Ornery.org
  Front Page   |   About Ornery.org   |   World Watch   |   Guest Essays   |   Contact Us

The Ornery American Forum Post New Topic  Post A Reply
my profile login | register | search | faq | forum home

  next oldest topic   next newest topic
» The Ornery American Forum » World Watch » Will same sex marriage really hurt anybody? (Page 1)

 - UBBFriend: Email this page to someone!   This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   
Author Topic: Will same sex marriage really hurt anybody?
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
OSC has written some fairly intelligent things in the past, including many that I strongly disagree with - but were nevertheless well argued and rational.

Which is what makes the video sitting on his front page so appalling. That someone of OSC's intelligence would be taken in by the utter non-arguments presented in this propaganda piece is astounding.

There is no single, coherent argument or reason why same-sex coupled should be prohibited.

In this video, we hear:
1) "That practitioners of various types and in various professions (including adoption agencies) could get into legal trouble for discriminating against gay married couples." To which I reply: so what? We didn't always have laws on the books preventing an employer from hiring based on someone's race. We do now. Have the professions fallen apart or suffered as a result? If someone won't "serve gay married people" in some capacity based only on their orientation - that's discrimination in my book.
2)"Oh my God, our children will have to hear about same-sex partners! Eek!" Please - get over it.
3)"Legal defenses based on religious freedoms are less likely to succeed." This argument seems to assert that such defenses are automatically a good thing to have in all cases. Would it have been a good thing if a religious freedom to have slaves was invoked? No, not all "religious freedoms" are good, and we should do away with the bad ones that are intolerant.
4)"Religious adoption agencies may be forced to let same-sex couples adopt". I'm not convinced that they would, if they are explicitly religious in nature. This is certainly contestable - but is it a good enough reason to halt the entire gay community? I would suggest that religious organizations should have this freedom. I don't think this is the same issue, but can be handled on its own.
5)"Those who oppose it on religious grounds will be subjected to social ridicule or legal penalties". To social ridicule: yes, so? That's what happens when you're intolerant. I would shame a person who littered, just as I would shame a person who thinks my gay friends are going to hell. And what legal penalties are they talking about? As far as I can tell, nothing is mentioned.
6) "There will be clashes between parents and schools." This is not an argument. We have a similar example: creationism vs. evolution. The existence of clashes is necessary to get things right in the end. If civil rights marchers had not caused "clashes", where would we be?
7) "same-sex marriage is about gaining control, forcing us to give up speech and freedoms". A specious argument - the people looking for this proposition ARE looking for speech and freedoms, and generally don't care what other people do with their lives, because it isn't their business. This is not "control". Religion is "control" when it is imposed on someone else.

In short, this entire video has a woeful lack of argument, underlining the fact that very little arguments exist. The most compelling argument I have heard against gay marriage is "we don't know what would happen", for which opponents have imagined all kinds of consequences. Well as someone living in Canada, I'm happy to report that my country is doing just fine. Better than yours at the moment, in fact. And we've had gay people getting married for years now. What are you waiting for? It will even give your wedding industry a boost.

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Someone pointed out that OSC has long since squandered his credibility on this issue. They're right.
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
scifibum
Member
Member # 945

 - posted      Profile for scifibum   Email scifibum   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I can't disagree with anything you posted.

I feel kind of sad about the fact that sincere religious belief in parents tends to result in the desire to protect their children from learning too much about other, conflicting belief systems too early.

What the religious parents observe is that if they don't insulate their children from worldly influence, the children tend to fall away from the faith. Of course they see this as a bad thing and of course they try to prevent it. In my experience, they talk about this openly: it's not good to spend time away from church, or time without prayer - one loses one connection with the Spirit and then one is vulnerable to fall away completely.

From an outside perspective, what we observe is that religious faith is a bit fragile and requires a sort of exclusive indoctrination in order to maintain a high rate of success in transferring to the next generation.

The reality is that faith is weak and can be overwhelmed by other factors. The religious see this as a fall from grace, as corruption and being misled away from the truth. Others might see it as evidence that the faithful can't always win out when conflicting ideas are allowed to compete.

The fear that their children will be taught that same sex marriages are equal to "traditional" marriages, from a religious perspective, is an effort to preserve adherence to valued and cherished beliefs. To be honest, I think at root it's most often not a fear that traditional marriage will falter and fail, but rather that their religious beliefs will be challenged and that they will lose. (Entertaining exceptions to religious proscriptions is the same as relaxing ones indoctrination monopoly.)

My own belief is that gay marriage won't really affect traditional civil marriage at all: I don't think it'll turn people gay or cause anyone to overlook the purposes and societal benefits of staying married and raising children. But the liberalization of public policy in ways that contravene religious teachings increases the difficulty of insulating children within religious traditions in order to preserve them.

I DO think gay marriage will harm religion - I think it'll illuminate for some people that their religion can be wrong about things. When they recognize that the dire predictions only come true from the perspective within the straight and narrow path, but outside that path people seem to be doing as well as ever...that might be revelatory. So I think religions that preach against it will be damaged. I just don't think that's a good enough reason not to allow SSM, because I don't believe it translates to societal decay.

Posts: 6847 | Registered: Mar 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
esmeree
New Member
Member # 6222

 - posted      Profile for esmeree   Email esmeree       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have known some beautiful gay and lesbian people most of my life. All they are looking for is the right to be present if their significant other gets taken to the hospital. Right now they aren't allowed in because they are "not family." That is cruel to people who love and support each other. I cannot understand how love can ever be "wrong"--it appears to me that we don't have nearly enough to go around in this world lately. So why condemn it just because you wouldn't do it that way?
Posts: 2 | Registered: Oct 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
On the whole I prefer that the supporters of Proposition 8 in California use bad arguments rather than good ones.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
potemkyn
unregistered


 - posted            Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If Proposition 8 actually led to explicitly religious organizations being forced to perform activities which went against their religious views, would it still be worth supporting?
IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by potemkyn:
If Proposition 8 actually led to explicitly religious organizations being forced to perform activities which went against their religious views, would it still be worth supporting?

Depends on the "activity". I wouldn't condone the idea of forcing a priest to marry people he didn't wish to - but I wouldn't accept a church that receives a tax exemption attempting to ban gay married people from attending services.

Do we force churches to allow women to become priests? No - but some have sprung up that do.

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jimskater
Member
Member # 181

 - posted      Profile for jimskater   Email jimskater   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
<SNIP>
1) "That practitioners of various types and in various professions (including adoption agencies) could get into legal trouble for discriminating against gay married couples." To which I reply: so what? We didn't always have laws on the books preventing an employer from hiring based on someone's race. We do now. Have the professions fallen apart or suffered as a result? If someone won't "serve gay married people" in some capacity based only on their orientation - that's discrimination in my book.
2)"Oh my God, our children will have to hear about same-sex partners! Eek!" Please - get over it.
3)"Legal defenses based on religious freedoms are less likely to succeed." This argument seems to assert that such defenses are automatically a good thing to have in all cases. Would it have been a good thing if a religious freedom to have slaves was invoked? No, not all "religious freedoms" are good, and we should do away with the bad ones that are intolerant.
4)"Religious adoption agencies may be forced to let same-sex couples adopt". I'm not convinced that they would, if they are explicitly religious in nature. This is certainly contestable - but is it a good enough reason to halt the entire gay community? I would suggest that religious organizations should have this freedom. I don't think this is the same issue, but can be handled on its own.
5)"Those who oppose it on religious grounds will be subjected to social ridicule or legal penalties". To social ridicule: yes, so? That's what happens when you're intolerant. I would shame a person who littered, just as I would shame a person who thinks my gay friends are going to hell. And what legal penalties are they talking about? As far as I can tell, nothing is mentioned.
6) "There will be clashes between parents and schools." This is not an argument. We have a similar example: creationism vs. evolution. The existence of clashes is necessary to get things right in the end. If civil rights marchers had not caused "clashes", where would we be?
7) "same-sex marriage is about gaining control, forcing us to give up speech and freedoms". A specious argument - the people looking for this proposition ARE looking for speech and freedoms, and generally don't care what other people do with their lives, because it isn't their business. This is not "control". Religion is "control" when it is imposed on someone else.
<SNIP>
... It will even give your wedding industry a boost.

Re: Point 1: "Forcing" a church to rent its space to a gay couple who wants to get married? A very remote possibility, because you'd first have to find a gay couple who wanted to rent the space where they weren't wanted. Second, the assumed church in question moves away from (but doesn't entirely lose) its 1st amendment protections when moves into the realm of providing public accommodation. That's what happens when you rent your space out to anyone. Now if the church in question was limiting rentals to co-religionists only, there really isn't a problem. And no one rational, on either side, is arguing that churches will be forced to perform SSM--the 1st amendment prevents that.

Re: Point 2: In California, marriage & sexuality are addressed in health classes. What the ad isn't telling you is that California law already allows parents to opt out of any (or all, I believe) sex education topics they don't want their children to sit through.

Re: Points 3/4--In the case of Catholic Charities in MA, they stopped providing adoption services for the state after being told that they would have to follow state non-discrimination policies if they wanted to continue to receive state monies. Hey, you takes the state's money, you play by the state's rules. In the same manner, the doctors who've been "forced" to provide insemination services to gay/lesbian couples have been those that accept public monies... Are you seeing a pattern here? On the other hand, there have also been cases (most recently in VA, I believe) where doctors have been allowed to refuse to provide such services to gay/lesbian couples. So it's an open area of the law.

Re: Point 5: Social ridicule as a result of advocating for Prop 8? Deal with it. When you step into the political realm, people will disagree with you, especially if you try to force your particular strain of religious dogma on the rest of your state/nation. If you don't want disagreement, stay in the church, where no one will disagree with your dogma. Legal punishment only comes about when you violate existing laws---I'd look very closely at "Cha Cha" Caster. Sounds like the family poodle to me. Prop 8 support donors

Re: Point 6: The mechanism to prevent clashes between parents & schools is already in place--see my notes re: the opt out provisions already in California law.

Re: Point 7: Yep, couldn't have said it better myself.

An anecdote re: boosts to the wedding business. The manager of the tux shop where we rented our wedding tuxes reported a 3 fold increase in tux rental over last year at his store, that he directly attributed to gay marriage. Hmmmmmmm, maybe there is some truth to the shot in the arm argument.

I'm not going to harp on OSC's opposition to SSM. I know it's there. I've also got the personal experience to know he's wrong. What ticks me off about the ad in question, and the other ads being run in support of Prop 8 is that they are lying to the California public. (Or at best eliding the truth). I know that happens in political campaigns, but it's so freakin' blatant in this case--and no one is calling them on it.


<----very proud of himself for not going into rant mode.

Posts: 805 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Why treat someone as if he is making an intelligent or reasoned argument, when we know he's complying with a Fatwah?

That's a serious question.

The most likely result of Prop 8? Next time we vote in CA, I expect a proposition limiting maximum donations to Ballot Initative Campaigns.

[ October 18, 2008, 10:44 AM: Message edited by: Jesse ]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jimskater
Member
Member # 181

 - posted      Profile for jimskater   Email jimskater   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Do you think it would be legal to limit donors to being residents of California?
Posts: 805 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
About 400 Mormons delivered, the other day, a petition to church headquarters protesting their exclusion of practicing gays from the plan of salvation.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I would love to see a counter-ad that demolishes these "objections".

Does OSC ever read the responses to his front page articles?

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Imagine if the Deep South had collected and donated to the failed attempt to get a measure on the Ballot in 1950 to overturn Perez, and shoveled more into trying to get it passed?

As it was, they couldn't raise enough scratch to get a tenth of the signatures they needed, and Perez stood.

The History of our Initiative Process is really something to be proud of, overall. People who had to pay Poll Tax to vote overwhelming voted to ban poll taxes and expand the franchise all the way back in 1914.

California rejected prohibition half a dozen times before an ammendment to the Constitution rammed it down our throats.

We over-ruled our race-bating legislature in 1920, and did away with the anti-"Yellow Peril" crap by voting to recognize the right of Resident Aliens to own property at a time when the Federal Government was barring Japanese immigrants from gaining citizenship.

Our UC system? The voters decided to create it when Sacremento wouldn't.

We created the Cal-Vets loan program for our WWI veterans two decades before the federal VA Loan system was modeled on it.

We voted to kick the prayer books out of our public schools all the way back in the 20's.

We've rejected extreme anti-obsecentiy intiatives, rejected initiatives to bar Gay people from teaching in our schools, Decriminalized small ammounts of Marijuana, legalized it's medical use, rejected legalizing discrimination against people with HIV at the height of the panic in 1986....

I pretty confident the Voters will come down on the right side of history again, but even if the distored and dishonest ads pushed by the out-of- state intrests and the Caster family manage to fool voters this once...the arc of history is long, and when the people have their own voice on the issue, it bends toward justice.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"the arc of history is long, and when the people have their own voice on the issue, it bends toward justice."

Water cold; deep too. [Wink]

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
I wouldn't accept a church that receives a tax exemption attempting to ban gay married people from attending services.
I would. I'd accept churches that ban the handicapped, churches that ban smokers, churches that ban black people. No one cares what your church does; if your religion wants to ban anybody who wears yellow, more power to ya.

Of course, I wouldn't allow churches to receive tax exemptions for anything but their charity work, either, but that's just me. [Smile]

Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
JoshCrow
Member
Member # 6048

 - posted      Profile for JoshCrow   Email JoshCrow   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by TomDavidson:
quote:
I wouldn't accept a church that receives a tax exemption attempting to ban gay married people from attending services.
I would. I'd accept churches that ban the handicapped, churches that ban smokers, churches that ban black people. No one cares what your church does; if your religion wants to ban anybody who wears yellow, more power to ya.

Of course, I wouldn't allow churches to receive tax exemptions for anything but their charity work, either, but that's just me. [Smile]

Fair enough - if churches were not getting some special status based on public funding, I would accept them as being able to allow in whomever they like as if they were just another exclusive club. Of course, that wouldn't stop me from convincing anybody I knew not to join them.

[ October 18, 2008, 01:21 PM: Message edited by: JoshCrow ]

Posts: 2281 | Registered: Mar 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
What TOmD said.
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
We'll, Mormons are now invading my State from Utah to stand around with "yes on 8" signs.

1) The don't know how to react to a flash raid.

2) They're confused about why straight people would counter-protest them.

3) They're really annonying, and somehow think they're going to convince you to agree with them.

4) They really make me wish I could afford a digi-cam right now.

Warped enough to think two men getting married in California somehow hurts them in Utah, prattling raw gibberish about "being forced to accept immoral behavior", and even going so far as to claim their right to freedom of religion is being infringed.

With three year old children along for the brainwashing ride...YAY!!!

[ October 18, 2008, 05:26 PM: Message edited by: Jesse ]

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
*sigh*

... but ask them if the support the Plan of Salvation.

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Well, I did point out to a couple of friends with me on the flash raid that these aren't "typical" Mormons...no water for the 3 or 4 year old kid who was crying that he was thirsty.

His parents turned down a sealed water bottle my friend went and bought from the 7-11.

Crying dehydrated toddlers don't really make the case that someone has the best advice on running families.

Certainly not "best foot forward".

I was kind of shocked. The combination of a flat out lack of manners and the lack of concern about the kid just isn't typical of anything I've ever seen from Mormons.

I guess everybody has a nutjob fringe.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
benthemeek
New Member
Member # 6087

 - posted      Profile for benthemeek   Email benthemeek       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I have a 3rd (perhaps too idealistic)view that hasn't really been represented here:
Why is the government acknowledging any relationship, marriage or otherwise at all?
I am a heterosexual married christian conservative libertarian-leaning individual who believes that if you don't support gay marriage don't marry a gay. Yes, we don't want government schools teaching our children about relationships we disagree with for personal/private religious reasons, why should they be teaching about relationships at all? If you are a believer in public education; fine, then let the government stick to academics and keep away from my religious or personal beliefs. Marriage is a personal and private agreement between people. What does it matter if this is an agreement between 4 people, their dog with the neighbors cat? If no benefits are given by government this topic becomes a non-issue. Those of us who disapprove of fornication, swinging, and homosexuality can add it to our long list of lifestyles that God-fearing people shouldn't participate in and move on. You exercise your liberty and I will exercise mine as long as we don't infringe on each others. While this view is perhaps idealistic (what about adoption etc.?) I think solutions that rely on personal responsibility and self-governance could be found...
my two cents anyway...

Posts: 2 | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"Why is the government acknowledging any relationship, marriage or otherwise at all?"

An excellent and salient question.

Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
benthemeek-

I think you are of my opinion:

That we ought to remove "marriage" from the civil law entirely, and have all unions be civil unions- hetero-homo-poly---- the only burden of proof in a civil contract is that parties show they are capable to stand before a court to represent their own interests (no children, no teens, no senile grandmas taken advantage of by ruthless peeps who want the insurance).

That will provide all our civil contracts equal protection under the law.

Then, if anyone wants to run off and get married, a religious service, they certainly may.

Let anyone who married (religious contract) previously or subsequently with witnesses be awarded automatic status as civil contract (no one gets to abuse little muslim girls because their wedding was "Islamic"----- anyone married with witnesses gets automatic protection under the law).

Let any gays who are able to find a church to marry them, be "married" by a religious authority.

Keep the courts and rules entirely separate from one another.

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
NSCutler
Member
Member # 1403

 - posted      Profile for NSCutler   Email NSCutler   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I feel that a wedding is a lot like a funeral, in that it's a chance to commemorate something that has already happened, and is highly inappropriate if it hasn't happened yet. I was married to my wife for several months before we signed a contract with the state.

Of course, when we went to call the county to figure out how to get a marriage license, my wife accidentally dialed the toll-free prefix 800 instead of the Salt Lake Area Code 801 and wound up calling a gay sex chat line. One has to wonder if that little coincidence has caused anyone to reconsider.

Posts: 789 | Registered: Dec 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
munga
Member
Member # 6006

 - posted      Profile for munga   Email munga   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Cutler

Why is making an agreement prior to mingling your lives, highly inappropriate? Doesn't that seem like straight shooting? People who make agreements AFTER co-mingling are playing civic-catch-up, they are attempting to craft powers and rights in a pressure-situation- when there is no going backwards to re-negotiate choices (even the choice of whether or not to go forward).

Any business person would know that you make your agreements and then you move forward. You don't start building a plant and then, figure out the revenue sharing agreement, and you don't wait for a plant to break down, before you agree how the burden of paying for the repairs would be shared, and if differently shared, how that would be compensated. Agreements, first. Action, second.

Posts: 5515 | Registered: Jan 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
benthemeek
New Member
Member # 6087

 - posted      Profile for benthemeek   Email benthemeek       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"That we ought to remove "marriage" from the civil law entirely, and have all unions be civil unions- hetero-homo-poly---- the only burden of proof in a civil contract is that parties show they are capable to stand before a court to represent their own interests (no children, no teens, no senile grandmas taken advantage of by ruthless peeps who want the insurance). "
I appreciate your response. That is an excellent point (about the agreement being between two able bodied individuals). That excludes so many of the radical examples we conservatives often use as poster-child(ren) of how it could break down the whole family system. Besides whatever legal agreement is reached, it then falls upon insurance companies, hospitals, etc. as private institutions to settle on the rules of their distribution techniques. (Example: dependent children up to 2 or 3, or "this" much extra money for each additional dependent). These rules should and can be addressed much more efficiently by companies than having the government involved anyway IMHO.

Posts: 2 | Registered: Apr 2008  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Even if Proposition 8 passes, children will be taught about same sex marriage in California schools, just as they are taught polygamy is legal in some Muslim nations. Does anyone think teachers will keep them in ignorance that the laws regarding marriage in Canada are different from those in the United States? Or that Canadians think many state governments in the United States are in thrall to pseudo-Christian hate groups? Whatever happens, the debate over same sex marriage has now become a part of California history, just like the earlier disagreements over Prohibition.

As to questions of conscience, Proposition 8 has nothing to do with whether doctors providing fertility treatments - for example - can be forced to pay damages for refusing to serve same sex couples. Such cases began under California laws against discrimination long before the California Supreme Court condemned the practice of restricting marriage to opposite sex couples, and they will continue whether or not Proposition 8 becomes law.

Finally at least 40% of the funding for Proposition 8 has been provided by Mormons, so it is inextricably linked to the LDS Church. If it fails, the leadership of that church will take a huge blow to its credibility, for having asked members to throw away twenty million dollars supporting such a measure. And if it passes, there still will be a major backlash from other Californians, since the small minority of Mormons - about 2% - are easy to demonize in this state. Moreover the movement represented by Proposition 8 seems sure to fail in the long run, as it will be impossible to keep laws forbidding same sex marriage on the books when the Democratic Party and five of seven justices on the Supreme Court oppose them, so long as a large majority of California voters are Democrats. If Proposition 8 does pass, expect a flood of news stories about the damage done to same sex families by the measure, plus an initiative to repeal it sponsored by the legislature and the governor on the ballot within a couple of years. Two thirds of measures so introduced pass, compared to only a third of initiatives suggested by voters, so this struggle will not take place on a level playing field. Moreover if Proposition 8 only has a chance in California because the Constitution can be amended by a simple majority vote, that also means it can be repealed just as easily, while support for same sex marriage is growing every day. About the best the leaders of the LDS Church can expect is to obscure the fact that they asked members to make great sacrifices to win a skirmish in an ongoing war which could not be won. That might not damage their moral authority, but it would make them look like fools as politicians.

[ October 20, 2008, 07:14 PM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tuxmask3
Member
Member # 2512

 - posted      Profile for tuxmask3   Email tuxmask3   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Ah, but to many LDS, it's not completely about winning, it's about taking a stand in a losing battle, knowing you at least didn't surrender.

There is an understanding that even though mormons are in fairly good standing in the world currently, they will be hated and reviled in the future for believing what they do and sticking to it. Prophecy and such.

If the measure doesn't pass (which it most likely won't) I don't see it blowing up in the faces of Mormon leaders at all. If anything, it will just confirm what they expect to happen.

Posts: 49 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
There is nothing wrong with going down to defeat in a losing cause, as soldiers for the Confederacy contended for decades. It is even perhaps more admirable than picking the winning side. But as a practical matter, I am glad slavery got abolished. And in this struggle I am concerned about completely needless violence. So far the worst that has happened is someone needing sixteen stitches for a nasty cut under his eye after a dispute over Proposition 8 signs, but I would be a lot less happy if he had been blinded. Even if divisions in this election year justified civil war, which I think they do not, the inevitability of change would make such sacrifices pointless. If Mormons are to be hated and reviled, or lynched, I would rather it happened a lot later rather than sooner.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
kenmeer livermaile
Member
Member # 2243

 - posted      Profile for kenmeer livermaile   Email kenmeer livermaile       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
I wonder how Mormons would feel if other churches decided to marry their members for all time and eternity?
Posts: 23297 | Registered: Jan 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
DonaldD
Member
Member # 1052

 - posted      Profile for DonaldD   Email DonaldD   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
or annuled them...
Posts: 10751 | Registered: May 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
tuxmask3
Member
Member # 2512

 - posted      Profile for tuxmask3   Email tuxmask3   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
"If Mormons are to be hated and reviled, or lynched, I would rather it happened a lot later rather than sooner. "

As a Mormon, I heartily agree.

"I wonder how Mormons would feel if other churches decided to marry their members for all time and eternity?"

Probably the same way they feel about baptisms in other religions.

Posts: 49 | Registered: Jun 2005  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Jesse
Member
Member # 1860

 - posted      Profile for Jesse   Email Jesse   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
If Prop 8 passes, the likely outcome is that the California Supreme Court will order the word "marriage" to be stricken from of all of our State laws and replaced by Domestic Partnership.

Which will screw 11 million Americans when it comes time to file Federal taxes.

In RE: Marraige Cases, they made it clear what the two options were. Prop 8 does nothing but remove one option.

Posts: 11410 | Registered: Jul 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Peter Giser
Member
Member # 1027

 - posted      Profile for Peter Giser     Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
Originally posted by JoshCrow:
OSC has written some fairly intelligent things in the past. [...] That someone of OSC's intelligence would be taken in by the utter non-arguments presented in this propaganda piece is astounding.

In this video, we hear:
1) [...]To which I reply: so what? [...]If someone won't "serve gay married people" in some capacity based only on their orientation - that's discrimination in my book.
2)"Oh my God, our children will have to hear about same-sex partners! Eek!" Please - get over it.
3)"Legal defenses based on religious freedoms are less likely to succeed." This argument seems to assert that such defenses are automatically a good thing to have in all cases. Would it have been a good thing if a religious freedom to have slaves was invoked? No, not all "religious freedoms" are good, and we should do away with the bad ones that are intolerant.
5)"Those who oppose it on religious grounds will be subjected to social ridicule or legal penalties". To social ridicule: yes, so? That's what happens when you're intolerant. I would shame a person who littered, just as I would shame a person who thinks my gay friends are going to hell. [...]
6) "There will be clashes between parents and schools." This is not an argument. We have a similar example: creationism vs. evolution. The existence of clashes is necessary to get things right in the end. If civil rights marchers had not caused "clashes", where would we be?
7) "same-sex marriage is about gaining control, forcing us to give up speech and freedoms". A specious argument - the people looking for this proposition ARE looking for speech and freedoms, and generally don't care what other people do with their lives, because it isn't their business. This is not "control".


My own views aside, there are legitimate reasons to question the things OSC questions, although he tends to phrase things in extreme ways. JoshCrow, I think it's pretty clear that the video was intended to get people of that same mindset active in voting on Prop 8 rather than to persuade 'liberals'. In any case, OSC's points in his essay did not rely on that video in any way, and he probably just posted it to show that he is not alone in his beliefs.

But I'll address a few of the above points, which I think are more worthy of discussion than the people here seem to think.

Point 1: "Discrimination" = judging different. This is only unjust if the difference is something superficial that has no bearing on the venue where the discrimination is taking place. Since many hold gay conduct to be a sin, then they are not being irrational to oppose a gay person from assuming a position where moral character is important.

Point 2: There are things children should not be exposed to at a young age when they are impressionable (the formative years). Whether sexual orientation is such a topic is up in the air since it is not really clear when and in what way sexual and social development occur. We do not have the requisite data to compute or even discuss this sort of thing, so it is not cut and dry to what extent caution is warranted here.

Point 3: The onus is on you to demonstrate that the current freedoms exercised are unjust. Sure, not all elements of the status quo are perfect, but one cannot argue for change without citing a specific problem. And to call that problem intolerance, as I said above, requires you to somehow demonstrate that people whose views don't condone homosexuality are somehow 'wrong'. Good luck with that.

Point 5: As with some of your other comments, I think you are tacitly assuming that homosexuality is perfectly acceptable and that no one has any grounds to question it. In doing this, you are assuming the very conclusion that you set out to show, which is that there are no grounds for discriminating against gays. Saying that people who are 'intolerant' of gays should be shunned is really just a way of exerting social pressure to remove their right to disagree with you - a grab for power, if you will.

Point 6: There may be something to the idea that young adults in college can be be indoctrinated with 'liberal' ideas while they are still exploring their sexuality. In the case of, say, grade-schoolers, you may be overestimating a parent's ability to counter what a child learns in school with regard to "what everyone knows".

Point 7: The "freedoms" in question are the freedoms to not have large-scale social change made without the will of the people to back it up. OSC mentions activist judges. Trying to alter the law to permit gay marriage is obviously a grab for power, for better or for worse. "Let us do whatever we want" is not what freedom is - that is called lawlessness. "Freedoms" are the rights guaranteed to people specifically within the law, and nothing else. The "it doesn't affect anyone" claim does not fly, since opponents of gay marriage are clearly claiming that it does, and it is on proponents of change to demonstrate otherwise.

Once again, I am not stating my personal views in any way - these are all just points of logic. I think the situation is more complex than you make it out to be, though, and it should not be dismissed lightly.

Posts: 7 | Registered: Apr 2003  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
Haggis
Member
Member # 2114

 - posted      Profile for Haggis   Email Haggis   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
The "it doesn't affect anyone" claim does not fly, since opponents of gay marriage are clearly claiming that it does, and it is on proponents of change to demonstrate otherwise.

Let's see:

I am in a relationship with somebody.
She is in a relationship with me.
Neither one of us is in a relationship with you.

You are not affected by our relationship. Q.E.D.

Being "offended by" is not the same as "affected by".

Pete, I love how you have been registered on the forum for five and a half years, yet you are still a "new member". One post every 15 months is an impressive show of restraint.

[ October 21, 2008, 07:12 PM: Message edited by: Haggis ]

Posts: 1771 | Registered: Oct 2004  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
TomDavidson
Member
Member # 99

 - posted      Profile for TomDavidson   Email TomDavidson   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
quote:
And to call that problem intolerance, as I said above, requires you to somehow demonstrate that people whose views don't condone homosexuality are somehow 'wrong'.
This is surprisingly easy, once you start looking at exclusively secular arguments against homosexual behavior. [Smile]
Posts: 22935 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
That is a good analysis, Peter Giser. I should comment as follows:

1) California law has forbidden discrimination based on homosexual acts or orientation for years, and will continue to do so if Proposition 8 passes. So how is this an argument for Proposition 8?

2) Do you think teachers should be forbidden to tell students same sex marriage is legal in Connecticut and Massachusetts, or that some Canadians think some U.S. states are under the thrall of pseudo-Christian hate cults? Age does matter, but otherwise this is like telling students polygamy is legal in some Muslim nations.

3) Here I agree with you, as passage of Proposition 8 would probably change the outcome of some court cases. Whether this would be good or bad is indeed a matter of opinion, and would depend on exactly what decisions are made by various courts.

5) Freedom of speech includes the right to condemn homosexuality, for good reasons or bad. But I do not see how permitting same sex couples to marry prevents conservative Christians saying none of them have any chance of salvation, for example.

6) California law permits parents to remove children from such instruction, and it permits parents to opt for private schools or home schooling. See point 2 for whether students ignorant of attitudes or laws can be said to be adequately educated.

7) The "activist judges" description is horse manure. The California Supreme Court found that the distinction between domestic partnerships and civil marriages in California violated prohibitions of discrimination in the California Constitution, as it served no purpose when the Legislature had proclaimed its intent to make the legal consequence of the two identical. So the practical effect of such a distinction could only be discriminatory, by encouraging the belief domestic partnerships were inferior to marriage. Perhaps the Legislature erred in granting all the rights to same sex couples in domestic partnerships that were granted to opposite sex couples in civil marriages, but the Court should hardly be criticized for making this argument.

[ October 21, 2008, 10:50 PM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
As a postscript, I finally found one way domestic partnerships differ from civil marriages. This is that a couple who have never met before can get married in San Francisco City Hall, separate immediately and never see one another again, and still claim married as their tax status forever. But couples entering into a domestic partnership must live together, at least initially. If anyone knows of other differences, I should be glad to hear of them.

[ October 21, 2008, 10:48 PM: Message edited by: hobsen ]

Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
jimskater
Member
Member # 181

 - posted      Profile for jimskater   Email jimskater   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Under CA domestic partnerships, if one partner dies intestate, the other is only entitled to 50% of the estate of the deceased partner. The deceased partner's family (sibs, parents, etc) are entitled to the other 50%. In the case of marriage, the surviving spouse is entitled to 100% of the estate. There may be an exception to the above when there are surviving children of the deceased.

Domestic partnerships do not confer the right of one partner to refuse to testify against the other.

Domestic partnerships in CA, until very recently, could be very easily dissolved, simply by filing a notice of dissolution with the Secy of State & paying a small fee. A process similar (but not identical) to divorce has recently been instituted.

Posts: 805 | Registered: Nov 2000  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
hobsen
Member
Member # 2923

 - posted      Profile for hobsen   Email hobsen   Send New Private Message       Edit/Delete Post   Reply With Quote 
Thanks, Jim. That is very helpful.
Posts: 4387 | Registered: Jul 2006  |  IP: Logged | Report this post to a Moderator
  This topic comprises 8 pages: 1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8   

Quick Reply
Message:

HTML is not enabled.
UBB Code™ is enabled.
UBB Code™ Images not permitted.
Instant Graemlins
   


Post New Topic  Post A Reply Close Topic   Feature Topic   Move Topic   Delete Topic next oldest topic   next newest topic
 - Printer-friendly view of this topic
Hop To:


Contact Us | Ornery.org Front Page

Powered by Infopop Corporation
UBB.classic™ 6.7.1