Steve Young's family up against Mormon church on Prop. 8

[Sheriff Gonna Getcha]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Morality is not the same thing as sexuality. When people say "You can't legislate morality" what they really mean is "You shouldn't legislate sexuality". But even that is unavoidable. You have to draw the line somewhere.

Change should be organic. The people simply aren't ready. Homosexuals should concentrate on passing laws that don't seem like such a frontal assault on traditions that have been developed over many centuries. Revolutions that don't proceed from a strong popular consensus often have dangerous results. This is the difference between the American Revolution, for instance, and the one they had in France.

Most people aren't yet ready to see gay couples getting married. There's no question that the majority of Americans don't want the states to recognize gay marriage.

However, opponents of gay marriage hurt their cause when they advocate the passage of constitutional amendments, propositions, etc. to ban gay marriage. Such laws have brought the "gay marriage debate" to the forefront of national politics and suggest that the issue is so important that legislators should spend time on it during wartime and a deep recession. Think about it, a few short years ago there was no debate over gay marriage outside of academia. Now, it's all over the news and people like us are giving it serious thought.

Moreover, gay marriage bans are powerful and highly visible symbols of inequality. It's not the same as seeing dogs bite at people peacefully marching in Birmingham, but it will lead to the same result. U.S. history shows that visible symbols of inequality tend to spur debate and typically result in the extension of civil rights.

[Dirtbag59]

Heres a page that help debunks the myths spread by the yes on prop 8 movement. Sad to see that they got away with lies convincing people that suddenly homosexuality was going to be forced on everyone including unsuspecting school children and churches would be forced to shut down due to discrimination. Which personally might have been the only "genuine" reasons to vote yes on 8, but with that said maybe the churches should reexamine their stance on this issue.

No On 8, Don't Eliminate Marriage For Anyone

[70Chip]

Originally Posted by Sheriff Gonna Getcha

However, opponents of gay marriage hurt their cause when they advocate the passage of constitutional amendments, propositions, etc. to ban gay marriage. Such laws have brought the "gay marriage debate" to the forefront of national politics and suggest that the issue is so important that legislators should spend time on it during wartime and a deep recession. Think about it, a few short years ago there was no debate over gay marriage outside of academia. Now, it's all over the news and people like us are giving it serious thought.

I don't buy this. You are saying that no one ever thought of supporting gay marriage until someone opposed it first. This is dubious. And don't discount the influence of academia. I bet I could get from Harvard Yard to the Massachussets Supreme Court in less than par. If not physically, then certainly intellectually.

Our government is based on compromise. I am willing to extend all the legal rights of marriage to homosexuals. Since homosexuals are not really under seige in any serious way, is it too much too ask that I and likeminded folk be allowed the single, harmless concession of pretending that the institutions we hold dear will not be thrown under the bus? It is this way with all these issues. The courts leave traditionalists with nothing to hang their hat on, and then the left accuses them of radicalism if they dissent.

I also wouldn't object if the government simply ceased to recognize marriage completely and it became a purely religous designation. Treat everyone as an individual in the eyes of the law. Homosexuals would have no trouble finding Unitarians, etc. to "marry" them and traditionalists wouldn't be required to sanction something they abhor through public institutions. I've never been a big fan of the various benefits that married couples get anyways.

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by 70Chip

Our government is based on compromise. I am willing to extend all the legal rights of marriage to homosexuals. Since homosexuals are not really under seige in any serious way, is it too much too ask that I and likeminded folk be allowed the single, harmless concession of pretending that the institutions we hold dear will not be thrown under the bus? It is this way with all these issues. The courts leave traditionalists with nothing to hang their hat on, and then the left accuses them of radicalism if they dissent.

In addition to legitimizing unions between man/man and woman/woman, recognizing that "marriage" includes same-sex couples is a shortcut to getting those legal rights. Without that, you would have to enact "separate but equal" laws in every single state. I am not a fan of that.

Originally Posted by 70Chip

I also wouldn't object if the government simply ceased to recognize marriage completely and it became a purely religous designation. Treat everyone as an individual in the eyes of the law. Homosexuals would have no trouble finding Unitarians, etc. to "marry" them and traditionalists wouldn't be required to sanction something they abhor through public institutions. I've never been a big fan of the various benefits that married couples get anyways.

I think the transaction costs would be exorbitant, since, first, you have to overhall all laws relating to marital rights (e.g., taxes, adoption, joint ownership, etc.) and, second, you would have to have to come up with new ways to handle those situations (e.g., how many people could adopt a child?).

[Beemnseven]

Here's another argument against a gay marriage ban:

Right or wrong, the perception (and in some cases the reality) is that homosexuals tend to be more promiscuous than heterosexuals. So armed with that knowledge, why would we as a society try to prevent homosexuals from entering into a sacred, religious institution which promotes monogamy?

[onlydarksets]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Here's another argument against a gay marriage ban:

Right or wrong, the perception (and in some cases the reality) is that homosexuals tend to be more promiscuous than heterosexuals. So armed with that knowledge, why would we as a society try to prevent homosexuals from entering into a sacred, religious institution which promotes monogamy?

You win. That is the worst argument I think I have ever heard, for anything.

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

You win. That is the worst argument I think I have ever heard, for anything.

With the divorce rate in the US I would agree with you.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by onlydarksets

You win. That is the worst argument I think I have ever heard, for anything.

So refute it.

[saden1]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

So refute it.

I assume you are for banning heterosexual and very much atheist couples from getting married? What about heterosexuals in an open relationship? Cohabitating couples? God knows it's against doctrine to live with someone before you get married.

You're tethering in the brink of absurdity and in violation of so many fallacies it's difficult to list all of them. I would advice you against taking that line of argument, certainly when you are dealing with rational and intelligent people. Remember mon ami, we're playing chess not checkers. A greater emphasis in thinking is required.