Apple joins Google in fighting Prop. 8

[aduffbrew]

No. What they want is for me to vote that homosexual relationships are just as good as heterosexual marriages. There is no evidence that they are. There is some evidence that they are not.

 

Homosexuals are already allowed to marry, they are just not permitted to call non-marriage or marriage-like relationships marriage. They have exactly the same rights as I have. I am not against hospital visitation, property-sharing, inheritance, or any of that stuff. That's not what this is really about. They want my approval of their relationship. I will not give it. They want me to vote that their relationship is just as good as traditional marriage. It is not. No one has produced any evidence that it is. I will not vote that it is just as good. They want me to buy into the 1984 newspeak that these relationships are really marriage. I won't do it.

In general:

 

1. They are asking for the same civil rights regarding their marriage, non-marriage, marriage-like union, civil union, or what ever label you prefer to assign their commitment that you have with your marriage, non-marriage, marriage-like union, civil union or what ever label they prefer to pin on your commitment. You didn't ask them to vote your relationship "just as good" to some completely relative standard and they aren't asking for your personal endorsement of theirs.

 

2. What is this hang up with the word "marriage?" As an institution, I hardly consider 50% success rate sanctified! What indignities can possibly befall it that heterosexual couples haven't already done over and over since time began? Holy Hannah, dude! And why do we own the use of it?

 

3. Whether you got married in the Temple, a chapel, or in someone's back yard, remember that little piece of paper you signed? Do you even KNOW what rights it grants you and your relationship? All you did was pay a little fee and sign a paper to get them. Do you have any idea the time and expense {censored} couples have to go through to even approximate what your little John Hancock accomplished? Do you realize in some states, LIKE UTAH, even with all the time and money in the world, they can't duplicate all the rights and protections granted a married couple?

 

Not to be disrespectful, but you obviously don't know and don't care to know. You have what you want so just be honest. You want them to shut up and know their place.

 

Just because you choose to ignore what I say doesn't change the truthfulness of it. They aren't my ideas. You need to stop looking at this as a battle of beliefs or you're going to be left behind as the world changes around you. I wish I could just tell you to stop being so fearful. Social change is inevitable. We will face new opportunities and new challenges... it's called evolution, dude.

[LogicalUser]

I also noticed they are in alphabetical order. If you have some issue with their findings then speak it, like Generic George.

 

 

yes, i have many issues with the "findings" of the Family Research Council & Focus on the Family

 

here are some fun quotes:

 

"FRC does not consider homosexuality, bi-sexuality, and transgenderism as acceptable alternative lifestyles or sexual "preferences"; they are unhealthy and destructive to individual persons, families, and society."

 

"Family Research Council believes that homosexual conduct is harmful to the persons who engage in it and to society at large, and can never be affirmed. It is by definition unnatural, and as such is associated with negative physical and psychological health effects"

 

what good are "findings" when you openly say things like that on the subject?

 

 

i also have isssues with their support of abstinence-only sex education, and singleminded slant towards their own christian faith, but those are off topic here

[brainbone]

Homosexuals are already allowed to marry, they are just not permitted to call non-marriage or marriage-like relationships marriage. They have exactly the same rights as I have. I am not against hospital visitation, property-sharing, inheritance, or any of that stuff. That's not what this is really about.

 

Yes. That is what its about.

 

They don't have the same rights. They may be able to approximate them in some states though much legal maneuvering, but that is not the same. As long as their relationship is not universally accepted as legal, with the same legal rights as a heterosexual marriage, they will never have the same rights.

 

You personally never have to approve of their relationship, but you do need to accept that whom they choose to marry is their choice -- not yours.

 

So, in the end, for you, it comes to the "definition" of the word marriage. But, the definition of the word marriage has always been evolving. It wasn't long ago that a woman did not have the same rights as a man in a "marriage". Interracial marriages were not recognized long ago. Slaves were not allowed to marry.

 

If homosexuals actually have all the rights you speak of, then, the relationships they have today will be causing all the same trouble you fear from changing the "definition of marriage". If the damage is already done, preserving the "definition of marriage" is an exercise in futility. If the damage hasn't been done, then you obviously are all about withholding rights from the {censored} community.

 

What they want is for me to vote that homosexual relationships are just as good as heterosexual marriages. There is no evidence that they are. There is some evidence that they are not.

 

There is evidence that marriages of the low income are not as good as those in the middle class. Should these no longer be recognize?

 

There is evidence that interracial marriages can often be difficult on the children. Should these no longer be recognize?

 

How about marriages of the disabled. They certainly have more trouble caring for their children. How about the extremely wealthy. They have a very high divorce rate. Perhaps if you have too high an income you shouldn't be allowed to marry... ... ...

 

If you honestly want to use "as good as heterosexual marriages" as a benchmark for marraige, then you need to apply that to the full spectrum. You need to isolate and quantify EXACTLY what makes the {censored} marriage not as good as the heterosexual marriage, and then apply that universally.

 

You've started your list, but haven't done enough home work to isolate the real cause. You've stopped at superficial similarities to past studies of unrelated situations. Keep going. Find out what is wrong with the homosexual marraige. What is going to make it ruin heterosexual marriages? Please. I need to know the answer. What else must we stop in order to save marriage!? I don't think stopping {censored} marriage is enough! Divorce rates continue to rise. Education rates continue to drop. Crime continues to increase. There has to be a problem with the institution of marriage -- something has infected it, and as a result eroded our perfect society. Please help me find this cause!

 

Wait... you know what the problem just may be???

 

Inequality.

[Descalzo]

Wait... you know what the problem just may be???

 

Inequality.

Exactly. Marriage and same-sex relationships are not equal. They are not the same behavior. Marriage is a better behavior.

[Maxintosh]

Marriage and same-sex relationships are not equal.

 

That's the whole point Einstein, they're trying to make them equal and changing the wording as noted a few posts above would have done that

 

In both cases each is loving another person. That's all it is. A persons gender has nothing to do with it. That would be like saying males inherently love better than females, or females inherently love better than males Love is love no matter who is doing it. Instead of being a religious hypocrite you should be happy that people around the world are finding reasons to share their LOVE one for one another.

[m16]

Now THAT is unsubstantiated.

 

Did you even read my post? Did you even read the list?

Children yearn for biological parents. This is not a biased opinion.

Children do better with a father. This is not a biased opinion.

Children do better with a mother. This is not a biased opinion.

Evidence on same-sex parenting is inadequate. The term 'Inadequate' MAY be an opinion, but it is certainly not biased, and there is nothing in that website that says the expert witness who said it was inadequate in the case was a homophobic.

And so on.

 

If you have some information about this man's homophobia, give it. If you have evidence that suggests that the facts as stated in the list are not really facts, but "one homophobic's biased opinions," then give it.

 

I find this statement from you: the most worrisome. If an educated person is not 'gullible' enough to fall for rational argument and evidence, or to even attempt to discredit it through any other means than discrediting the author through nothing more than name-calling, then heaven help us all. Maybe the people who say that our schools are broken are correct.

Do you have any evidence that the majority of psychologists believe your "common facts"? I am sure I am not alone in thinking - it is not whether there is a biological couple taking care of children that matters - it is that there is a couple that takes care of the children that matters...

 

I disagree with your notion that children yearn for biological parents... I have spoken to a few adopted kids and they have all said they do not care for their real parents because there real parents did not care for them...

 

Even if there is a slight benefit to having heterosexual couples taking care of children - which you have yet to prove... it is certainly better for children to be out of the foster care system with homosexuals than in the foster care system...

 

The USA is becoming a backwards hell hole with the south, fundamentalists + mormons chipping in on all these efforts to discriminate ....

[brainbone]

Marriage is a better behavior.

 

Ok, then what is "Marriage"?

 

You want to "preserve the definition [institution] of marriage" that has existed for "thousands" of years.

 

Well, lets see what has defined marriages for "thousands of years". Since marriage has rapidly changed in definition over that last few hundred years or so, I think we should leave that out, being only a drop in the bucket when averaged over that last "thousands":

 

Marriage started out, and persisted until relatively recently, as a simple property exchange. Women being the property. This is the backbone of the "man and women" of marriage. Since women are the property and men are the property owners, you can't very well have property owning property, or property owners owning other property owners. If you think about it, it keeps things simple. It keeps the woman submitted, and makes the unions very strong -- unless the man tires of the woman -- then he simply kills her, or sells her.

 

Now, if you don't like that, you certainly aren't taking your definition from that last "thousands" of years, so please answer me ALL of these questions:

 

1) Exactly from what and when are you really taking your "definition" of "marriage"?

 

2) How long has that definition actually been stable?

 

3) What makes a "Marriage"?

 

4) What makes a marriage of a man and a woman better than a same sex marriage?

 

5) Better for whom?

 

6) Who is hurt by {censored} marriage?

 

6a) How?

 

7) Is that "hurt" more important than the "hurt" inflicted on the {censored} community by not allowing them the legal right to marry?

 

7a) Why?

 

8) Are there any other heterosexual couples that can cause the same or similar "harm" to the "institution of marriage" by allowing them the right to marry?

 

8a) Do they have that right now?

 

8b) Should they be able to keep it?

 

8bi) Why?

 

9) Where is the evidence for your answers to the above? I've already torn down your previous "findings". Please, give me something substantial, or give substantial arguments on each "finding" you choose to recycle, pointing to why my reasoning for the invalidity of your "findings" appear in error.

[mp3228]

First of all they didn't look like 'thugs' They were simply concerned and passionate about what they believe in, and there's nothing wrong with that. She was asking for it! Secondly, she knew well ahead of time that she would be antagonizing all of the people there with her cross being pushed in their face. They didn't attack her, they took her cross away from her and threw it on the ground. Look, if someone tries to dismantle a beehive without taking the proper precautions, then they deserve to get stung. Likewise for this woman. I hope you're not religious, because then you'd be a hypocrite bearing false witness against your neighbor

 

Interesting how none of the fundies are explaining how {censored} marriage damages heterosexual marriage. That's because it doesn't!

 

I see 3 crimes committed here. Theft, Assult, and damaging private property. That could rack up to 15 years max in the pen.

 

Looked like thugs to me. If you put your hands on another person without their permission, thats assault, and you can get 3 years minimum for it depending on the state's law, thus, you are a criminal. Ignorance of the law is not excuse. Thats why I became a cop.

 

Its called freedom of speech, she wasn't hurting anyone. If you don't like it, get out of America. A lot of people died, so that you and your "special people" can ask for "special rights" granted by some government body of even bigger criminals. I don't know what you are protesting. Since when does the state say you can't marry another person? Just do it, and shut up. Nobody is stopping you.

 

On the contrary I am religious, and I believe in freedom of speech, unlike yourself. You believe that "JUST YOU" should have a "special right" of freedom of speech that is "above" everyone else's.

 

All men are created equal, but it seems that you want to be more equal than others.

[Maxintosh]

I see 3 crimes committed here. Theft, Assult, and damaging private property.

So then arrest those who did it and shut up. That does NOT give you the right to hold it against everyone there, based on the actions of a few bad apples, or did you miss that lesson at the academy?

 

she wasn't hurting anyone.

No more than the KKK does when they march and try to insight trouble

[brainbone]

Since when does the state say you can't marry another person? Just do it, and shut up. Nobody is stopping you.

 

The "state" says just that. If you get married, it will not be legally recognized. Are you saying that you don't understand the difference between a legally recognized marriage and one that is not?

 

Say it was decided that you couldn't legally marry an appropriate and consenting member of the opposite sex, for whatever reason. Would you be happy with a non-legal marraige? Would you "Just do it, and shut up"? Or might you have just a little bit of rage toward those that denied you your right?

[Generic George]

Descalzo I do hope you realize that the people who run groups like the the FRC are the sorts of people who consider your religion to be a cult. LDS members were banned from participating in a National Day of Prayer back in 2004 by Dobson's wife, on the basis of your beliefs being incompatible with "Real True Christian" beliefs.

 

So if they start putting "evidence" up on their web site that "mormon" marriages aren't as good as "Christian" marriages, are you going to accept that as uncritically? Many of the complaints they have against homosexual marriages only require a little twisting to be aimed at members of the LDS.

 

For that matter, family and parenting are generally considered much stronger in many asian countries than in the US and they're mostly Buddhist. So on your criteria we ought to prevent christians from getting married, because Buddhist are better parents. While we're at it, the poor make lousy parents, so we should prevent them from getting married as well. ETC (Insert inflammatory comparison here, because I don't feel like continuing on with making more up)...

 

Do you really want someone telling you, you can or can't get married because you MIGHT not measure up to their arbitrary standards? I mean, hey you aren't teaching your children how to be RTCs, that means they're going to go to hell, which is clearly the ultimate in Child Abuse.

[Descalzo]

Marriage started out, and persisted until relatively recently, as a simple property exchange. Women being the property. This is the backbone of the "man and women" of marriage. Since women are the property and men are the property owners, you can't very well have property owning property, or property owners owning other property owners. If you think about it, it keeps things simple. It keeps the woman submitted, and makes the unions very strong -- unless the man tires of the woman -- then he simply kills her, or sells her.

It's true that women were once considered property, but that was a characteristic of the society, not necessarily the institution. Marriage was still a man taking a wife. I looked into it, and based on what you said about Nero and Elagabalus, they have been pretty much the only specific examples I could find. I found others mentioned, but no names. All of the examples I found were in ancient Rome. So with this exception, marriage has always been regarded, defined, known, whatever, as the union between at least one man and at least one woman. This is true throughout history, throughout the world. At least one man, at least one woman. Ancient, decadent Rome is the exception, and not a shining one. This is the one constant. If you want to arbitrarily change it, then I can counter with an arbitrary desire to keep it the same.

 

As for the harm, you have hardly destroyed the evidence. If anything, you have pointed out that there is insufficient evidence. Isn't the onus on you who want to carry this one step further? You want to turn marriage into something it NEVER REALLY WAS, without a shred of evidence that it will help, and some evidence that it will do harm? And so what about all the hetero marriages that are childless? Most of them are childless by definition, and still provide a valuable service to society by showing what a marriage should look like. Even if we wanted to only grant special Married status on couples intending to have children, how would we do it? How do you measure intention before granting a marriage license. The best place for a child to grow up, ACCORDING TO ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE (including common sense) is with a loving mother and a loving father.

 

I just found some more harm. Not by the marriage itself, necessarily, but from the idea that, "Hey the state recognizes this relationship as Just As Good as any other!" http://www.citizenlink.org/clcommentary/A000008385.cfm Notice that it does mention religion in the paper, but not as why homosexuality or {censored} relationships are wrong. I should add that the church that lost its tax-exempt status for not allowing its property to be used for a same-sex union, well, there's more to it than that. Apparently the property was semi-de facto public property. I don't remember where I got that little tidbit of info.

 

Let me remind you that none of my reasoning behind my support of the traditional definition of marriage has been based on religion. None of the reasoning on that website I linked to is based on religion.

 

One more thing: If you want to read more about the Prop. 8, I recommend the California Supreme Court ruling.

 

http://www.latimes.com/media/acrobat/2008-05/38894545.PDF

 

It will come as no surprise to anyone here that I concur (for what it's worth!) with the dissenting opinion. Also note that, according to the dissent, the homosexual couples of California enjoy every right and blessing which the state can bestow on a married couple, just not (until the ruling, and now after the amendment) the label "marriage."

[Generic George]

I just found some more harm. Not by the marriage itself, necessarily, but from the idea that, "Hey the state recognizes this relationship as Just As Good as any other!" http://www.citizenlink.org/clcommentary/A000008385.cfm Notice that it does mention religion in the paper, but not as why homosexuality or {censored} relationships are wrong. I should add that the church that lost its tax-exempt status for not allowing its property to be used for a same-sex union, well, there's more to it than that. Apparently the property was semi-de facto public property. I don't remember where I got that little tidbit of info.

 

Ocean Grove Camp Meeting Association is not a church, it was founded by churches as a meeting place, but that's not the same thing. It is as you mentioned a public place. It has accepted public moneys for maintenance, upkeep and operating funds. Chunks of it are also explicitly public areas, such as the boardwalk.

 

Here's a simple test as to if something is a resonable area in which you get to "chose" who you offer your services to. If you can substitute "african-american" into the description and not sound like a horrible racist, then it's a reasonable "choice". You can't do that in any of the examples you linked to.

 

You can refuse service to people who are dressed inappropriately, you can't refuse service to people because of their skin color, nor should you be permitted to refuse service based on sexual orientation.

 

Likewise the other people mentioned in your link as having problems because of their refusal to treat homosexual couples as people are violating that principle. Your beliefs do not give you the right to discriminate.

 

What if those photographers were someplace where they were the only ones available for hours of travel.

[brainbone]

This is true throughout history, throughout the world. At least one man, at least one woman.

 

Averaged out, it has also been true that women always held less power in the relationship. If tradition is to win out in the end, then we should roll back any of the ground women have recently gained.

 

As for the harm, you have hardly destroyed the evidence. If anything, you have pointed out that there is insufficient evidence. Isn't the onus on you who want to carry this one step further? ..... The best place for a child to grow up, ACCORDING TO ALL AVAILABLE EVIDENCE (including common sense) is with a loving mother and a loving father.

 

Look, you're doing it again. There is no evidence that children brought up by two men, or two women are any less well adjusted than a man and a woman. "Common sense" tells you that you cannot transpose results from single parent families onto {censored} families. "Common sense" tells you that studies overwhelmingly show that the economic standing of a family is more important to the children turning out well adjusted than anything else. "Common sense" would tell you that if you want to use ones ability to raise children as "evidence" against their right to marry, then you should also deny that right to others that may also have trouble raising well adjusted children, like those with a lower economic standing.

 

Yes. I have countered your "evidence". Unfortunately, you're unable to understand the argument.

 

I just found some more harm. Not by the marriage itself, necessarily, but from the idea that, "Hey the state recognizes this relationship as Just As Good as any other!" http://www.citizenlink.org/clcommentary/A000008385.cfm

 

There is no evidence that replacing "bride and groom" with "party a and party b" on a legal document does anything to destroy heterosexual marriage. This is simply another unsubstantiated fear. That you are unable to understand this is troubling.

 

Let me remind you that none of my reasoning behind my support of the traditional definition of marriage has been based on religion. None of the reasoning on that website I linked to is based on religion.

 

If you were not religious, you would not have this fear of {censored} marriage, so yes... your fear is rooted in your religion.

 

You didn't answer my questions in my previous post, 1-9.

[Descalzo]

There is no evidence that children brought up by two men, or two women are any less well adjusted than a man and a woman. "Common sense" tells you that you cannot transpose results from single parent families onto {censored} families. "Common sense" tells you that studies overwhelmingly show that the economic standing of a family is more important to the children turning out well adjusted than anything else. "Common sense" would tell you that if you want to use ones ability to raise children as "evidence" against their right to marry, then you should also deny that right to others that may also have trouble raising well adjusted children, like those with a lower economic standing.

Not so. A family's socio-economic status may change. Their sexual status may not, at least not without changing partners. I am only interested now in preserving the traditional definition/institution of marriage, that has stood for thousands of years, around the world, in every culture (except decadent Rome) as including one (or more) members of the opposite sex. If that's not enough for you, look at the history of the United States (where these issues seem to be cropping up), where it has been that way for over 200 years, even though the women haven't really been property. If that's still not enough, then how about the definition that has been passed by law and by amendment in nearly all of the individual states. Someone here is trying to set up an arbitrary definition of marriage, and it is NOT me.

 

And I'll state it again, you have NO evidence that same-sex unions will be Just As Good as marriages, least of all with regards to child-rearing. You are ready to throw out thousands of years of history, moral and legal, on a whim based on equality. Hang the consequences, here's a chance to show how open-minded we are about equality!

 

Yes. I have countered your "evidence". Unfortunately, you're unable to understand the argument.

There is no evidence that replacing "bride and groom" with "party a and party b" on a legal document does anything to destroy heterosexual marriage. This is simply another unsubstantiated fear. That you are unable to understand this is troubling.

You don't think it's cause for fear. I find it quite troubling. I consider that many of the ills that assail our societies today are associated with an erosion of the family, both in child-rearing and in the encouragement of young people to settle down and be responsible, taking their place in the circle of life.

 

If you were not religious, you would not have this fear of {censored} marriage, so yes... your fear is rooted in your religion.

In other words, it doesn't matter what I say, it doesn't matter how hard I study the matter, it doesn't matter how many state Supreme Court justices I quote, it doesn't matter that Elton John himself said that marriage is for straight people; none of that matters. I am religious, therefore my thoughts are worthless, my arguments are not worth taking seriously, and I am a bigot. Did I get that right?

You didn't answer my questions in my previous post, 1-9.

You already know enough. I'm religious. Why even ask?

[aduffbrew]

I'm religious.

So are the Taliban.

 

So after {censored} marriage, what's next? Alcohol, tobacco, and coca-cola? How about bikinis and shopping on Sunday?

 

Thanks for saving marriage! I mean, if the people choose incorrectly, just deny them the ability to choose... because THAT'S the American way! Or is it Lucifer's, I forget! Good thing your religion has saved us! Because, wow! They have always been the champion for TRADITIONAL marriage!

 

Whatever, dude!

 

Luckily, Mormons are not some unidimensional demographic. I've had several, from lay-members to local and stake leaders, who have expressed dismay and sadness over their church's position. They don't endorse it. Sure, vocally they're a minority because of the autocratic nature of the religion but some do agree... this does NOT jive with several key beliefs regarding "free agency."

 

*shakes head*

 

Before I bow down to your brand of moral theocracy, I'll fight you and your freedom fearing ilk. More and more of us each day recognize the danger your ideals pose our democracy. There will come a day very soon when we will be victorious in correcting this atrocity of justice because as we all know, good always conquers evil eventually. If I sound harsh and disrespectful it is because you have shown nothing but contempt for the very things that have afforded you the liberty to live according to your own dictates. You instead choose to view this issue myopically. I'm sure you'd think differently had the people succeeded in disenfranchising the Mormon church back in the 19th century as they wanted to. Funny thing, they found the Mormon attempt at redefining marriage to be vulgar and reprehensible also! Hypocrisy is an unwieldy weapon so be more careful!

[Generic George]

So are the Taliban.

 

So after {censored} marriage, what's next? Alcohol, tobacco, and coca-cola? How about bikinis and shopping on Sunday?

 

Thanks for saving marriage! I mean, if the people choose incorrectly, just deny them the ability to choose... because THAT'S the American way! Or is it Lucifer's, I forget! Good thing your religion has saved us! Because, wow! They have always been the champion for TRADITIONAL marriage!

 

Whatever, dude!

 

Luckily, Mormons are not some unidimensional demographic. I've had several, from lay-members to local and stake leaders, who have expressed dismay and sadness over their church's position. They don't endorse it. Sure, vocally they're a minority because of the autocratic nature of the religion but some do agree... this does NOT jive with several key beliefs regarding "free agency."

 

*shakes head*

 

Before I bow down to your brand of moral theocracy, I'll fight you and your freedom fearing ilk. More and more of us each day recognize the danger your ideals pose our democracy. There will come a day very soon when we will be victorious in correcting this atrocity of justice because as we all know, good always conquers evil eventually. If I sound harsh and disrespectful it is because you have shown nothing but contempt for the very things that have afforded you the liberty to live according to your own dictates. You instead choose to view this issue myopically. I'm sure you'd think differently had the people succeeded in disenfranchising the Mormon church back in the 19th century as they wanted to. Funny thing, they found the Mormon attempt at redefining marriage to be vulgar and reprehensible also! Hypocrisy is an unwieldy weapon so be more careful!

 

Folks it's been reasonably polite up until now. Can we try and keep it that way please.

[Descalzo]

Thanks for saving marriage! I mean, if the people choose incorrectly, just deny them the ability to choose... because THAT'S the American way! Or is it Lucifer's, I forget! Good thing your religion has saved us! Because, wow! They have always been the champion for TRADITIONAL marriage!

Are you serious? What choice am I taking away? No one has suggested that co-habitation be declared illegal. No one has suggested that men be prohibited by law from falling in love with men. No one is suggesting that two men should be prohibited by law from having some ceremony wherein they pledge their undying love. No one is suggesting that laws be passed prohibiting men from sleeping with men.

 

I am taking away one choice only: the right to make my government say that there is no difference between heterosexual relationships and traditional marriage. They can call it marriage if they want to. Shoot, they can call themselves Martians for all I care!

[aduffbrew]

Are you serious? What choice am I taking away? No one has suggested that co-habitation be declared illegal. No one has suggested that men be prohibited by law from falling in love with men. No one is suggesting that two men should be prohibited by law from having some ceremony wherein they pledge their undying love. No one is suggesting that laws be passed prohibiting men from sleeping with men.

 

I am taking away one choice only: the right to make my government say that there is no difference between heterosexual relationships and traditional marriage. They can call it marriage if they want to. Shoot, they can call themselves Martians for all I care!

Of course I am serious. We obviously see this from two completely different perspectives. I hear your arguments and I scratch my head in wonder not understanding what they have to do with the core issue at hand. So maybe that's it... we are both talking past one another.

 

I am not talking of sex, love, or cohabitation. Those AREN'T the issues at all. Neither are the potentialities of successful relationships or child-rearing. These are ALL things that belong solely in the privy of those they directly effect and no one else... Not you, not me, not Mrs. Kravitz across the street, nor our government. Whatever our opinions may be of the choices others make, it makes no difference. It is still a free country in that regard.

 

The issue is about legal protections granted couples... nothing else. You say same-sex couples have the same legal protections as traditional couples but they don't universally... each state is different and only a few actually offer them. Utah certainly doesn't. Did you watch the news tonight?

 

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&sid=4840518

 

You can't listen to those arguements and walk away with anything but the understanding that same-sex couple do NOT have the same legal protections. Sure, they can approximate them through complicated, lengthy, and often costly legal proceedings but as this short article clearly indicates, some rights, like the filing of a wrongful death suit, are still currently unavailable and can never be obtained by same-sex couples.

 

To give them equal access under the law, we must provide, at the very least, civil union status to these people. Something to make it equally convenient and equally cost effective to secure all legal protections granted traditional couples. Are you prepared to do that? You claim you aren't about taking away peoples choices. Denying them equal access is denying them choice.

 

I still believe you are too quick in proclaiming your right to veto the rights of others. Would you ever allow them to be so intrusive in your life? I don't think so. But the precedence this sets weakens your own protections from such intrusions. I certainly can't imagine what form those intrusions might take or even if they'll ever happen... but I don't even want to crack the door open to such possibilities by standing idly by while the majority runs shot gun over a minority. If you think majority rule is what this country is all about, why do we have a constitution with a bill of rights? We wouldn't need it if that was the case.

 

This country has a long history of social progress... The United States wasn't birthed perfect. We have had to struggle with issues of slavery, genocide, religious intolerance, and racism, just to name a few. Each generation is called upon to take a few brave steps in our march towards a more just society. This is one of ours. I understand that some find such change more frightening than others. And I acknowledge I should probably be more patient than I am. With so much at stake, I can't help becoming impassioned.

 

While it is true I could have veiled my thoughts in more cordial arguments and kindly words, their meaning is no more or less offensive or impolite than much of this thread. I make no apologies for them.

[Descalzo]

You say same-sex couples have the same legal protections as traditional couples but they don't universally... each state is different and only a few actually offer them. Utah certainly doesn't....

I don't say same-sex couples have the same legal protections as traditional couples universally. I'm pretty sure that all they lack in California is the word Marriage.

 

You may have mistaken my statement that all PEOPLE share the same right: the right of a man to marry a woman, and vice-versa.

[aduffbrew]

I don't say same-sex couples have the same legal protections as traditional couples universally. I'm pretty sure that all they lack in California is the word Marriage.

 

You may have mistaken my statement that all PEOPLE share the same right: the right of a man to marry a woman, and vice-versa.

Yeah... after I posted, I thought a bit and kind of figured that.

[killbot1000]

In terms of the most logical course of action, this makes the most sense:

 

States do not provide marriage licenses, to anyone (heterosexual or homosexual). Marriage is not the state's business. The state however instead would replace a marriage contract with a union contract, whether you would be in a heterosexual/homosexual relationship, all of the legal rights of marriage would be bestowed, but there would be no religious/historical strings attached to it, simply a legal matter.

 

As for the marriage part, that would be handled either by ones own definition (people saying they are married, if that's how they identify), or the religious institutions that these people belong to. This would insure that at the government level, everyone has the same rights. In terms of defining marriage, that would be up to the person/religious institution that they are a part of.

 

Bullet point version:

 

State Level:

Everyone would have a civil union (heterosexual and homosexual). The state would not give out marriage contracts, they would give out civil union contracts instead (exact same rights as marriage though)

 

Religious institution/individual preference:

Defines marriage. This would ensure that religious institutions that do not believe in {censored} marriage would not be required to marry {censored} couples.

 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

My Own thoughts

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

The definition of marriage has changed many times since marriage began.

 

Why do you think that women change their names to the man's name? It was a symbol that the woman involved no longer belonged to her father, she belonged to her husband now (the husband owned her, like a slave).

 

In American history, there were laws on the books that prevented black people from marrying eachother or from black people marrying white people. I think we can all mostly admit that this was wrong. {censored} marriage is the same thing, as we have learned more about our world, our views slowly begin to change, and that's great. We should all be embracing positive change. As we learn more, we MUST change our view of the world.

 

It is no surprise that people who live in major population centers tend to be more open to new/different ideas. Why do you think this is?

 

On a daily basis, these people have to interact with other people who think/act/believe differently than them. This leaves these people more open to different views because they grew up with it, they experienced the debate everyday and they know that new ideas/people aren't a threat.

 

If however you happen to live in a small town in rural America, you most likely interact with people on a daily basis who think/act/believe the same as you do (or similar). When a group is too homogeneous, outside ideas are often met with skepticism and are often considered a threat.

 

My advice is to just get over it. The definition of marriage is going to change whether it happens now, or a decade or two from now. The idea is already out there, and support for it is growing. We will look back on this time like we now look back on the civil rights movement.

 

Be on the right side of history.

[SingingSabre]

I see marriage as a three-pronged institution. Each is only as sacred as the people who are involved in it make it.

 

First and foremost, it is a personal institution.

 

Secondly, it is a governmental institution.

 

Thirdly, it is a religous instituation.

 

Why did I put government second? Because the personal institution is what government needs to recognize, despite many different religions and subsets of religions viewing {censored} marriage as valid or not. Government needs to grow the cojones to stand up to the neocon movement and say "Hey, this is America. We're in the business of giving people rights, not taking them away, baby!"

[Generic George]

The recent (today) ruling in a {censored} couple's fight to adopt some children, has a lot of relevant information presented about how good parents homosexual couples are.

 

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/southflori.../774739-p3.html

 

Short summary is, the experts who testified against {censored} being parents, were clearly crocking the numbers to support their religious belief that homosexuals make bad parents and the idea that they do make bad parents, is not supported by studies done by people who don't have a religious ax to grind.

[Maxintosh]

the experts who testified against {censored} being parents, were clearly crocking the numbers to support their religious belief that homosexuals make bad parents

No big surprise there