|
mod edit: discussion of the overturning of prop 8 starts here
Disclaimer: please, for a second, remove from your mind temporarily the cliches forcefed into you these last few weeks. You can go back and tout the "it's wrong, it's unfair", "separate but equal", and the "it'll be taught in schools!!!" argument afterwards.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The first thing that really irks me is the argument that marriage is a fundamental right. It is not. I don't know when Locke's social contract and the concept of inalienable rights included marriage, and perhaps it can be placed under the umbrella of "the pursuit of happiness", but marriage is too deeply connected with religion to be under the jurisdiction of law and the social contract. Instead, marriage should be viewed as an extension of religious faith, with each faith granted the religious freedom to endorse/oppose gay marriage. If a church approves gay marriage, it should be allowed within that church. If their church disapproves of gay marriage, it should not be allowed for that church. Therefore, though marriage itself is not a specific "fundamental right", it is an expression of faith and each church should be granted the religious freedom to choose whether to endorse/oppose it.
The ironic thing is that any church in good standing with God should wholeheartedly reject the premise of gay marriage. The Bible is very clear as to the gender orientation of marriage. Thus, one would think that even if the government is impartial in its view on marriage, no Christian church would allow gay marriages to transpire. But, for whatever reason, gay marriages do occur. Is the government forcing the church's hand? Or are churches independently taking the wrong path?
If it is the latter, there is no basis for a proposition to redefine marriage. However, if it is the former, then the existence of prop 8 makes sense. Unfortunately, I think it will be very difficult to prove that the government is coercing the church to accept gay marriage, especially since many gay marriages are done without a church's backing.
Thus, if marriage is seen as an extension of "freedom of religion", then I don't think the church has any right to vote Yes on 8. I say this even though I am Christian and am wholeheartedly against gay marriage. We should not be using the government to support our beliefs. We should understand that government is imperfect and that it is our duty to God to maintain the integrity of marriage through our own independent decisions. However, if conclusive evidence can be shown that the church is being coerced into allowing gay marriage, then perhaps a proposition makes more sense. As of now, there is no proof, just hypothetical scenarios.
K that's it for now. to summarize my position, I believe gay marriage is wrong but I do not believe the government can condone/endorse a religious position, and marriage is very much a religious institution. If the government or individuals misconstrue the acceptance of gay marriage as a basis to attack the church, then we're going to have drama. But I don't think that's the case, and thus can't vote yes on prop 8.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Additional notes:
- The idea of gay marriage being taught in schools is not a relevant argument to the support of prop 8. Gay marriage is allowable right now in California. Gay marriage has not been taught in schools ( a few random cases can be seen as anomalies, not proof). Now, if gay marriage is forcibly taught in schools, then the church has a right to fight against it through some sort of amendment, once again upon the premise that marriage is an extension of religious belief and the government cannot force anyone to choose a religion.
But as of now, there is no proof beyond hyperbolic predictions and the education system of Massachusetts: but what happens is one state does not equate to that exact same scenario happening here.
If gay marriage is taught in schools, let's fight it to hell and back. But as of now, schools should perhaps take a neutral position in references to marriage, using the statistical majority of heterosexual marriage as a "normal" position but realizing that homosexual marriage is plausible depending on the interpretation of the respective church. However, even this neutral stance should be altogether avoided until a student is "of age" -- an ambiguous term, yes, but one that needs to be defined asap.
- The argument that marriage is a strictly legal institution is absolutely retarded. People have been listing marriage as merely a process of documenting dowries or whatever. Retarded. Marriage has a long history of being a religious AND legal institution, and we have documentation to prove it: the Bible.
- Similarly, the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion casts a huge blind eye towards the role of various churches of all denominations, Christian or not, in the history of marriage. Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work. Also, the idea of which came first is difficult to prove because you will not find common ground as to when humanity started between the creationists and the scientific, and short of someone time traveling to God's creation or the Big Bang, you can not 100 percent prove either/or. You can go ad hominem and call one side quacks or the other side liars, but this does not mean you're arguments have merit.
- Very clearly: Marriage is a religious AND legal institution. You cannot have one without the other. I repeatedly emphasize the religious aspect of marriage because public opinion seems to have forgotten this. But you cannot eliminate the church's right to marriage without imposing a forcible change of religious belief, which the constitution disallows. And you cannot remove the legal status of marriage because it has always had an equally useful purpose of establishing legal rights.
- The idea of "equality for all" is another argument that needs to be clearly defined before anyone starts popping off about it. Same with "separate but equal" denouncements used by the "No" crowd. The only reason prop 8 should not be passed is because of marriage's position as a religious institution and the government should not be allowed to force a religion onto someone. "Equality" is overrated. If you want equality, take your income and subtract it by mine, then split the difference with me. K stfu.
- the "it's wrong, and it's unfair" is another brainless argument employed. First off, it's redundant. Second, you're not explaining why. Third, if your argument for it is that marriage is an unalienable right, you're wrong. Finally, if you think a church is discriminating by not allowing gay marriage, you're even wronger. A church has every right to follow its belief, and homosexual acts fall under our definition of sodomy.
edit: made things clearer
|
United States24723 Posts
I'm not even up on the issue, but based on what you said, I'm concerned that marriage is considered an issue of religion even though it has many legal ramifications (taxation, etc)
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
it's not a religious issue in the sense of pertaining to the internal matters of an organized religion, or a matter of religious doctrine debates. simply speaking, the situation is a change in a social institution, and there are resisters.
government has no interest in interfering with this change in marriage, and indeed has a positive duty to protect and recognize gay marriage.
take a less charged scenario. some people are making pizza in a different style, and yet wish to call it pizza and treat it as such. the pizza purists object and appeal to state power.
|
I think you veered into the wrong track the moment you started using religion, Christianity in particular, to buttress your idea of marriage.
Marriage is older than Christianity and is independent of religion. Politically, our government ought to be independent from the Church. For me that is a necessary starting point of any policy discussion.
|
On November 05 2008 05:35 micronesia wrote:
I'm not even up on the issue, but based on what you said, I'm concerned that marriage is considered an issue of religion even though it has many legal ramifications (taxation, etc)
Exactly. Once taxes and benefits enter the picture, it's no longer a religious issue.
|
United States17042 Posts
On November 05 2008 05:35 micronesia wrote:
I'm not even up on the issue, but based on what you said, I'm concerned that marriage is considered an issue of religion even though it has many legal ramifications (taxation, etc)
Agreed, and on that basis alone, church and state should be separate as part of the constitution.
And yes, to answer the question at the top of the op- this is the right place to put the thread I believe.
|
guys, just cuz taxes are involved doesn't mean something is no longer a religious institution. marriage incorporates both religious and legal aspects. its carries the connotation of moral superiority through religion and tax benefits through its legality.
for example, churches are given tax-exempt status. does that mean churches are purely legal beings?
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
irrelevant. even if we consider buttsex a religious practice, the christian churches have no privilege of defining what constitutes a religion and what does not. to do so would be the grossest establishment of religion in government.
|
I posted this in a blog thread earlier, so I'm going to post it again here, because I think it applies (and I spent a long time making that post):
In opposition to gay marriage
The argument against gay marriage is, admittedly one often based on religious grounds. The logical reasoning against gay marriage (aka proposition 8) is mostly misunderstood, ignored, and those who espouse prop. 8 are called bigots and haters. To understand the issue, we have to take a deeper look at what marriage really is. Why has every single human culture come up with some idea of marriage? Sure, there are some differences here and there, but in the end there's a single reason for it.
People get married to have kids. For a society to function, there have to be children to ensure a new generation. Part of our obligation as human beings, is to ensure the health and safety of all children in any way possible. In addition to making children (sexual intercourse is the traditional method), parents have a special obligation to care for their child by providing them with their basic needs.
Perhaps the most important part of caring for a child's basic needs is protecting their mental health. A marriage between a man and a woman is the tried and true method for producing the maximum number of healthy children. With heterosexual marriage as the standard, the mental health of a child from this union can be measured against the mental health of children from nonstandard marriages. However we can't just experiment on children. That would be testing non-consenting humans in experiments where their mental health could be irreparably damaged. So we have to make do with the data we already have.
One of the few abnormal marriage types most people are aware of is polygamy. If we open the door to gay marriage, are we also opening the door to polygamy? Isn't it discrimination to tell someone how many people they can love? How is it any different from discrimination against gay marriage? The answer is that polygamy has been shown to harm childrens mental health. If you google 'effects of polygamy on children', you'll come up with some behavioral studies that paint polygamy in quite a poor light. For better results you can search Google Scholar, here. If you don't go look it up yourself, what these articles say is that polygamy is bad for kids.
There are clear, experimentally verified downsides for at least one kind of abnormal marriage. While the results of polygamy on children is researched, there has been hardly any research on the children of gay couples. And if we open the door to gay marriage, do we also allow polygamy? Can we allow gay marriage, and risk damaging thousands of developing minds?
+ Show Spoiler [Text of Proposition 8] +This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the
provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.
This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by
adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are
printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.
SECTION 1. Title
This measure shall be known and may be cited as the “California Marriage
Protection Act.”
SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution,
to read:
SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized
in California.
Text taken from this source (PDF): Text of California ballot propositions
Proposition 8 was made in response to the following California Supreme Court Decision (PDF).
excerpts from the court ruling:
+ Show Spoiler [Majority opinion] +
First, we must determine the nature and scope of the “right to marry” — a
right that past cases establish as one of the fundamental constitutional rights
embodied in the California Constitution. Although, as an historical matter, civil
marriage and the rights associated with it traditionally have been afforded only to
opposite-sex couples, this court’s landmark decision 60 years ago in Perez v.
Sharp (1948) 32 Cal.2d 7114 — which found that California’s statutory provisions
prohibiting interracial marriages were inconsistent with the fundamental
constitutional right to marry, notwithstanding the circumstance that statutory
prohibitions on interracial marriage had existed since the founding of the state...
These core substantive rights include, most fundamentally, the
opportunity of an individual to establish — with the person with whom the
individual has chosen to share his or her life — an officially recognized and
protected family possessing mutual rights and responsibilities and entitled to the same respect and dignity accorded a union traditionally designated as marriage.
As past cases establish, the substantive right of two adults who share a loving
relationship to join together to establish an officially recognized family of their
own — and, if the couple chooses, to raise children within that family —
constitutes a vitally important attribute of the fundamental interest in liberty and
personal autonomy that the California Constitution secures to all persons for the
benefit of both the individual and society.
Although our state Constitution does not contain any explicit reference to a
“right to marry,” past California cases establish beyond question that the right to
marry is a fundamental right whose protection is guaranteed to all persons by the
California Constitution.
I encourage you to at least skim through parts of the decision. it's interesting stuff.
+ Show Spoiler [Minority opinion] +
I cannot join this exercise in legal jujitsu, by which the Legislature’s own
weight is used against it to create a constitutional right from whole cloth, defeat
the People’s will, and invalidate a statute otherwise immune from legislative
interference. Though the majority insists otherwise, its pronouncement seriously
oversteps the judicial power.
The majority has violated these principles. It simply does not have the right
to erase, then recast, the age-old definition of marriage, as virtually all societies
have understood it, in order to satisfy its own contemporary notions of equality
and justice.
I would avoid these difficulties by confirming clearly that there is no
constitutional right to same-sex marriage. That is because marriage is, as it always
has been, the right of a woman and an unrelated man to marry each other.
First, it is certainly reasonable for the Legislature, having granted same-sex
couples all substantive marital rights within its power, to assign those rights a
name other than marriage. After all, an initiative statute adopted by a 61.4 percent
popular vote, and constitutionally immune from repeal by the Legislature, defines
marriage as a union of partners of the opposite sex.
edit: added a title, and some excerpts from the the official majority decision of Lockyer v. City and County of San Francisco (2004). Also some excerpts from the dissenting opinion.
+ Show Spoiler +In fact, I voted no on proposition 8. But this is the argument opposing it that isn't on religious grounds.
|
If some religion doesn't want to allow gay marriages in their churches that's fine by me. I however see no argument what so ever why the government should disallow it.
|
On November 05 2008 05:55 oneofthem wrote:
irrelevant. even if we consider buttsex a religious practice, the christian churches have no privilege of defining what constitutes a religion and what does not. to do so would be the grossest establishment of religion in government.
right. the church has no right to impose its belief on other religious institutions.
it can oppose it within the context of its own church. it can not allow gay marriages to be conducted within its own church. but it cannot call for a ban on gay marriages throughout.
|
What do you mean by "marriage is a religious institution"?
|
On November 05 2008 06:13 Nytefish wrote:
What do you mean by "marriage is a religious institution"?
yeah i should make that more clear. I added a bit into the OP but i'll copy and paste it here:
- The argument that marriage is a strictly legal institution is absolutely retarded. People have been listing marriage as merely a process of documenting dowries or whatever. Retarded. Marriage has a long history of being a religious AND legal institution, and we have documentation to prove it: the Bible.
- Similarly, the idea that marriage has nothing to do with religion casts a huge blind eye towards the role of various churches of all denominations, Christian or not, in the history of marriage. Also, the idea that marriage predates religion is a difficult premise to base your argument around. First, this argues that biological need is the primary purpose of marriage, which means to have kids, which means gay marriage doesn't work. Also, the idea of which came first is difficult to prove because you will not find common ground as to when humanity started between the creationists and the scientific, and short of someone time traveling to God's creation or the Big Bang, you can not 100 percent prove either/or. You can go ad hominem and call one side quacks or the other side liars, but this does not mean you're arguments have merit.
- Very clearly: Marriage is a religious AND legal institution. You cannot have one without the other. I repeatedly emphasize the religious aspect of marriage because public opinion seems to have forgotten this. But you cannot eliminate the church's right to marriage without imposing a forcible change of religious belief, which the constitution disallows. And you cannot remove the legal status of marriage because it has always had an equally useful purpose of establishing legal rights.
|
The problem is that Marriage isn't just some bullshit religious pursuit of happiness. People use it for tax breaks, to keep people in USA and become US citizens etc.
Does anyone have a copy of the actual proposition I've heard so much bullshit regarding this proposition that I disregard anything that is said.
I do know one thing though, I was never taught about marriage in any school (straight or gay) and I even went to catholic school up until 3rd grade and have been to more schools than there are grades in 2 different states.
PS- semi off topic but last week I was driving to work down PCH and on either side of the street there were tens of tens of people in Seal Beach holding 'Yes On Prop 8' signs and on the other side was 'No on prop 8', It was hilarious.
|
Here's my question in regards to a gay couple raising a child. This isn't meant as an argument. I just don't know the answer and want someone to tell me 
Obviously a gay couple have to adopt, right? If so, who determines their eligibility for adoption? I have no clue how adoption agencies and such work. Can agencies choose to deny an adoption request?
|
United States24723 Posts
For a goof I hit wiki and found this:
Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. Judging by this, I'd think it's fair to say that no religion has the right to claim how you can marry, as long as you are not married by a member of that religion (in a church, synogague, etc)
edit: thus there is nobody qualified to say nobody should have gay marriages.
|
On November 05 2008 06:27 micronesia wrote:For a goof I hit wiki and found this: Show nested quote +Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. Judging by this, I'd think it's fair to say that no religion has the right to claim how you can marry, as long as you are not married by a member of that religion (in a church, synogague, etc)
right.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
lol wow. i've never seen the universal declaration of human rights raised outside of the academic setting
|
if homosexually is not considered a mental disease by law/medicine then homosexual couples should be permitted to raise children and marry
|
United States24723 Posts
On November 05 2008 06:29 oneofthem wrote:
lol wow. i've never seen the universal declaration of human rights raised outside of the academic setting
I am the master of bringing up things outside of an academic setting that nobody really wants to see.
Btw note my edit above OP.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
