California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger says maybe we will undo Proposition 8 (banning gay marriage)

[Xiphos]

That's the entire crux of this thread. The people have made a decision and the government is threatening to interfere. The fact that you disagree with the people's decision has made it "mob rule" and in this instance you appear to be advocating government interference. Hence the question, "Is it only mob rule when you disagree?"

Was Proposition 215 mob rule as well? Or is it just un-American when Libertarians disagree with it?

So the people of California are not allowed to vote to amend their state constitution?

If they are allowed to vote to change their constitution is it reasonable to expect the government respect that and not interfere?

Of do you advocate government interference when it is needed to meet your personal beliefs? Or are you against government interference?

You're dodging the question.

I think you're dodging mine.

[Rhino]

As I said, I'm bowing out here. If you wish to pick up the debate, there's a thread that's been going on in Rhino's Rampage.

[TXCharlie]

The second part of your last statement..... I'm down with writing those citations. The first part, just shows a good portion of ignorance.

First, gays will have sex regardless of getting married or not. So the rates of STD transmission would not go up because of marriage. In fact, letting gays get married would make it less likely for them to be having sex with multiple partners, thus reducing risk of getting any kind of STD. And before you say it, of course married gay men would cheat.....just about as much as married straight men cheat. So that part is a wash.

Second, AIDS is just as much a straight disease as it is a gay disease, if not more so anymore. I guess all the straight people that have gotten HIV must have been secretly gay? Your statement makes it sound like you think that only gays get HIV. Maybe you and Fred Phelps should go on a date.

I know this is again getting way off topic, but that statement needed a response.

It's called a joke

[MacLean]

It's called a joke

It's called "not funny" and you won't do it in public again.

[MacLean]

As I said, I'm bowing out here. If you wish to pick up the debate, there's a thread that's been going on in Rhino's Rampage.

Interesting decision.

Moving along...

[Ducky]

I guess I don't see the big deal about gays getting married. It's not like they're going to suddenly turn straight just because they can't get a piece of paper and bigger income tax return. They are who they are, and passing amendments and making laws to keep them from being able to take care of each other in case of emergencies doesn't make them any different.

Unless someone is still riding that old horse about "It's a choice!" (could YOU choose who sets your soul on fire and makes you feel weak in the knees?) then why not let them have legal rights where each other is concerned?

[MacLean]

I think the measured response to your question is to allow those legal rights without re-defining marriage.

Those who have put some thought into the discussion seem to lean that way, at any rate.

I discount the raving loonies on both opposite ends of the argument.

[Xiphos]

Here's what I think.

The point of marriage is procreation. The advent of easy chemical contraception and abortafacients have turned the marital act into recreation and separated it from marriage. Marriage today has been turned into a legal contract with legal benefits and it has nothing to do with procreation, in a general sense. (There are those in Christian culture who still cling to procreation as part of family but culturally it's not like that anymore for a large part of our society.) In our society I don't know how we can deny those legal benefits to any class of people.

That being said I believe that marriage is a religious covenant that the government really doesn't have any business dealing with it. I think we need to get the government out of the marriage business and leave that to churches. If two consenting adults want to enter into a contract together then the government can enforce that contract just like any other.

I also believe that the radical part of the gay movement is not satisfied with gaining legal status but they want to destroy our entire cultural concept of family. That's another reason why I want to remove government from the marriage business. As long as it is debated in the political sphere it will be subject to redefinition and destruction.

[Ducky]

I also believe that the radical part of the gay movement is not satisfied with gaining legal status but they want to destroy our entire cultural concept of family.

Expound, please?

[Ryan]

If I am reading Xiphos' post correctly, he believes what I do. The radical side of the gay movement does not simply want equality. They want to change society into believing what they do is normal. In other words, they will not be satisfied until gay is the new straight and straight is the new gay. They refuse to accept that they are different. Although they should bear no discrimination for their sexuality, it is not normal and will never be 100% accepted.

Before anyone says "what is normal?", normal is the accepted set of unspoken rules that a society governs itself by. It is those things which if you do something different, you are not in trouble, but the group may cast you away. Normal in our society is heterosexuality, and although homosexuality is allowed, it is not widely accepted and will never be wholly encouraged.

[121Traffic]

If I am reading Xiphos' post correctly, he believes what I do. The radical side of the gay movement does not simply want equality. They want to change society into believing what they do is normal. In other words, they will not be satisfied until gay is the new straight and straight is the new gay. They refuse to accept that they are different. Although they should bear no discrimination for their sexuality, it is not normal and will never be 100% accepted.

Before anyone says "what is normal?", normal is the accepted set of unspoken rules that a society governs itself by. It is those things which if you do something different, you are not in trouble, but the group may cast you away. Normal in our society is heterosexuality, and although homosexuality is allowed, it is not widely accepted and will never be wholly encouraged.

+1

[Five-0]

Before anyone says "what is normal?", normal is the accepted set of unspoken rules that a society governs itself by. It is those things which if you do something different, you are not in trouble, but the group may cast you away.

I believe the term you looking for is: mores'

mo·res (môr'āz', -ēz, mōr'-) Pronunciation Key
pl.n.

1. The accepted traditional customs and usages of a particular social group.
2. Moral attitudes.
3. Manners; ways.

[Latin mōrēs, pl. of mōs, custom; see mē-1 in Indo-European roots.]

[Ryan]

Yep, Five-0, but I figured "normal" was a better way of putting it.

[Five-0]

Yep, Five-0, but I figured "normal" was a better way of putting it.

Y'all heard him. Ryan just called us all a bunch of dumb cops.

[Xiphos]

Expound, please?

I don't think that all homosexuals believe all this, many probably want to live monogamously together in a "marriage." It is undeniable however that the radical element which is the driving force behind the gay rights movement wants to destroy marriage and family. Once we open marriage to redefinition in the political sphere we will open it to polygamy and other forms of perversion.

1972 Gay Rights Platform:

• Repeal all laws governing the age of sexual consent.

• Repeal all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit.

1987 (Homosexual) “March on Washington”

• The government should ensure all public education programs include programs designed to combat lesbian/gay prejudice. … Institutions that discriminate against lesbian and gay people should be denied tax-exempt status and federal funding.

(This means churches, religious schools and religious businesses. Some jurisdictions, such as the state of New Jersey, have already begun removing tax-exempt status from church related ministries that refuse to provide “commitment ceremonies” to homosexuals.)

1. Michelangelo Signorile, writing in Out! magazine, has stated that homosexuals should, "...fight for same-sex marriage and its benefits and then, once granted, redefine the institution of marriage completely . To debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution. . The most subversive action lesbians and gays can undertake-and one that would perhaps benefit all of society-is to transform the notion of 'family' altogether." (Out! magazine, Dec./Jan., 1994)
2. Andrew Sullivan, a homosexual activist writing in his book, Virtually Normal, says that once same-sex marriage is legalized, heterosexuals will have to develop a greater "understanding of the need for extramarital outlets between two men than between a man and a woman." He notes: "The truth is, homosexuals are not entirely normal; and to flatten their varied and complicated lives into a single, moralistic model is to miss what is essential and exhilarating about their otherness." (Sullivan, Virtually Normal, pp. 202-203)
3. Paula Ettelbrick, a law professor and homosexual activist has said: "Being queer is more than setting up house, sleeping with a person of the same gender, and seeking state approval for doing so. . Being queer means pushing the parameters of sex, sexuality, and family; and in the process, transforming the very fabric of society. . We must keep our eyes on the goals of providing true alternatives to marriage and of radically reordering society's view of reality." (partially quoted in "Beyond Gay Marriage," Stanley Kurtz, The Weekly Standard, August 4, 2003)
4. Mitchel Raphael, editor of the Canadian homosexual magazine Fab, says: "Ambiguity is a good word for the feeling among gays about marriage. I'd be for marriage if I thought gay people would challenge and change the institution and not buy into the traditional meaning of 'till death do us part' and monogamy forever. We should be Oscar Wildes and not like everyone else watching the play." (quoted in "Now Free To Marry, Canada's Gays Say, 'Do I?'" by Clifford Krauss, The New York Times, August 31, 2003)
5. Evan Wolfson has stated: "Isn't having the law pretend that there is only one family model that works (let alone exists) a lie? . marriage is not just about procreation-indeed is not necessarily about procreation at all. "(quoted in "What Marriage Is For," by Maggie Gallagher, The Weekly Standard, August 11, 2003)

Evan Wolfson touches on what I spoke about, how our culture has removed procreation from the marriage equation and boiled it down to a set of legal rights.

[Ryan]

Y'all heard him. Ryan just called us all a bunch of dumb cops.

Nah, just simplified it for the Alabama fans

[countybear]

I'll openly commend Xiphos and Ryan here. Both have posted excellent opinions and interpretations regarding the concept of 'gay marriage' and how they percieve it.

My argument throughout this thread has not been pro, nor con the topic of gay marriage itself. My basis has been that given the history of this political hot button in California, especially that:

1. given that the people of the State of California have twice voted to refuse to officially redefine marriage from traditional understanding of the word, and,

2. the "State" of California's government has already once struck down the vote of the people, making their majority opinion null and void, and,

3. The "State" of California now openly entertains the means by which to again nullify the voice of the people, then,

4. The State of California, should they succeed, will have furthered the cause of unprecedented and near tyrannical government control of the people of that State.

My personal opinion on the merits of "gay marriage" be damned, it will never override my desire that a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" never become a thing of the past, but always remain the true construction and spirit of government in every State of the United States of America. Seeing the will of a clear majority of the electorate twice nullified by unilateral and brazen whim of government cannot be tolerated in any State, and is contrary to the principles of government as willed, planned, and erected by our forefathers.

[Xiphos]

I'll openly commend Xiphos and Ryan here. Both have posted excellent opinions and interpretations regarding the concept of 'gay marriage' and how they percieve it.

My argument throughout this thread has not been pro, nor con the topic of gay marriage itself. My basis has been that given the history of this political hot button in California, especially that:

1. given that the people of the State of California have twice voted to refuse to officially redefine marriage from traditional understanding of the word, and,

2. the "State" of California's government has already once struck down the vote of the people, making their majority opinion null and void, and,

3. The "State" of California now openly entertains the means by which to again nullify the voice of the people, then,

4. The State of California, should they succeed, will have furthered the cause of unprecedented and near tyrannical government control of the people of that State.

My personal opinion on the merits of "gay marriage" be damned, it will never override my desire that a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" never become a thing of the past, but always remain the true construction and spirit of government in every State of the United States of America. Seeing the will of a clear majority of the electorate twice nullified by unilateral and brazen whim of government cannot be tolerated in any State, and is contrary to the principles of government as willed, planned, and erected by our forefathers.

I couldn't agree more.

I disagree strongly with California's Prop 215 in 1996. I think it's the wrong way to go. However I respect that the people of the state voted on it and decided how they wanted Marijuana dealt with in the criminal justice system. I'm not going to stomp my feet, pout, and call for government intervention when I disagree with the voters, but then hail them when I agree with Prop 8 in 2008. It is what it is and the people voted, the government must respect that, whether or not I personally agree with the outcome.

[CTR man]

If I am reading Xiphos' post correctly, he believes what I do. The radical side of the gay movement does not simply want equality. They want to change society into believing what they do is normal. In other words, they will not be satisfied until gay is the new straight and straight is the new gay. They refuse to accept that they are different. Although they should bear no discrimination for their sexuality, it is not normal and will never be 100% accepted.

Before anyone says "what is normal?", normal is the accepted set of unspoken rules that a society governs itself by. It is those things which if you do something different, you are not in trouble, but the group may cast you away. Normal in our society is heterosexuality, and although homosexuality is allowed, it is not widely accepted and will never be wholly encouraged.

+1

If one wishes to practice homosexuality that is their choice. Some will say that they are born that way. Others will say that homosexuality is a choice. I am not going to debate that issue, we all have our separate beliefs on the matter.

What gets me angry is when some homosexuals chose to throw their sexual preference in front of everyone in the world to see. For example, "They say they're gay and there is nothing we can do about it." Personally, I could care less what their sexual preference is. Frankly, it is none of my business.

What one chooses to do behind closed doors is their own business, quit parading it out in the open for the whole wide world to see. If one wants to hold hands or give another an occasional peck on the cheek or lips, thats fine, I think I can live with that, but knock off the public displays of affection (making out in public), or the effeminate or emasculate behavior. It doesn't belong there. This goes for all homosexuals, and heterosexuals alike.

[dadyswat]

I'll openly commend Xiphos and Ryan here. Both have posted excellent opinions and interpretations regarding the concept of 'gay marriage' and how they percieve it.

My argument throughout this thread has not been pro, nor con the topic of gay marriage itself. My basis has been that given the history of this political hot button in California, especially that:

1. given that the people of the State of California have twice voted to refuse to officially redefine marriage from traditional understanding of the word, and,

2. the "State" of California's government has already once struck down the vote of the people, making their majority opinion null and void, and,

3. The "State" of California now openly entertains the means by which to again nullify the voice of the people, then,

4. The State of California, should they succeed, will have furthered the cause of unprecedented and near tyrannical government control of the people of that State.

My personal opinion on the merits of "gay marriage" be damned, it will never override my desire that a government "of the people, by the people, and for the people" never become a thing of the past, but always remain the true construction and spirit of government in every State of the United States of America. Seeing the will of a clear majority of the electorate twice nullified by unilateral and brazen whim of government cannot be tolerated in any State, and is contrary to the principles of government as willed, planned, and erected by our forefathers.

CB, you hit the nail right on the head so to speak.