Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
The way I read your posts, your entire argument basically revolves around two points:
1) Gays deserve the same right to marry as anyone else. I have pointed out more than once that they already have the same right as everyone else, namely to marry someone of the opposite sex. Marriage laws don't say anything about the right to marry the person you love. Thus, gay marriage - and whether it is right or wrong is irrelevant on this point - is a new creation. You conceded that point in your post #15 when you acknowledged that no one currently has the right to marry someone of the same-sex. To be fair you followed that up with noting that there is no reason to deny people that opportunity (see point #2 below) - and you may be right on that - but the fact is that the we both recognized that gay marriage would be a new creation for everyone - gay or straight.
2) Your second argument is that just because tradition has denied gays the right to marry that the courts have an obligation and right to correct that wrong. Our difference here is value-based. I don't see where the races of the bride and groom matter. But since you believe there is no essential difference between a man and woman or a man and man it is obvious we have different value systems and that is why I don't think you can use the interracial rulings of the past as a precedent in this case. I don't see a difference between a child being raised by a white mother and a black father versus a child being raised by a man and woman of the same race. I do see a difference between a man and woman raising a child and between two men or two women raising a child.
I also think it is fair to say that most Americans share my value on this issue. For the purposes of this discussion, that is not to say that I am right and you are wrong. However that is to say that redefining that value system is a big societal change. Although I disagree strongly with the courts decision it seems very reasonable to allow five months for the voters to decide if they want to alter the constitution in light of the courts interpretation.
I respect the fact you disagree with me and I hope you would afford me the same courtesy.
The way I read your posts, your entire argument basically revolves around two points:
1) Gays deserve the same right to marry as anyone else. I have pointed out more than once that they already have the same right as everyone else, namely to marry someone of the opposite sex. Marriage laws don't say anything about the right to marry the person you love. Thus, gay marriage - and whether it is right or wrong is irrelevant on this point - is a new creation. You conceded that point in your post #15 when you acknowledged that no one currently has the right to marry someone of the same-sex.
In speaking about California then yes, prior to the ruling Californians didn't have that right (or, more importantly, the exercise of that right has been denied unconstitutionally). In Massachusetts people surely have the right to marry someone of their own sex. In Canada they do, in Spain they do, in South Africa they do, and I forget in which of the Scandinavian countries they also have that explicit right and freedom.
That said, as the court noted, marriage in a legal sense is about a family unit creation with the person of one's choosing (with or without children). I don't remember saying anywhere that it's a matter of love but of spouse choice.
And you still seem to refuse to acknowledge that interracial marriage is just as special of a right and just as manufactured by the courts our of nowhere as same-sex marriage, yet you don't question its validity or tactics in being brought about.
Quote:
To be fair you followed that up with noting that there is no reason to deny people that opportunity (see point #2 below) - and you may be right on that - but the fact is that the we both recognized that gay marriage would be a new creation for everyone - gay or straight.
I'll repeat: interracial marriage is just as special of a right and just as manufactured by the courts our of nowhere as same-sex marriage, yet you don't question its validity or tactics in being brought about.
Quote:
2) Your second argument is that just because tradition has denied gays the right to marry that the courts have an obligation and right to correct that wrong. Our difference here is value-based. I don't see where the races of the bride and groom matter. But since you believe there is no essential difference between a man and woman or a man and man it is obvious we have different value systems and that is why I don't think you can use the interracial rulings of the past as a precedent in this case. I don't see a difference between a child being raised by a white mother and a black father versus a child being raised by a man and woman of the same race. I do see a difference between a man and woman raising a child and between two men or two women raising a child.
Please explicitly explain that difference. I don't see how it actually makes a difference. From what do you derive your value system?
Quote:
I also think it is fair to say that most Americans share my value on this issue.
That's neither here nor there. The vast majority of Americans disapproved of interracial marriage when it was legalized and had it been put to a vote it would not have stood... yet you don't question it today.
Quote:
For the purposes of this discussion, that is not to say that I am right and you are wrong. However that is to say that redefining that value system is a big societal change. Although I disagree strongly with the courts decision it seems very reasonable to allow five months for the voters to decide if they want to alter the constitution in light of the courts interpretation.
I don't see any reason to allow the five months. It's akin to passing a "safety law" such as "no talking on the cell phones while operating a vehicle" and then pushing implementation back 5 months... if it's a "safety law" shouldn't it go into effect immediately, or are the people who will be affected within the 5 months irrelevant? If we are talking about fundamental rights which already exist per the Constitution of the state, why should the people be denied those rights even for a single day? There is no state interest, please point it out if I'm missing it, whatsoever in staying the decision.
Quote:
I respect the fact you disagree with me and I hope you would afford me the same courtesy.
That said, as the court noted, marriage in a legal sense is about a family unit creation with the person of one's choosing (with or without children). I don't remember saying anywhere that it's a matter of love but of spouse choice....
Have I shown disrespect?
That is exactly my point. Marriage from a legal standpoint is not about marrying the person you love. It is about marrying the person of your choice of the opposite sex, of age.
There is no reason for us to argue about whether same-sex parents are as good as a mother and father. We have different values there and we are not going to convert each other. My values are defined by my religion. (You asked earlier what religion had to do with gay marriage and the answer is that opposition to gay marriage and homosexuality (though not necessarily homosexuals) is rooted in religion.) I don't see two fathers or two mothers as being the same as a mother and father. I just don't.
I can't be any clearer than that as far as the difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.
In any case, it seems that you are admitting that the courts defined something new. Our difference, at least in this thread, is whether the court should stay the decision to give the voters a chance to weigh in on this new creation. (Ironic, huh, since that is the title of the thread!? ) I don't see a need to rehash my view on that again.
You haven't been disrespectful of my views in your posts. I appreciate that, by the way. I don't know if you understand where I am coming from or not. I can say that I understand your viewpoint even though I disagree with it.
That is exactly my point. Marriage from a legal standpoint is not about marrying the person you love. It is about marrying the person of your choice of the opposite sex, of age.
That's today. 70 years ago it was "marrying the person of your choice of the opposite sex, adult, and of your own race". That definition has now been altered to "marrying the consenting adult of your choice", which reflects the reality of what families are in this country (2 parent/adult families, at least). You must keep in mind that in the CA, prior to this ruling, same-sex couples were already recognized by the state as families worthy of recognition. If you read the excerpt I posted from the court's opinion, one of the questions before them was "is there a reason to enforce 'Separate but Equal' when it comes to homosexuals?", meaning "is there a compelling state interest in keeping homosexual unions legally separate from heterosexual unions?" and the answer to that is "no". If you think that there is a compelling state interest in keeping homosexual and heterosexual unions legally separate please enlighten me to what that reason is and whether it will survive precedent rulings (tradition is a very poor reason for keeping rights from people and the court said as much).
Quote:
There is no reason for us to argue about whether same-sex parents are as good as a mother and father. We have different values there and we are not going to convert each other.
The effect of same-sex parenting is measured by the product, not values: the kids: whether they are well adjusted, if they are disadvantaged, ill-affected, etc. The studies to date have not found the kids of homosexuals to be at any disadvantage or with any more ill effects from having homosexuals parents than from having heterosexual parents.
Quote:
My values are defined by my religion. (You asked earlier what religion had to do with gay marriage and the answer is that opposition to gay marriage and homosexuality (though not necessarily homosexuals) is rooted in religion.) I don't see two fathers or two mothers as being the same as a mother and father. I just don't.
Do you know any same-sex couples who are parents? Also, while you define your life and modify your life to be in accordance with your religion, do you see it as your duty to vote to impose your religious values on those who don't subscribe to them?
Quote:
I can't be any clearer than that as far as the difference between gay marriage and traditional marriage.
I guess I'm not asking the right questions. When looking for the difference I'm looking for something demonstrable (other than "hey, look, there's one vagina in that couple and 2 in the other!"), something along the lines of "same-sex marriage creates X negative, demonstrable effect which opposite-sex marriage doesn't create". It shouldn't be difficult to list such negative effects- there is gay marriage in several countries in this world, countries similar to the USA, so the effects would be similar... so what are they?
Quote:
In any case, it seems that you are admitting that the courts defined something new.
Only inasmuch as interracial marriage is new. You still keep dodging responding to the fact that same-sex marriage is just as manufactured by the courts as interracial marriage.
Quote:
Our difference, at least in this thread, is whether the court should stay the decision to give the voters a chance to weigh in on this new creation. (Ironic, huh, since that is the title of the thread!? ) I don't see a need to rehash my view on that again.
The voters can weight in on it whether the decision is stayed or not. I don't see any reason for the court to delay giving people access to the rights which they currently posses.
Quote:
You haven't been disrespectful of my views in your posts. I appreciate that, by the way. I don't know if you understand where I am coming from or not. I can say that I understand your viewpoint even though I disagree with it.
I see where you are coming from but I don't understand it. In my view it isn't reasonable.
That is exactly my point. Marriage from a legal standpoint is not about marrying the person you love. It is about marrying the person of your choice of the opposite sex, of age.
That’s simply a social construct. Twilomike is spot on when discussing the parallels with interracial marriage.
If my sexual orientation is different from yours, why am I not afforded the same social construct to marry the person of my sexual orientation, and of age, that I choose?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Niners fan
There is no reason for us to argue about whether same-sex parents are as good as a mother and father. We have different values there and we are not going to convert each other. My values are defined by my religion. (You asked earlier what religion had to do with gay marriage and the answer is that opposition to gay marriage and homosexuality (though not necessarily homosexuals) is rooted in religion.) I don't see two fathers or two mothers as being the same as a mother and father. I just don't.
But that’s your religion. I respect that your beliefs come from your relationship with your personal god, but the imposition of that belief system upon all of the citizenry is tyranny because it limits the rights of others.
But that’s your religion. I respect that your beliefs come from your relationship with your personal god, but the imposition of that belief system upon all of the citizenry is tyranny because it limits the rights of others.
The citizenry is not gay, and in democracy, the majority rules (power to the people), therefore the tyranny of the minority is by definition NOT democratic.
In France the most atheist place on Earth where 90% of churches are museums, we don't want gay marriage.
It's all about money, power, influence, not "equal rights". The gay mayor of Paris now wants to become President.
Last time I checked, homosexuals as a minority formed a privileged socio-economic class in 2008, in the United States of America.
Are American heterosexuals ready to pay more taxes so gays can "marry"? I bet most don't want, of course in liberal media it's all presented as a fight for "equal rights".
God bless homeless Americans with no right to live in a decent home. This people really need help, not homosexuals.
TwiloMike - We're never going to agree on this. And citing the court's opinion to me is irrelevant because I disagree with their decision (as did three other justices). I think I have made my points pretty clearly. Some people will agree with them (those with my values) and some people will disagree with them (those with your values).
I must admit that your "separate but equal" argument is a good one. However that argument assumes that a same-sex marriage and parents is the equal of a heterosexual marriage and parent. I don't believe that two dads is the same as a mom and dad but if we argue on that point then we are going to start arguing religion. Or more specifically, whether you agree with my religion or whether I agree with your secular view. I will admit I have a lot yet to learn in this life but one thing I have learned is that arguing religion is futile.
The American Christians you hate and bash all the time, they run charities all across the country, but I have yet to hear about a charity run by gay activists, except those distributing condons.
So..... please....
The citizenry is not gay, and in democracy, the majority rules (power to the people), therefore the tyranny of the minority is by definition NOT democratic.
In France the most atheist place on Earth where 90% of churches are museums, we don't want gay marriage.
That country is free to choose what they want so long as it meets the requirements of their constitution.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frenchman
It's all about money, power, influence, not "equal rights". The gay mayor of Paris now wants to become President.
That’s one person. Does every gay person in Paris want to become president? Doesn’t every president, regardless of sexual orientation, want money, power and influence.
Your post seems to view this as a simply homosexual desire.
The only difference between hets and homosexuals are who they’re sexually attracted to. It stops there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frenchman
Last time I checked, homosexuals as a minority formed a privileged socio-economic class in 2008, in the United States of America.
Please explain how homosexuals have formed a “privileged socio-economic class” in the US.
It’s just a group of people wanting the same rights as others.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frenchman
Are American heterosexuals ready to pay more taxes so gays can "marry"? I bet most don't want, of course in liberal media it's all presented as a fight for "equal rights".
Please explain how this would occur. What special taxes would be involved?
Are not homosexuals paying for schools, that they won’t use, and for other hetero “rights” such as WIC, child benefits in income tax?
Remove all rights for people who are married, have people pay for their kids to use schools.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Frenchman
God bless homeless Americans with no right to live in a decent home. This people really need help, not homosexuals.
The American Christians you hate and bash all the time, they run charities all across the country, but I have yet to hear about a charity run by gay activists, except those distributing condons.
So..... please....
Do you ever have anything intelligent to say at all? I don't think you do.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
) I don't see a need to rehash my view on that again.
