POL: California Prop 8

[AZSpeechCoach]

I've told Lily that if Prop 102 (our version of 8) fails, we will have to get divorced. After all, the only thing making our marriage special is that gay people can't have it. Once they get it, we have nothing to make us better than they are. So, it's divorce time.






I have been told that I'm too sarcastic.

[lungs]

Originally Posted by Lathum

I guess what I am asking is why are you against gay marriage? Not trying to bait you into an argument.

I am genuinely curious and would love to have an adult discussion about it, which I know you are capable of having, yet others aren't ( as evidence from lungs' post). So maybe its best to let if go.

No need to have an adult conversation since I'll simply agree with you.

[-apoc-]

Originally Posted by Galaxy

Don't you think that younger generations care more? They seem more progessive on social issues.

Thats what I meant sorry I wrote that poorly. I meant that they are not going to be supportive of a ban on gay marriage.

[JPhillips]

Originally Posted by AZSpeechCoach

I've told Lily that if Prop 102 (our version of 8) fails, we will have to get divorced. After all, the only thing making our marriage special is that gay people can't have it. Once they get it, we have nothing to make us better than they are. So, it's divorce time.






I have been told that I'm too sarcastic.

Just knowing that gay men are married makes man sex almost unbearably tempting. If Prop 8 fails I'd expect to go gay before Thanksgiving.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DaddyTorgo

So Jon - are you okay with civil unions then? or domestic partnerships, or whatever you want to call it?

Funny you should ask, since I originally commented on that in one of my replies & then took it out because I wasn't happy with the way I was working it into the post.

I oppose the recognition of "civil unions", "domestic partnerships" or whatever regardless of the gender of the parties involved. In other words, I think treating a shacked up male & female like they're married is just as ridiculous as same gender marriages.

[Tigercat]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

I oppose the recognition of "civil unions", "domestic partnerships" or whatever regardless of the gender of the parties involved. In other words, I think treating a shacked up male & female like they're married is just as ridiculous as same gender marriages.

Should the government even be in the business of recognizing marriage? Of recognizing and awarding "love?" Isn't that the business of one's personal religious/spiritual beliefs?

Shouldn't two old people, for example, regardless of their sexes who want to make a commitment and support each other be able to get the same support and from the Government that we currently give married couples?

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by JPhillips

Just knowing that gay men are married makes man sex almost unbearably tempting. If Prop 8 fails I'd expect to go gay before Thanksgiving.

I hear Clay Aiken is gay now. Maybe you two could hook up.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by Tigercat

Shouldn't two old people, for example, regardless of their sexes who want to make a commitment and support each other be able to get the same support and from the Government that we currently give married couples?

No, I don't believe so.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by MrBug708

I'm torn on this. I believe in the spirit of Prop 8, but dislike the lack of say of when a child can be taught the issue.

The spirit of it is to take away peoples rights, and has nothing to do with children...

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by BYU 14

I am a fairly religious person, but despise it when any religious group tries to impose their morals on america through government. They enjoy their basic freedom (Freedom of religion) while stepping on the rights of other groups, which is basic hypocrisy. Whether you object to a lifestyle or not, people have the right to practice it.

You can't pick and choose what freedoms should be allowed.

I just want to say you are fricken awesome. And I really mean this. I wish there were more people like us that can understand the difference.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

In fairly broad terms, each time we accept the intolerable it makes the next unthinkable thing more thinkable.

As for Prop 8, I'd love to see it pass (would be one of the few bright spots in an otherwise dismal election year) but have little hope that it will do so.

So if your child was gay you wouldn't want him/her to have the same rights you have?
(yes I threw out the if you had a child card)

[Kodos]

I got de-friended on Facebook over this. My sister-in-law posted an article in favor of banning gay marriage, and blabbered on about the sanctity of marriage. I posted a link to divorce statistics, and commented something to the effect of "Over 40% of marriages in the United States end in divorce. Straight people aren't exactly doing a great job upholding the sanctity of marriage. It's time to give gay people a shot at it." Today, I logged in and found that I had been de-friended by the sister-in-law and her husband. Which works out okay, because I was tired of seeing her hate-fueled comments anyhow.

[DaddyTorgo]

lol that's awesome kodos

[JediKooter]

Since people who oppose gay marriage can't figure out they are being discriminatory and bigots and want to keep other peoples rights restricted, the United States should not recognize ANY marriages and only recognize civil unions.

[Galaxy]

Originally Posted by Kodos

I got de-friended on Facebook over this. My sister-in-law posted an article in favor of banning gay marriage, and blabbered on about the sanctity of marriage. I posted a link to divorce statistics, and commented something to the effect of "Over 40% of marriages in the United States end in divorce. Straight people aren't exactly doing a great job upholding the sanctity of marriage. It's time to give gay people a shot at it." Today, I logged in and found that I had been de-friended by the sister-in-law and her husband. Which works out okay, because I was tired of seeing her hate-fueled comments anyhow.

And just in time for Thanksgiving and the holidays.

[DaddyTorgo]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Since people who oppose gay marriage can't figure out they are being discriminatory and bigots and want to keep other peoples rights restricted, the United States should not recognize ANY marriages and only recognize civil unions.

+1

[Kodos]

By the way, she's divorced once herself. Nice hypocrisy.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

Since people who oppose gay marriage can't figure out they are being discriminatory and bigots and want to keep other peoples rights restricted, the United States should not recognize ANY marriages and only recognize civil unions.

But why does the word used matter?

[Neon_Chaos]

Let me see if I get this straight, the religious people want to stop gays from having the right to be married, not under the eyes of god, but under the eyes of the law?

[JediKooter]

I'm glad we are not back a few decades ago or these people who support Prop 8 wouldn't have allowed me to marry my Mexican wife.

[Karlifornia]

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by JediKooter

I'm glad we are not back a few decades ago or these people who support Prop 8 wouldn't have allowed me to marry my Mexican wife.

Ding. How dare we be so tolerant!

[Karlifornia]

[Karlifornia]

[Karlifornia]

[JediKooter]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

But why does the word used matter?

To be honest, I really don't know when it comes to gay marriage, as I can't speak for gay people. However, this isn't about semantics, it's about discrimination and this proposed change to the California constitution is discriminatory.

What does it matter which water fountain a black person can use, they can still drink water?

Or, what does it matter that we put all Asians in internment camps? They still have a place to live.

It's sad we are in the 21st century and the idea of two gay people getting married still frightens people.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

So if your child was gay you wouldn't want him/her to have the same rights you have? (yes I threw out the if you had a child card)

The (pardon the pun) straight answer is that they already do, the right to marry a person of the opposite gender.

And no, discovering my child wanted to marry another man would not change my answer one bit. If you were around me on a daily basis you'd find that I hold my child to the same standards I hold everyone else at minimum.

[JetsIn06]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The (pardon the pun) straight answer is that they already do, the right to marry a person of the opposite gender.

And no, discovering my child wanted to marry another man would not change my answer one bit. If you were around me on a daily basis you'd find that I hold my child to the same standards I hold everyone else at minimum.

This is sad.

[Crim]

Originally Posted by AZSpeechCoach

I've told Lily that if Prop 102 (our version of 8) fails, we will have to get divorced. After all, the only thing making our marriage special is that gay people can't have it. Once they get it, we have nothing to make us better than they are. So, it's divorce time.






I have been told that I'm too sarcastic.

[EagleFan]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

The spirit of it is to take away peoples rights, and has nothing to do with children...

Where exactly was this defined as a right?

[BYU 14]

Quote:

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA
In fairly broad terms, each time we accept the intolerable it makes the next unthinkable thing more thinkable.

Originally Posted by JediKooter

To be honest, I really don't know when it comes to gay marriage, as I can't speak for gay people. However, this isn't about semantics, it's about discrimination and this proposed change to the California constitution is discriminatory.

What does it matter which water fountain a black person can use, they can still drink water?

Or, what does it matter that we put all Asians in internment camps? They still have a place to live.

It's sad we are in the 21st century and the idea of two gay people getting married still frightens people.

Well put, when these things changed did they become examples of people accepting the intolerable and making the next unthinkable thing more thinkable?

I would be willing to bet that in 50 years the thought of preventing two gay people from being married seems as prejudiced and ass backwards, as the thought of black people not being allowed to share a water fountain with whites 50 years ago seems today.

[Neon_Chaos]

I find it funny that the conservative religious right-wingers in America have soooooo much in common with the radical extremist terrorists in the middle east. (ideologically, that is.)

[Ajaxab]

For the sake of argument, I could see a case being made that Prop 8 is pro-capitalist. For the state to recognize and reward marriage between a man and a woman is to recognize and reward the potential for procreation and the potential growth of the economy. Does that mean every male-female marriage results in procreation? Of course not. But the majority of marriages do result in children who will theoretically grow up, get jobs and subsequently grow the economy. So the state rewards that economic benefit to society by rewarding male-female marriages. From this perspective, should the state reward a marriage between two of the same sex who biologically cannot reproduce? Of course there are adoptions and potential other avenues for gays and lesbians to "have" (if we call it that) children. But if the conventional gay marriage cannot involve children by biological default, then it theoretically does not economically benefit the state. For the state to reward it is potentially anti-capitalist in that people are receiving benefits like tax breaks who biologically cannot help grow the economy.

I suppose one could say that there is no need for marriage for there to be procreation and that would be true, but it would probably be fair to say that stable marriages benefit society more than fragmented, broken homes.

Whether this is persuasive or not, I'm not sure, but I'm just tossing it around in my head in trying to figure out why people would support this proposition. It does seem like a pretty cold argument, but it's an argument nonetheless.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

The (pardon the pun) straight answer is that they already do, the right to marry a person of the opposite gender.

And no, discovering my child wanted to marry another man would not change my answer one bit. If you were around me on a daily basis you'd find that I hold my child to the same standards I hold everyone else at minimum.

So you think that someone catches the gay, they aren't born that way?

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

So you think that someone catches the gay, they aren't born that way?

Not sure that's actually relevant to the snippet you quoted to be honest. But regardless of the source, we all choose whether to act on our impulses/predilections/etc.

And believe it or not, something good just came from this thread: I discovered that I had been misspelling predilection for years until doublechecking it just now.

[Lathum]

this thread is now heading down a slippery slope

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

For the sake of argument, I could see a case being made that Prop 8 is pro-capitalist. For the state to recognize and reward marriage between a man and a woman is to recognize and reward the potential for procreation and the potential growth of the economy. Does that mean every male-female marriage results in procreation? Of course not. But the majority of marriages do result in children who will theoretically grow up, get jobs and subsequently grow the economy. So the state rewards that economic benefit to society by rewarding male-female marriages. From this perspective, should the state reward a marriage between two of the same sex who biologically cannot reproduce? Of course there are adoptions and potential other avenues for gays and lesbians to "have" (if we call it that) children. But if the conventional gay marriage cannot involve children by biological default, then it theoretically does not economically benefit the state. For the state to reward it is potentially anti-capitalist in that people are receiving benefits like tax breaks who biologically cannot help grow the economy.

I suppose one could say that there is no need for marriage for there to be procreation and that would be true, but it would probably be fair to say that stable marriages benefit society more than fragmented, broken homes.

Whether this is persuasive or not, I'm not sure, but I'm just tossing it around in my head in trying to figure out why people would support this proposition. It does seem like a pretty cold argument, but it's an argument nonetheless.

That is actually a sociological argument as to why most societies endorse the idea of marriage (i.e., encourage/enforce the long-term male-female pair bond that will produce children so that the society will be stable and productive into the future).

In the US, you already get a tax break for your children. Society also subsidizes public education for your child. Again, these are really done with the idea that the society will benefit.

The argument you put forth is well reasoned. But since households with children already get benefits that other households do not, would it really be necessary to add the net relative benefit of gay couples not being allowed to take any marriage subsidy?

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Where exactly was this defined as a right?

I would figure it's define a right somewhere since my wife and I got married and it wasn't under the church.

Blasphemous I know!

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

Not sure that's actually relevant to the snippet you quoted to be honest. But regardless of the source, we all choose whether to act on our impulses/predilections/etc.

And believe it or not, something good just came from this thread: I discovered that I had been misspelling predilection for years until doublechecking it just now.

So deciding if one is straight or gay is based on acting upon our impulses? I'm really confused with your reasoning.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

But since households with children already get benefits that other households do not, would it really be necessary to add the net relative benefit of gay couples not being allowed to take any marriage subsidy?

I'm not sure I'm following your question. Can you rephrase it?

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by DanGarion

So you think that someone catches the gay, they aren't born that way?

*cough* *sniff*

Excuse me boss, I won't be in to work today. I've caught a little bit of the gay and I'm afraid if I come in today, I might try to kiss you so, best if I just stay home today.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Klinglerware

That is actually a sociological argument as to why most societies endorse the idea of marriage (i.e., encourage/enforce the long-term male-female pair bond that will produce children so that the society will be stable and productive into the future).

In the US, you already get a tax break for your children. Society also subsidizes public education for your child. Again, these are really done with the idea that the society will benefit.

The argument you put forth is well reasoned. But since households with children already get benefits that other households do not, would it really be necessary to add the net relative benefit of gay couples not being allowed to take any marriage subsidy?

In the perfect world people that get married and/or have children wouldn't get tax breaks since it's unfair to those that choose to remain single or not have children.

[Klinglerware]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

I'm not sure I'm following your question. Can you rephrase it?

Sure, to clarify (I hope) a couple of points:

1. Households with children already are awarded subsidies because those households have produced children.
2. Married heterosexuals also are awarded some benefits/entitlements/legal rights/etc that other households do not receive
3. Denying those benefits to other types of partnerships could be considered a net benefit to married heterosexuals--even though married heterosexuals don't "gain" any material benefit from limiting marriage benefits to heterosexuals, in effect they are advantaged relative to other unrecognized partnership types. This does support the idea that society wants to make it attractive for people to enter into heterosexual marriages.

So after all that, my question is, since we already have a separate reward structure for couples who produce children, are the marriage subsidies really going to incent people to have children?

[Honolulu_Blue]

Originally Posted by Ajaxab

For the sake of argument, I could see a case being made that Prop 8 is pro-capitalist. For the state to recognize and reward marriage between a man and a woman is to recognize and reward the potential for procreation and the potential growth of the economy. Does that mean every male-female marriage results in procreation? Of course not. But the majority of marriages do result in children who will theoretically grow up, get jobs and subsequently grow the economy. So the state rewards that economic benefit to society by rewarding male-female marriages. From this perspective, should the state reward a marriage between two of the same sex who biologically cannot reproduce? Of course there are adoptions and potential other avenues for gays and lesbians to "have" (if we call it that) children. But if the conventional gay marriage cannot involve children by biological default, then it theoretically does not economically benefit the state. For the state to reward it is potentially anti-capitalist in that people are receiving benefits like tax breaks who biologically cannot help grow the economy.

I suppose one could say that there is no need for marriage for there to be procreation and that would be true, but it would probably be fair to say that stable marriages benefit society more than fragmented, broken homes.

Whether this is persuasive or not, I'm not sure, but I'm just tossing it around in my head in trying to figure out why people would support this proposition. It does seem like a pretty cold argument, but it's an argument nonetheless.

There is also the argument that Prop 8 is anti-capitalist. There are a lot of studies out there that show that married people are happier than single people or even unmarried people in a relationship. Happier people are more productive people. They work harder, tend to get sick less often, and therefore are better for our economy. Another thing, married couples make better parents for adopted children. Adopting a child and raising that child to be a productive member of societ is another pro-capalist argument against Prop 8.

Are those the greatest arguments? No. But I think they act as a fair counterpoint to the whole having kids = pro-capitalist thing. That argument also gets into the question of whether people who are sterile should be denied marriage. After all, a sterile man or woman has about as much chance of having children as two men or two women. That slippery slope argument is no more silly than the whole "if we allows gays to marry then next it will be brothers and sisters getting married and polygamy!"

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by EagleFan

Where exactly was this defined as a right?

Loving v. Virginia

[Mustang]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Loving v. Virginia

What about McLovin v. Hawaii?

[heybrad]

These have been interesting times for me. If you hadn't seen from the other LDS thread, I'm Mormon. Call me a member of a cult or whatever, but that's a whole separate discussion. Imagine being the one guy at church who, when approached, will gladly tell you that opposing gay marriage is wrong and what the church is doing is wrong. As you can imagine, most people want nothing to do with me now. Normally I'd see it as pretty funny if I didn't find the entire thing so sad.

In my opinion, I don't understand why members of the LDS church can't see the distinction between what you believe marriage means from a religious standpoint and what marriage means as recognized by the government. And the LDS church is a good example of how there is a large gap between those two. I was married to my wife before I converted to the church. We had the typical "death do you part" ceremony. According to the church, that's not enough from a religious standpoint. You need to be married and sealed in the temple. It's frustrating to me that nobody seems to be making that distinction. Why does the church care what the state of California recognizes as marriage. In the eyes of God (according to the church) it's not and that would have included my initial wedding ceremony with my wife.

The kicker to this (if you know any of my history on here), is that I've mentioned on this board before that my brother is gay. As a matter of fact, he was married on the day they began to allow gay marriage in California. We've talked multiple times about what we both believe (temple marriage vs. civil marriage) and we're fine with each other. At this point though, I'm pretty embarrased by the actions of my church and how they are not representing me in any way on this.

Anyway... I've babbled enough about this and don't know if I've summed this up very well. I hope Prop 8 loses. It's wrong. If it wins, what will people want you to conform to next? Life is faced with moral choices, both good and bad. Trying to legislate most of them is a scary thought.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by heybrad

These have been interesting times for me. If you hadn't seen from the other LDS thread, I'm Mormon. Call me a member of a cult or whatever, but that's a whole separate discussion. Imagine being the one guy at church who, when approached, will gladly tell you that opposing gay marriage is wrong and what the church is doing is wrong. As you can imagine, most people want nothing to do with me now. Normally I'd see it as pretty funny if I didn't find the entire thing so sad.

In my opinion, I don't understand why members of the LDS church can't see the distinction between what you believe marriage means from a religious standpoint and what marriage means as recognized by the government. And the LDS church is a good example of how there is a large gap between those two. I was married to my wife before I converted to the church. We had the typical "death do you part" ceremony. According to the church, that's not enough from a religious standpoint. You need to married and sealed in the temple. It's frustrating to me that nobody seems to be making that distinction. Why does the church care what the state of California recognizes as marriage. In the eyes of God (according to the church) it's not and that would have included my initial wedding ceremony with my wife.

The kicker to this (if you know any of my history on here), is that I've mentioned on this board before that my brother is gay. As a matter of fact, he was married on the day they began to allow gay marriage in California. We've talked multiple times about what we both believe (temple marriage vs. civil marriage) and we're fine with each other. At this point though, I'm pretty embarrased by the actions of my church and how they are not representing me in any way on this.

Anyway... I've babbled enough about this and don't know if I've summed this up very well. I hope Prop 8 loses. It's wrong. If it wins, what will people want you to conform to next? Life is faced with moral choices, both good and bad. Trying to legislate most is them is a scary thought.

Hey brad. You rock. I'm glad you can see, understand, and accept the difference.

[Ajaxab]

Originally Posted by Honolulu_Blue

There is also the argument that Prop 8 is anti-capitalist. There are a lot of studies out there that show that married people are happier than single people or even unmarried people in a relationship. Happier people are more productive people. They work harder, tend to get sick less often, and therefore are better for our economy. Another thing, married couples make better parents for adopted children. Adopting a child and raising that child to be a productive member of societ is another pro-capalist argument against Prop 8.

Are those the greatest arguments? No. But I think they act as a fair counterpoint to the whole having kids = pro-capitalist thing. That argument also gets into the question of whether people who are sterile should be denied marriage. After all, a sterile man or woman has about as much chance of having children as two men or two women. That slippery slope argument is no more silly than the whole "if we allows gays to marry then next it will be brothers and sisters getting married and polygamy!"

Out of curiosity, do you have links to these studies? And do the benefits the studies cite apply equally to both heterosexual and homosexual married couples?

I think the pro-capitalist position would also look at productivity long term rather than short term. In the short term, perhaps the typical married gay couple would be equally good for the economy, but long term, without the ability to reproduce, it seems difficult to further economic growth.

[Pumpy Tudors]

Originally Posted by Lathum

this thread is now heading down a slippery slope

WOW TOTALLY DIDN'T SEE THAT COMING