In any social situation I learned at a young age to avoid politics and religion...they are deep seeded individual beliefs and very touchy subject matter.

Inevitably those who start these discussion know going in that they are going to stir the hornets nest.  These individuals usually enjoy debates and often fancy themselves as excellent debaters and thus they begin thinking that they can control the debate and then leave or bow out after they realize just how out of control the argument has become.

As has been already stated, this is a "General Discussion" section of these boards and you can begin any topic of discussion that you wish, but sometimes it is best and prudent to avoid offending others by avoiding these topics!!!  Sometimes people never forget and never forgive and I have seen it ruin forums before!!!

Quoting Calidain:

Quote:
Wow, what a controversial argument in this thread.  I am sure I will hate myself for posting in this thread, but I feel both sides are arguing to no avail simply because belief systems are impossible to overcome.

This issue of "Gay Marriage" is controversial because to within most hardcore religious doctrine, homosexuality is a "sin".  Now you can make the argument that gays marrying doesn't hurt anyone else and argue that religion should have no say in this situation, but ultimately the sanctity of marriage is founded within religion doctrine; merely calling it a contract between 2 people is not 100% accurate.

This is where things get tricky.  Agnostics and atheists will argue that religious doctrine has no ground here and the religious right will argue marriage is an act before God etc...you will never reach common ground.

The other aspect of this argument that is a double edged sword is when someone who lives a gay lifestyle takes offense with those who openly say "homosexuality is sin in the eyes of God".  You can take offense all you want with this comment, but that is a strong belief within almost all religions and when it comes to discrimination vs. belief systems you cannot win; just look at abortion, an ever unsolvable issue if you ask me!!!

Belief systems are inherently impossible to overcome.  You can argue they are ignorant and intolerant but for those who are strong in their faith you will never sway their viewpoint.  Within those belief systems there is also little to zero lattitude.  Throughout our history as a race we have killed each other over religious doctrine and we see religion still in this modern day and age as a catalyst for death and murder and genocide.

No matter how much you plead for understanding and tolerance for "gay lifestyle" you will never win the acceptance of most religious groups.  I myself am a live and let live kind of person, but I can not say that at times I have not succumbed to stereotypes and bigotry.  Having said that I have many gay friends, it is their choice and I don't question it, but I have argued vehemotly that gay marriage will always be frowned upon as long the religious right is able to cast their votes within this country and to say they are wrong is to attempt to invalidate their beliefs as well and is equally intolerable in my opinion!!!

I can't see marriage as practiced in the US as a religious institution.  I was married for 11 years and God had nothing to do with it.

If we try to play it as a religous thing we run into obvious seperation of church and state issues, as well as descrimination problems.  Like we're seeing right now.

Personally I think the best answer is simply to give gays the right to civil unions.  Then give the same right to heterosexuals.  We then excise all reference to "marriage" in federal law and replace with "civil union".  (Yay for search and replace!)

No one is discriminated against and everyone is equally unhappy.  Marriage is saved from the state, the gays, the church, etc... It goes back to the beliefs of the individual.  Call it whatever you want.  Marriage, life partner, pair bond, whatever.  You don't have to recognize anyone elses marriage if they're not the right orientation, religion or odor. 

As long as you respect the legal rights of those in civiil unions then it's all good.

Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
Quoting Unicus69:

Quote:
Quoting hal9g:

Quote:
You are entitled to believe whatever you like.  You should afford others the same latitude in return, as long as their belief is not manifested in some intolerant or discriminatory behavior.

But, isn't that exactly what Prop 8...something you support...is doing?  It is manifesting one groups belief, that gay marriage is wrong, by creating legislation that is intolerant and discriminatory...or am I missing something here? 

No (to your first question)

My mistake then. 

I guess I'll have to clarify this since you don't seem to understand the difference between an amendment to the state constitution and legislation.

Prop 8 is not a an attempt to make a law, therefore, it is not "creating legislation".  Only the legislature of California can "create legislation".

All Prop 8 is doing is adding a definition of the word "marriage" as being "between one man and one woman" to the State Constitution.

Quoting bbursiek:

Quote:
The truth is that I don't know whether those behaviors are sinful and since they appear to cause no direct harm to anyone else I feel comfortable letting God make that call. Where I draw the line on that is "gay marriage" because in that instance I feel that I am being asked to give my approval/assent for the behavior in a formal/official way through my government -- which I am not comfortable doing despite what I would call my "live and let live" tolerance for the behavior/lifestyle otherwise.

Heya Brian,

I can understand and respect that.  But I do think there's a difference between something being legal and it being approved of.

For example, we have freedom of speech...  That means that bottom feeding maggots like Fred Phelps and the KKK can spew their personal hatred out at will.  I disagree with everything these people stand for but and disagree with virually everything that comes out of their mouthes, but I firmly support the right that they are exercising.

I think that there is a middle ground somewhere that seperates approval of behavior from the right to practice it.

Quoting Snark:

Quote:

Heya Brian,

I can understand and respect that.  But I do think there's a difference between something being legal and it being approved of.

For example, we have freedom of speech...  That means that bottom feeding maggots like Fred Phelps and the KKK can spew their personal hatred out at will.  I disagree with everything these people stand for but and disagree with virually everything that comes out of their mouthes, but I firmly support the right that they are exercising.

I think that there is a middle ground somewhere that seperates approval of behavior from the right to practice it.

I agree Snark that there are times when you can approve of the right to practice something from approval of the actual behavior and the example you cite is a good one -- there are many in fact that come to mind. Mostly those are things in the context of free speech (like your example) or a respect for privacy.

In the context of privacy rights and sexual behavior I don't necessarily approve (on a relgious basis and for other reasons) with all the different types of sexual behaviors that consenting adults may engage in behind closed doors -- but I do not want the State to try to regulate those because of my respect for privacy and individual freedom.

However I feel that gay marriage is in a different category because it impacts the definition of an institution (marriage) that I feel strongly about.

I guess the best comparison I can make is to use your example of the KKK (racists) and whether they have the right to discriminate in employment, service (say in a restaurant), or public lodging (say a hotel). While I will defend their right to think and say what they want (as you say as well) -- but allowing them to practice that belief by denying service to blacks would be something I could not approve of. They have no constitutional right to deny services to blacks and like I said I will not support their attempts to do so ----- therefore I support laws that ban the practice of denying service based on race. So there is a limit to that "middle ground" you mention. Its not the most artful comparison but it kind of makes my point.

Brian

EDIT - given the recent turbulence on this thread I want to make it clear that I am NOT equating racism with gay marriage -- I would be much more willing to accept legal gay marriage (if that became the standard) than I would racial discrimination (if say it were made legal by repeal of the laws currently prohibiting it). I was making a point re: Snark's comment about approval vs. acceptance.

Quoting bbursiek:

Quote:
I agree Snark that there are times when you can approve of the right to practice something from approval of the actual behavior and the example you cite is a good one -- there are many in fact that come to mind. Mostly those are things in the context of free speech (like your example) or a respect for privacy.

In the context of privacy rights and sexual behavior I don't necessarily approve (on a relgious basis and for other reasons) with all the different types of sexual behaviors that consenting adults may engage in behind closed doors -- but I do not want the State to try to regulate those because of my respect for privacy and individual freedom.

However I feel that gay marriage is in a different category because it impacts the definition of an institution (marriage) that I feel strongly about.

I guess the best comparison I can make is to use your example of the KKK (racists) and whether they have the right to discriminate in employment, service (say in a restaurant), or public lodging (say a hotel). While I will defend their right to think and say what they want (as you say as well) -- but allowing them to practice that belief by denying service to blacks would be something I could not approve of. They have no constitutional right to deny services to blacks and like I said I will not support their attempts to do so ----- therefore I support laws that ban the practice of denying service based on race. So there is a limit to that "middle ground" you mention. Its not the most artful comparison but it kind of makes my point.

Brian

EDIT - given the recent turbulence on this thread I want to make it clear that I am NOT equating racism with gay marriage -- I would be much more willing to accept legal gay marriage (if that became the standard) than I would racial discrimination (if say it were made legal by repeal of the laws currently prohibiting it). I was making a point re: Snark's comment about approval vs. acceptance.

I understand where you're going with your example, but I think the circumstances are different.  Putting racism into practice as you describe would be them infringing upon the rights of others.  In this case no ones rights are being infringed if gays are allowed to marry.  There is no "victim" there beyond the sensibilities of those who disagree.

I wish I hadn't used racisim as an example given the history of this topic here.  I am absolutely not equating anyones sincere beliefes to those of racists. 

But in a way it IS a good example. 

Here's a quote that I really think applies here. 

Quoing Chief Justice Warren:

Quote:
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discriminations. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.

That was from the ruling issued in Loving v. Virginia in 1967.  That was when laws outlawing interracial marriage were finally shot down.

An argument is often raised by those opposed to gay marriage (Not you Brian  ) that there is no infringements of rights because they have the same "right" to marry a person of the opposite sex.  I think that ruling pretty much shows why argument doesn't hold up. 

And a more recent ruling...

Quoting Justice Kennedy:

Quote:
This case does not involve minors, persons who might be injured or coerced, those who might not easily refuse consent, or public conduct or prostitution. It does involve two adults who, with full and mutual consent, engaged in sexual practices common to a homosexual lifestyle. Petitioners’ right to liberty under the Due Process Clause gives them the full right to engage in private conduct without government intervention.

From Lawrence v. Texas which shot down anti-sodomy laws.  Marriage is about the most private conduct possible.  It is the joining of two people together for life.  IMO, that is a choice that the state has no right to intrude upon.

Both cases came down to the Fourteenth Ammedment (Section 1):

Quote:
Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Given the text of the constitution along with the precedent I don't think there's much doubt as to what would happen if it hits the SC. 

In a way though, I hope it doesn't  At least not soon.

As I've said, I respect anyones right to disagree with homsexuality, gay marriage, etc.  But I do believe that societal views on this are changing.  In another 20 years it will be a no-brainer, like Lawrence v. Texas was.  A Supreme Court ruling legalizing gay marriage at this time would be absolutely correct but incredibly devisive.  In another 20 years however people will hardly bat an eye as those states that DON'T recognize the right of a loving couple to marry regardless of sex are the aberrations instead of the rule.

I know it may sound like mere semantics, but for some people there is a genuine difference between marriage and civil unions.  Marriage was based in religious beliefs and to a true believer do not change.  That's why there is a schism brewing in the Episcopal Church in the US today.  Some Church members believe the current leadership of the Episcopal Church are straying from the truth.  One thing to be said about a truth: it never changes.  Instead of these people abandoning the Church they believe the Church has abandoned them.  It is unlikely that it will be any different in 20 years.

Many people do not have a problem with giving gays, lesbians and transgendered people the same rights as anyone else as long as those rights aren't called "marriage."  One equitable solution would be to stop calling the civil contract "marriage" and let that word stand for the religious contract.  That way, the definition of marriage would be dependent on the religious organization involved.  So, for example, a marriage in the Metropolitan Church (which has been traditionally gay-friendly) could include same-sex couples while a Baptist Church wouldn't recognize such a union as a marriage.

I suspect the California proposition would have had a outcome if the issue were on banning civil unions and not marriages.

Be fair, guys, all of the various bills nationwide against gay marriage won by large majorities, not JUST California. Califoria is not the United States, despite what the people of california seem to believe sometimes.     As I have said repeatedly I do not support anything, anywhere in the country which would support gay MARRIAGE, on the basis that I personallt do not recognize it, I view it as an assault on the institution of marriage and under the terms of the full faith and credit clause of the Constitution, I will not have one law accepting it in ANY state determine automatically that I must recognize it. I do not oppose rights for gays in a committed relationship, I do not oppose something called civil union, but unfortunately that is not enough for the gay community, they militantly want to attack the term MARRIAGE and then dare to be intolerant of my opinion claiming I am intolerant. I want them to have the same rights that I have whatever they want to call it, BUT THEY CANNOT and will NOT call it MARRIAGE.

I suggest that they moderate their position and let's meet somewhere in the middle.

Skip