rights to persons in a civil union or domestic partnership as those in a marriage?

I think that would be acceptable, yeah. The only reason I can see for the government to be involved in these sorts of social contracts at all is that it benefits from two (or more) people living under the same roof.

SkyPanda wrote:

why me wrote:THey can't change who they are. It's not like being obese, it's like being colorblind or deaf; YOU CAN'T CHANGE IT. You can try to not be, but if you are, then you are.

Why do you say this? I was under the impression the cause of homosexuality was debatable.

Not really. there's pretty inarguable evidence that it is at minimum heavily influenced by factors before birth. The leading theories are A) homosexuality is primarily caused by a genetic factor (determined at the time of conception) or B) homosexuality is the result of an allergy/intolerance to one of several hormones on the mothers part.

There are physical traits linked to homosexuality that make it clear that there are physical factors (determined as the body develops). an example is finger lengths. Generally men's second and fourth fingers have a notable difference in length, while women's 2nd and 4th fingers are almost exactly the same lengeth. In homosexual individuals, however, this is the reverse. Another example is hair: in men, the hair on the back of the head generally 'swirls' in a clockwise direction. in most homosexual men, however, it is counterclockwise (and most individuals with counterclockwise hair are homosexual).

This clearly suggests a physical determination of homosexuality, which indicates that it is not a choice. Unfortunately, this refutes Kinsey's theories.

SkyPanda wrote:So, would it be practical to simply award the same rights to persons in a civil union or domestic partnership as those in a marriage?

This argument is saying that domestic partnerships and marriages are 'separate but equal,' which is kind of *not legal anymore.* It doesn't justify taking away marriage from gays.

in Oregon, marriage is constitutionally defined as one-man-one-woman, but civil union is available and is afforded the same rights as marriage.

jean-luc wrote:in Oregon, marriage is constitutionally defined as one-man-one-woman, but civil union is available and is afforded the same rights as marriage.

Which is just ridiculous. It's essentially saying "This relationship meets all the criteria for being a marriage, but we're going to call it something else because we think allowing the nasty homosexuals into our exclusive club would cheapen the whole affair." Seriously. If civil unions really do have the same standing as marriage, then why aren't they good enough for heterosexuals?

Atilla wrote:

jean-luc wrote:in Oregon, marriage is constitutionally defined as one-man-one-woman, but civil union is available and is afforded the same rights as marriage.

Which is just ridiculous. It's essentially saying "This relationship meets all the criteria for being a marriage, but we're going to call it something else because we think allowing the nasty homosexuals into our exclusive club would cheapen the whole affair." Seriously. If civil unions really do have the same standing as marriage, then why aren't they good enough for heterosexuals?

Despite that, the Church would have the right to deny them on principle. Marriage is a faith-based institution, as well as a legal institution. Civil Unions are simply the legal manifestation of marriage without the y'know.

I know. What I'm saying is that people should make up their minds on whether they want the government to tell them what constitutes marriage or not. If marriage is governed by the law, both hetero and homosexuals need to be allowed in that big ol' clubhouse - anything else would be discriminatory, for the reasons Tsukatu gave. If the government isn't supposed to tell people what marriage is, then the legal component of heterosexual marriages needs to be civilly unionised and separated entirely from your religious ceremony or blood oath or whatever else people feel like calling a marriage.

It'd be great if it were really just faith-based. If marriage was a contract between you and the Church, it'd be Juicy-Fruits if they said who can and cannot get married. I mean, the religion is their little club and they can run it how they want. But marriage is a contract between you, the Church, and the State. The fact that it requires both the Church and the State signing onto a contract about your legal rights is bizarre to begin with. There should be no place in any state or federal constitution for the term "marriage".

When you get married, you should probably go get a civil union at the same time. But they should be separate things--one should not imply the other. You should be able to work something out with God without telling your government. You should be able to work something out without your government without affirming something to someone's god.

Mr_X wrote:

SkyPanda wrote:So, would it be practical to simply award the same rights to persons in a civil union or domestic partnership as those in a marriage?

This argument is saying that domestic partnerships and marriages are 'separate but equal,' which is kind of *not legal anymore.* It doesn't justify taking away marriage from gays.

Making them equal would not 'take marriage away' from homosexual persons. They would be essentially the same, different only in name. The only loss for homosexuals would be the cultural associations with the word 'marriage'. But then consider, if marriage becomes then a purely cultural or religious thing, then is it reasonable for people to try and legally redefine it to include homsexuals? I think Tsukatu covered this above, and more intelligently. :)
Furthermore, I think civil unions would gain cultural status if they were made legally equal to marriage, so there would be no loss whatsoever to homosexual persons.

blue_tetris wrote:It'd be great if it were really just faith-based. If marriage was a contract between you and the Church, it'd be Juicy-Fruits if they said who can and cannot get married. I mean, the religion is their little club and they can run it how they want. But marriage is a contract between you, the Church, and the State. The fact that it requires both the Church and the State signing onto a contract about your legal rights is bizarre to begin with. There should be no place in any state or federal constitution for the term "marriage".

When you get married, you should probably go get a civil union at the same time. But they should be separate things--one should not imply the other. You should be able to work something out with God without telling your government. You should be able to work something out without your government without affirming something to someone's god.

Well put, and I agree competely, and agreed with all the others who said something along similar lines.


So, I heard proposition 8 was passed?

SkyPanda wrote:

Mr_X wrote:

SkyPanda wrote:So, would it be practical to simply award the same rights to persons in a civil union or domestic partnership as those in a marriage?

This argument is saying that domestic partnerships and marriages are 'separate but equal,' which is kind of *not legal anymore.* It doesn't justify taking away marriage from gays.

Making them equal would not 'take marriage away' from homosexual persons. They would be essentially the same, different only in name. The only loss for homosexuals would be the cultural associations with the word 'marriage'. But then consider, if marriage becomes then a purely cultural or religious thing, then is it reasonable for people to try and legally redefine it to include homsexuals? I think Tsukatu covered this above, and more intelligently. :)
Furthermore, I think civil unions would gain cultural status if they were made legally equal to marriage, so there would be no loss whatsoever to homosexual persons.

As I asked earlier, if civil unions and marriage are truly equal, and it's no loss to have a civil union instead of a marriage, why do heterosexuals deserve a monopoly on the word "marriage"? If you really must have two names for the same thing, why not give heterosexuals civil unions and homosexuals marriages? Would that be "taking marriage away from heterosexuals"?

Then, of course, there's the fact that the proposition in question is legally redefining marriage to exclude homosexuals, which is - by your own argument - unreasonable. The bottom line here is that if it's okay for gay people to have legally-recognised relationships with equal status to heterosexual couples, why are go out of your way to make homosexual marriage illegal?

So, I heard proposition 8 was passed?

Yes. I believe there's still a bit of legal wrangling to go through before it's officially law, but I hear that it's more or less through. Unfortunately.

I dunno why it's a semantic battle. Churches or private groups perform whatever faith-based ritual they need to perform and call it something. States perform legal and financial contracts between people and can call it something.

If the state uses the term "marriage" to refer to the L.L.P. that you make when you get hitched, I imagine that could annoy some conservatives. They could call it a civil union and avoid stepping on traditional toes. It doesn't matter who is signing for a state-recognized financial partnership. Call it something normal. When you and your wife have a ceremony performed by the church, the church can call it whatever they want. When you are party B (who happens to be your wife) sign a contract to create your corporation, call it whatever you want... and consider calling it something that won't annoy the Bible thumpers.



In the end: Marriages are whatever the church wants to say they are. If an individual church says "marriage is between a man and a woman", that church has the right to say that and only perform rituals accordingly. If a different church says "marriage is between a soup spoon and my asshole", they can say that, too. As long as it doesn't endow rights to an individual and exclude others from similar rights, we shouldn't take issue with it.

atilla wrote:As I asked earlier, if civil unions and marriage are truly equal, and it's no loss to have a civil union instead of a marriage, why do heterosexuals deserve a monopoly on the word "marriage"? If you really must have two names for the same thing, why not give heterosexuals civil unions and homosexuals marriages? Would that be "taking marriage away from heterosexuals"?
Then, of course, there's the fact that the proposition in question is legally redefining marriage to exclude homosexuals, which is - by your own argument - unreasonable. The bottom line here is that if it's okay for gay people to have legally-recognised relationships with equal status to heterosexual couples, why are go out of your way to make homosexual marriage illegal?

I think blue tetris answered all this in the above post, so yeah.


The only problem I can see is that the term and concept of marriage is so inbuilt into most cultures and countries that it would be impractical and confusing to try and change it. :/

SkyPanda wrote:The only problem I can see is that the term and concept of marriage is so inbuilt into most cultures and countries that it would be impractical and confusing to try and change it. :/

Well, no one ever said doing the right thing would be easy.

blue_tetris wrote:In the end: Marriages are whatever the church wants to say they are. If an individual church says "marriage is between a man and a woman", that church has the right to say that and only perform rituals accordingly. If a different church says "marriage is between a soup spoon and my asshole", they can say that, too. As long as it doesn't endow rights to an individual and exclude others from similar rights, we shouldn't take issue with it.

Exactly. My problem is when the state feels like they can step in and legally define something that should never be touched by the state. Ideally, civil unions should be completely separate from marriage, and I'm still baffled that these referendums and amendments are actually up for vote - but more than that - passing, but more than that - passing convincingly.

That last time I checked, we were a nation of free choice. The fact that we remove natural freedom from people just becuase they are gay is abhorrent. It even says in the constitution: ...Life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness... why can't we afford the homesexual people the right to pursue happiness? It's bull...