Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Seen something interesting in the news or on the intertubes? Discuss it here.

Moderators: Zamfir, Hawknc, Moderators General, Prelates

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Lucrece » Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:35 am UTC

Let me process this. You keep making an argument for respecting the constitution, yet it didn't disgust you one bit that the proposition walked over the very same constitution's spirit of equality under the law. Introducing an exception to equal treatment, a portion which dates to the origin of the very constitution itself, does not disgust you?

And the right to marry wasn't reached based on procreational merits in Loving v. Virginia.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Wed Nov 12, 2008 6:30 am UTC

Oh, the fact that this made it into the constitution disgusts me quite thoroughly (well, not exactly disgust, I'm generally successful at turning my disgust towards government into amusement, after all the entire point of humor is to make light out of bad situations), but it doesn't change the fact that this would appear to be perfectly legal. Frankly, the whole consitutional and legal process in California is an abomination, as to why it can be amended with a 51% vote instead of a two thirds is beyond me but the fact of the matter is you can and there is no legal reasons as to why this proposition shouldn't be made into law (at least according to prior judgements). While the law at times may be absolutely moronic, wantonly ignoring it for the sake of personal gain leaves even worse precedent and implications than letting the undesirable parts stand until they can be thrown out through proper means.

And while not all that important, according to Wikipedia the New York Court of Appeals found Loving v Virginia did in large part establish the illegality of prohibiting of interracial marriage due to how marriage is the social means through how humans procreate, as the original ruling stated marriage is a right as it is "fundamental to our very existence and survival;" not one to our dignity as human beings.

User avatar
Jebobek
Posts: 2219
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:19 pm UTC
Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Geohash graticule

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Jebobek » Wed Nov 12, 2008 3:54 pm UTC

Bubbles McCoy wrote:And while not all that important, according to Wikipedia the New York Court of Appeals found Loving v Virginia did in large part establish the illegality of prohibiting of interracial marriage due to how marriage is the social means through how humans procreate, as the original ruling stated marriage is a right as it is "fundamental to our very existence and survival;" not one to our dignity as human beings.
I'm a little disappointed that they limit marriage to making babies, and not also raising babies, which is what many same-sex marriages has led to. Isn't adoption also important for existence and survival? (No objection to your logic Bubbles, just the ruling.)
Image

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 2755
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:13 pm UTC
Location: Brooklyn

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby clintonius » Wed Nov 12, 2008 3:59 pm UTC

But people can and do make and raise babies outside of marriage all the time, thus making marriage not necessary for our existence and survival. I have a difficult time believing that the court system would overlook this rather obvious hole in their reasoning -- are you sure they used that phrase to justify marriage as the means through which we procreate?
kira wrote:*piles up some limbs and blood and a couple hearts for good measure*
GUYS. I MADE A HUMAN.
*...pokes at it with a stick*

User avatar
segmentation fault
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:10 pm UTC
Location: Nu Jersey
Contact:

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby segmentation fault » Wed Nov 12, 2008 4:07 pm UTC

Jebobek wrote: I'm a little disappointed that they limit marriage to making babies, and not also raising babies, which is what many same-sex marriages has led to.


im a little disappointed in how very little people realize that marriage is about LOVE.
people are like LDL cholesterol for the internet

User avatar
Gelsamel
Lame and emo
Posts: 8237
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2006 10:49 am UTC
Location: Melbourne, Victoria, Australia

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Gelsamel » Thu Nov 13, 2008 10:53 am UTC

I'm pretty sure it's more about security, and it doesn't work.

Love requires no marriage, nor does marriage require love... It's all about the security.
"Give up here?"
- > No
"Do you accept defeat?"
- > No
"Do you think games are silly little things?"
- > No
"Is it all pointless?"
- > No
"Do you admit there is no meaning to this world?"
- > No

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby 22/7 » Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:15 pm UTC

Gelsamel wrote:I'm pretty sure it's more about security, and it doesn't work.

Love requires no marriage, nor does marriage require love... It's all about the security.
And the financial benefits and the social benefits and the legal benefits.
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
Jebobek
Posts: 2219
Joined: Tue Jun 17, 2008 7:19 pm UTC
Location: Harrisburg, Pennsylvania Geohash graticule

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Jebobek » Thu Nov 13, 2008 2:28 pm UTC

Which kinda brings me back to adoption in the form of SECURITY+BENEFITS->BABY RAISING

Sure I know flaws in my thinking abound, but come on! The kids could have good homes. /emo soapboxing

Someone suggested this eariler and I agree; we need to split them up like we split up church and state.

Marriage -> Show of love, done within private community.
Civil Union -> Legal bond, includes the benefits.

Everyone can get a civil union with anyone. You can get married if your private organization allows it. If not, F them; you've got your civil union.
Image

User avatar
segmentation fault
Posts: 1770
Joined: Wed Dec 05, 2007 4:10 pm UTC
Location: Nu Jersey
Contact:

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby segmentation fault » Thu Nov 13, 2008 3:04 pm UTC

we all know thats the easiest solution but its pretty radical, and i think alot of the religious people would go nuts because marriage is no longer ingrained within the system.
people are like LDL cholesterol for the internet

btilly
Posts: 1877
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:08 pm UTC

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby btilly » Fri Nov 21, 2008 4:28 am UTC

Bubbles McCoy wrote:
TheAmazingRando wrote:Our state legislature ruled earlier that the constitution, as written, guaranteed gay marriage under a clause on gender equality. The amendment proposed by Prop 8 is in direct contradiction with that clause as interpreted. The California constitution (according to those who support court review of prop 8) doesn't provide for this sort of revision by means of popular vote. Therefore, since popular vote is not sufficient to pass it, the fact that it was approved by popular vote is not sufficient for its addition to the California constitution.

The same court that originally allowed gay marriages has already dismissed this argument. Unless I'm mistaken, the revision rules only apply to the constitution and as the consitution stands without the amendment there is no formal definition or discussion of marriage. The constitution was extrapolated to say that a law could not be made that specifically denied marriage rights to gay couples, but the anti gay marriage amendment does not actively revise the constitution. Laws exist within the state that deal with marriage, but they were not constitutionally dealt with until now. Laws are subject to interpretation by the constitution, but marriage laws are not intrinsic to the state government. Therefore, by abridging marriage rights in the constitution the constitution itself is not being revised, just its implications given a set of laws.

You misunderstand the legal process. The court declined to hear the case. No precedent or conclusion can or should be drawn from that fact. You are trying to conclude that they decided that the argument the gay side is making was going to fail so there was no need to litigate it. However their reasoning could just have easily have been that there was no irreparable harm from having the measure on the ballot. If it was there and the No side won, the point was resolved more satisfactorily than the court could do so, and if it was there and the Yes side won, then any harm could be repaired by invalidating the bill then. Either way there is no compelling reason to block the inclusion of the proposition on the ballot.

In fact I would not be surprised if both positions are represented on the court, plus the court didn't want to draw any more controversy than they already had if they could avoid it.

Really, if the case was a simple open and shut matter, the court would simply have declined to hear it this time as well.
Bubbles McCoy wrote: this point, the best bet would be to popularly pass a counter-amendment in a few years. I suppose given that revisions take extra votes the courts will probably overturn the pro gay marriage amendment, but forcing the homophobes to rely on the judiciary instead of popular opinion to get their causes passed will be a huge long term blow to their cause.

Unfortunately a popular counter-amendment would definitely be a revision, and would be much harder to pass. Given California's demographics, you're always going to have 40% of the legislature being Republican, and they will always vote against revoking proposition 8. So until the political dynamics have fundamentally changed, proposition 8 will be part of the Constitution. Which is a period measured at least in decades.
Some of us exist to find out what can and can't be done.

Others exist to hold the beer.

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Fri Nov 21, 2008 5:23 am UTC

Well, I already responded to both of these arguments but what hell-

Los Angeles Times wrote:The California Supreme Court refused Wednesday to remove an anti-gay marriage initiative from the November ballot.

Meeting in closed session, the court denied a petition calling for the removal of the initiative, Proposition 8, on the grounds it was a constitutional revision that only the Legislature or a constitutional convention could place before voters.

"Denied a petition" is a bit more forceful then merely not hearing an argument. And there's plenty of harm of letting a legal process undergo in full view and with the participation of the public, then after they thought they made a desicion hearing "wait guys, you weren't supposed to be able to do that even if we said you could four months ago," and I'm sure the court knows that.

btilly wrote:Unfortunately a popular counter-amendment would definitely be a revision, and would be much harder to pass. Given California's demographics, you're always going to have 40% of the legislature being Republican, and they will always vote against revoking proposition 8. So until the political dynamics have fundamentally changed, proposition 8 will be part of the Constitution. Which is a period measured at least in decades.

I think you miss my point. A counter amendent would clearly be overturned, but the social conservatives have long been talking about how the gays and the courts are going behind the public's back to get what they want done. If they are forced to resort to legal arguments to overturn the popular vote, they will appear incredibly weak and their decline will be accelerated.

btilly
Posts: 1877
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:08 pm UTC

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby btilly » Fri Nov 21, 2008 6:41 am UTC

Bubbles McCoy wrote:Well, I already responded to both of these arguments but what hell-

Los Angeles Times wrote:The California Supreme Court refused Wednesday to remove an anti-gay marriage initiative from the November ballot.

Meeting in closed session, the court denied a petition calling for the removal of the initiative, Proposition 8, on the grounds it was a constitutional revision that only the Legislature or a constitutional convention could place before voters.

"Denied a petition" is a bit more forceful then merely not hearing an argument. And there's plenty of harm of letting a legal process undergo in full view and with the participation of the public, then after they thought they made a desicion hearing "wait guys, you weren't supposed to be able to do that even if we said you could four months ago," and I'm sure the court knows that.

Denied a petition means, "We're not going to listen to this argument." Googling for more I wound up at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California ... on_8_(2008)#Petition_to_remove_proposition_from_ballot which made the excellent point that there exists precedent in California that specifically says that courts should not rule on the legality of a proposed ballot measure before the ballot happens. Given that precedent, if the court had heard the case they would have been forced to rule that it is improper for them to issue a ruling, and the ballot would have gone ahead anyways.
Bubbles McCoy wrote:
btilly wrote:Unfortunately a popular counter-amendment would definitely be a revision, and would be much harder to pass. Given California's demographics, you're always going to have 40% of the legislature being Republican, and they will always vote against revoking proposition 8. So until the political dynamics have fundamentally changed, proposition 8 will be part of the Constitution. Which is a period measured at least in decades.

I think you miss my point. A counter amendent would clearly be overturned, but the social conservatives have long been talking about how the gays and the courts are going behind the public's back to get what they want done. If they are forced to resort to legal arguments to overturn the popular vote, they will appear incredibly weak and their decline will be accelerated.

Their decline may be accelerated, but it will take a very, very long time before you have 2/3 of the legislature ready to support gay marriage.

Furthermore I'm not sure that there really is so much resistance to deciding things by judicial fiat. Look at the example of Massachusetts. Gay marriage was introduced their by judicial ruling when it was strongly against the desire of the legislature and the people. Yet opinion has now swung solidly for gay marriage. Other states have not seen opinions swing so fast. Where is the resistance again?
Some of us exist to find out what can and can't be done.

Others exist to hold the beer.

User avatar
Bubbles McCoy
Posts: 1106
Joined: Wed Jul 09, 2008 12:49 am UTC
Location: California

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Bubbles McCoy » Fri Nov 21, 2008 7:10 am UTC

btilly wrote:...made the excellent point that there exists precedent in California that specifically says that courts should not rule on the legality of a proposed ballot measure before the ballot happens. Given that precedent, if the court had heard the case they would have been forced to rule that it is improper for them to issue a ruling, and the ballot would have gone ahead anyways.

Fair enough. I'm still skeptical of the whole argument on the grounds that marriage is not part of the constitution, but that's open to debate.
btilly wrote: Look at the example of Massachusetts. Gay marriage was introduced their by judicial ruling when it was strongly against the desire of the legislature and the people. Yet opinion has now swung solidly for gay marriage. Other states have not seen opinions swing so fast. Where is the resistance again?


This diagram may be of service:
Spoiler:
Image

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby EsotericWombat » Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:28 am UTC

Bubbles McCoy wrote:Fair enough. I'm still skeptical of the whole argument on the grounds that marriage is not part of the constitution, but that's open to debate.


It really isn't. The relevant clause in the Declaration of Rights section of the California Constitution stipulates that the State is forbidden from exercising preferential treatment of one group over another. Not that the State is forbidden from depriving citizens of any specifically enumerated rights, but ANY preferential treatment.

Allowing one group to marry and not allowing another is preferential treatment, which is the entire basis for the State Supreme Court ruling.
Image

User avatar
22/7
I'm pretty sure I have "The Slavery In My Asshole" on DVD.
Posts: 6475
Joined: Fri Jul 06, 2007 3:30 pm UTC
Location: 127.0.0.1

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby 22/7 » Fri Nov 21, 2008 2:24 pm UTC

As a point of clarification, what can be described as a "group" here. Is it the traditional race, religion, age, etc. or can you dip deeper into the term "group" with something like the Boy Scouts of America, etc?
Totally not a hypothetical...

Steroid wrote:
bigglesworth wrote:If your economic reality is a choice, then why are you not as rich as Bill Gates?
Don't want to be.
I want to be!

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 2755
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:13 pm UTC
Location: Brooklyn

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby clintonius » Fri Nov 21, 2008 3:43 pm UTC

Wombat's wording didn't come from the CA Constitution. This is what it actually says:
Nothing in this subdivision supersedes or modifies any provision of this Constitution, including the guarantees that a person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of law, or denied equal protection of the laws, as provided in Section 7.
It doesn't really refer to "groups." In this case it happens to be a large group of people whose rights are being earfucked, but I believe the language of the Constitution is such that it doesn't really require a specific definition (contrary to the requirements of many other laws, which mandate being part of a "protected class" in order to benefit from them).

Also, re this:
Bubbles McCoy wrote:"Denied a petition" is a bit more forceful then merely not hearing an argument.
btilly responded to this briefly, but I wanted to clarify: in order to be seen by the Supreme Court, you file what is called a petition for writ of certiorari, which is just a document outlining the reason you want the court to hear your case. It's not a petition in the sense we're used to where you get X number of signatures and bitchslap somebody with it. It's more in the sense of, "I petitioned the school principal to hear my complaint about the dangers of over-waxing the floors in front of the gator pit."
kira wrote:*piles up some limbs and blood and a couple hearts for good measure*
GUYS. I MADE A HUMAN.
*...pokes at it with a stick*

btilly
Posts: 1877
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:08 pm UTC

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby btilly » Fri Nov 21, 2008 9:24 pm UTC

Bubbles McCoy wrote:
btilly wrote: Look at the example of Massachusetts. Gay marriage was introduced their by judicial ruling when it was strongly against the desire of the legislature and the people. Yet opinion has now swung solidly for gay marriage. Other states have not seen opinions swing so fast. Where is the resistance again?

This diagram may be of service:
Spoiler:
Image

You missed the point. At the time gay marriage was legalized in the liberal state of MA, the majority of the public there was against gay marriage. A few years later in the liberal states surrounding MA, the public was still against gay marriage, but the public in MA was not. This result is exactly opposite of what you would expect from the theory that there tends to be a backlash to deciding issues by judicial fiat.

Hence my point that the data from MA suggests that over a period of years people do not react badly to having been told to accept the right thing by a judge.
Some of us exist to find out what can and can't be done.

Others exist to hold the beer.

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby EsotericWombat » Fri Nov 21, 2008 10:00 pm UTC

Also, Massachusetts' deep shade of blue isn't indicative of a support base for gay marriage, as our state is Catholic as ALL FUCK. The Church was raising hell about it when efforts were underway to block it. But when the time came to vote on a Constitutional Amendment, the populace no longer cared.
Image

crp
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:17 am UTC

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby crp » Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:05 pm UTC

For everyone talking about marriage being about love, marriage originated from religion, and all those religions define marriage as the bond between a man and a woman. I'm all for domestic partnership and all that, but when people talk about giving the minority(gays) a right to marry, they're talking about desecrating billions of people's religious beliefs. But I guess it doesn't help that so many gay-rights supporters are atheist.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Lucrece » Fri Nov 21, 2008 11:15 pm UTC

crp wrote:For everyone talking about marriage being about love, marriage originated from religion, and all those religions define marriage as the bond between a man and a woman. I'm all for domestic partnership and all that, but when people talk about giving the minority(gays) a right to marry, they're talking about desecrating billions of people's religious beliefs. But I guess it doesn't help that so many gay-rights supporters are atheist.


Ignorance be thy name. Marriage developed as a communal contract, not a religious one. Ask any anthropologist what marriage has been over the years, and this little nugget of id--ahem, lack of understanding-- can be throw into the heaping pile of misinformation that organized religion has contributed to in its quest for cultural supremacy.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

btilly
Posts: 1877
Joined: Tue Nov 06, 2007 7:08 pm UTC

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby btilly » Sat Nov 22, 2008 2:07 am UTC

crp wrote:For everyone talking about marriage being about love, marriage originated from religion, and all those religions define marriage as the bond between a man and a woman. I'm all for domestic partnership and all that, but when people talk about giving the minority(gays) a right to marry, they're talking about desecrating billions of people's religious beliefs. But I guess it doesn't help that so many gay-rights supporters are atheist.

Please provide evidence that marriage originated from religion. If you're focused on western culture you may wish to note that in the Catholic tradition the religious foundation of marriage started with the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century. And the Protestant tradition founded by Martin Luther explicitly said that marriage was a civil, not a religious, matter.

If you wish to object to desecrating the beliefs of billions of people, then would you support removing the option of divorce to bring marriage in accord with the religious teachings of groups as diverse as the Catholic Church and Hinduism?

Now you claim that a great number of gay-rights supporters are atheists. As an absolute number that may be true. But it is easy to verify that a far larger portion of the population supports gay marriage than are atheists. Therefore atheists make up a small portion of supporters of gay marriage.

Finally I note your religious bigotry against atheists, and would like to point out that in the USA the divorce rate among atheists is significantly lower than the divorce rate among people who rate themselves as strongly religious. So who should we listen to on the subject of marriage, the people who seem to want to ameliorate their own failures by denying marriage to others, or the ones who actually are competent at marriage?
Some of us exist to find out what can and can't be done.

Others exist to hold the beer.

crp
Posts: 118
Joined: Tue Oct 16, 2007 1:17 am UTC

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby crp » Sat Nov 22, 2008 4:41 am UTC

btilly wrote:
crp wrote:For everyone talking about marriage being about love, marriage originated from religion, and all those religions define marriage as the bond between a man and a woman. I'm all for domestic partnership and all that, but when people talk about giving the minority(gays) a right to marry, they're talking about desecrating billions of people's religious beliefs. But I guess it doesn't help that so many gay-rights supporters are atheist.

Please provide evidence that marriage originated from religion. If you're focused on western culture you may wish to note that in the Catholic tradition the religious foundation of marriage started with the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century. And the Protestant tradition founded by Martin Luther explicitly said that marriage was a civil, not a religious, matter.

If you wish to object to desecrating the beliefs of billions of people, then would you support removing the option of divorce to bring marriage in accord with the religious teachings of groups as diverse as the Catholic Church and Hinduism?

Now you claim that a great number of gay-rights supporters are atheists. As an absolute number that may be true. But it is easy to verify that a far larger portion of the population supports gay marriage than are atheists. Therefore atheists make up a small portion of supporters of gay marriage.

Finally I note your religious bigotry against atheists, and would like to point out that in the USA the divorce rate among atheists is significantly lower than the divorce rate among people who rate themselves as strongly religious.
So who should we listen to on the subject of marriage, the people who seem to want to ameliorate their own failures by denying marriage to others, or the ones who actually are competent at marriage?


-Yes
-Agnostics or they don't actually go to a church.
-Yes, but what about people who aren't atheist or strongly religious? They probably have the highest divorice rate by far.

And as far as marriage originating before religion, of course, humans by nature have always chosen life-partners. But as long as any of us have lived the common definition of marriage has been the union between a man and a woman. Again, i'm perfectly fine with calling it domestic partnership, just not marriage.
For all of you, Obama agrees with me on that point.

I also like how after several people saying just because the majority of people voted against gay marriage doesn't mean it's right, then I get a bunch of statistics thrown at me. The fact remains, worldwide the average person is against gay marriage.

Finally, I have nothing against gays personally. But when religious views are trampled(religious views of BILLIONS) for a small group (hundreds of millions) then there's a problem.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Lucrece » Sat Nov 22, 2008 4:54 am UTC

crp wrote:
btilly wrote:
crp wrote:For everyone talking about marriage being about love, marriage originated from religion, and all those religions define marriage as the bond between a man and a woman. I'm all for domestic partnership and all that, but when people talk about giving the minority(gays) a right to marry, they're talking about desecrating billions of people's religious beliefs. But I guess it doesn't help that so many gay-rights supporters are atheist.

Please provide evidence that marriage originated from religion. If you're focused on western culture you may wish to note that in the Catholic tradition the religious foundation of marriage started with the Council of Trent in the sixteenth century. And the Protestant tradition founded by Martin Luther explicitly said that marriage was a civil, not a religious, matter.

If you wish to object to desecrating the beliefs of billions of people, then would you support removing the option of divorce to bring marriage in accord with the religious teachings of groups as diverse as the Catholic Church and Hinduism?

Now you claim that a great number of gay-rights supporters are atheists. As an absolute number that may be true. But it is easy to verify that a far larger portion of the population supports gay marriage than are atheists. Therefore atheists make up a small portion of supporters of gay marriage.

Finally I note your religious bigotry against atheists, and would like to point out that in the USA the divorce rate among atheists is significantly lower than the divorce rate among people who rate themselves as strongly religious.
So who should we listen to on the subject of marriage, the people who seem to want to ameliorate their own failures by denying marriage to others, or the ones who actually are competent at marriage?


-Yes
-Agnostics or they don't actually go to a church.
-Yes, but what about people who aren't atheist or strongly religious? They probably have the highest divorice rate by far.

And as far as marriage originating before religion, of course, humans by nature have always chosen life-partners. But as long as any of us have lived the common definition of marriage has been the union between a man and a woman. Again, i'm perfectly fine with calling it domestic partnership, just not marriage.
For all of you, Obama agrees with me on that point.

I also like how after several people saying just because the majority of people voted against gay marriage doesn't mean it's right, then I get a bunch of statistics thrown at me. The fact remains, worldwide the average person is against gay marriage.

Finally, I have nothing against gays personally. But when religious views are trampled(religious views of BILLIONS) for a small group (hundreds of millions) then there's a problem.


Is this a joke? It must be; this is such a blatant stereotype.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
Jorsh!
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 1:30 am UTC
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Jorsh! » Sat Nov 22, 2008 7:20 am UTC

crp wrote:Finally, I have nothing against gays personally. But when religious views are trampled(religious views of BILLIONS) for a small group (hundreds of millions) then there's a problem.

I found a nifty pie chart suggesting that Christianity is still the dominant religion on the planet. So, by this logic, any law, any rule, or any idea in disagreement with Christian doctrine is "trampling" on the beliefs of the majority and should immediately be scrapped. Gay marriage? Gone! Working on Sunday? Gone! Secular humanism? Gone!

In reality, the problem is simply a religiously-motivated majority forcing its morals on another group. Gay marriage shouldn't impose like that on its religious detractors, because they evidently aren't interested in participating anyway.

I guess I should, in a blinding flash of prolepsis, speak to the issue of forcing religious institutions to perform same-sex marriages. I don't think I will, except to state that at least here in Canada, they're free to decline.

(Edited an ambiguous sentence. Oops.)
Eggnog stick!

User avatar
clintonius
Posts: 2755
Joined: Wed May 07, 2008 9:13 pm UTC
Location: Brooklyn

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby clintonius » Sat Nov 22, 2008 7:32 am UTC

Jorsh! wrote:I found a nifty pie chart suggesting that Christianity is still the dominant religion on the planet. So, by this logic, any law, any rule, or any idea in disagreement with Christian doctrine is "trampling" on the beliefs of the majority and should immediately be scrapped.
There's an assumption here. Can you figure out what it is?
kira wrote:*piles up some limbs and blood and a couple hearts for good measure*
GUYS. I MADE A HUMAN.
*...pokes at it with a stick*

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Malice » Sat Nov 22, 2008 9:33 am UTC

crp wrote:Finally, I have nothing against gays personally. But when religious views are trampled(religious views of BILLIONS) for a small group (hundreds of millions) then there's a problem.


Could you explain how allowing gay marriage tramples on religious views? If understand the Christian views on homosexuality correctly, it says, "Homosexuality is sin. Don't do sins." It says nothing at all even remotely close to "anybody sinful around you will prevent you from getting into Heaven". The fact that other people somewhere use the same word to do something religion('s influence on culture) told them they want does not harm you or anyone else with your religious views.
Image

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby EsotericWombat » Sat Nov 22, 2008 10:08 am UTC

You know guys, if you don't feed the troll, it goes away.

I'm wondering if it might be better for the cause if the court case was lost. I can't remember a time where people were more vociferously taking to the streets about this issue, and that they have been has certainly gotten my hopes up.
Image

The Reaper
Posts: 4008
Joined: Fri Oct 12, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: San Antonio, Tx
Contact:

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby The Reaper » Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:46 pm UTC

EsotericWombat wrote:You know guys, if you don't feed the troll, it goes away

But this bridge is comfortable.

Regarding the topic: I wonder if christianity will end up absorbing gay marriage, as it does with everything else (easter, christmas, etc) Maybe we should make a gay-marriage day, and then they can absorb it and call it "jesus isnt looking day" or something. Who knows...

I still think its rather annoying that the people made the government have such an issue with religious crap. I'd prefer less religion in my govt, kthx.

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Lucrece » Sat Nov 22, 2008 6:58 pm UTC

EsotericWombat wrote:You know guys, if you don't feed the troll, it goes away.

I'm wondering if it might be better for the cause if the court case was lost. I can't remember a time where people were more vociferously taking to the streets about this issue, and that they have been has certainly gotten my hopes up.


Taking out to the streets is more a way to galvanize the community than to get anything done.

I'd like the precedent this case would set by holding the rights of minorities immune to the caprices of ignorant majorities.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby EsotericWombat » Sat Nov 22, 2008 7:07 pm UTC

I uh... think that precedent has already been set. I'm not sure how much staying power a decision by a state court is going to have if we're still arguing about a matter that the Supreme Court was very clear about in its day.
Image

User avatar
Lucrece
Posts: 3558
Joined: Mon Feb 25, 2008 12:01 am UTC

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Lucrece » Sat Nov 22, 2008 7:31 pm UTC

EsotericWombat wrote:I uh... think that precedent has already been set. I'm not sure how much staying power a decision by a state court is going to have if we're still arguing about a matter that the Supreme Court was very clear about in its day.


People can hardly see the link between that case and this one. Having it spelled out for them on the issue of gay marriage will definitely set a nice pathway for other marriage battles across the states.
Belial wrote:That's charming, Nancy, but all I hear when you talk is a bunch of yippy dog sounds.

User avatar
EsotericWombat
Colorful Orator
Posts: 2567
Joined: Wed Sep 19, 2007 4:36 pm UTC
Location: Boston, MA
Contact:

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby EsotericWombat » Sat Nov 22, 2008 8:21 pm UTC

Fair point. Though I think this fight is going to inevitably take place in the SCOTUS. Bans on gay marriage are pretty clearly in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment, and there are some states where that's what it's going to have to take.
Image

User avatar
Cynical Idealist
Posts: 1124
Joined: Mon Sep 15, 2008 10:48 pm UTC

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Cynical Idealist » Sat Nov 22, 2008 11:56 pm UTC

crp wrote:Again, i'm perfectly fine with calling it domestic partnership, just not marriage.
For all of you, Obama agrees with me on that point.

I'm perfectly fine with calling it a domestic partnership for everyone. It has been a fairly long-held opinion of mine that legal marriage should be completely done away with and replaced with civil unions for everyone. Would you be cool with that, as long as you could still get "married" in a sense that conveys absolutely no rights by a church?
The internet removes the two biggest aids in detecting sarcasm:
1)The tone of voice
2)the assumption that the other person is sane
Elvish Pillager wrote:See? All the problems in our society are caused by violent video games, like FarmVille.

User avatar
Mysidic
Posts: 367
Joined: Wed Oct 08, 2008 3:34 am UTC
Contact:

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Mysidic » Sun Nov 23, 2008 1:09 am UTC

crp wrote: I'm all for domestic partnership and all that, but when people talk about giving the minority(gays) a right to marry, they're talking about desecrating billions of people's religious beliefs.


Ignoring the rest of your post, are you sure it's such a great idea to have a right not to be offended?(IMO, that's what desecrating a religion basically amounts to) Nobody's denying them the right to their religious views. However setting such a precedent makes our lives vulnerable to any majority that might be offended. Sure, you might be the majority that's going to be offended right now but will you always be a majority? Do other people have the right to trample on you simply because they were offended? I think keeping gays/lesbians from marrying simply because it will desecrate people's beliefs is setting a dangerous precedent for the future.
""Thou shalt not lie": in other words, beware, my dear philosopher, of telling the truth." ~Nietzche

User avatar
Jorsh!
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 1:30 am UTC
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Jorsh! » Sun Nov 23, 2008 6:21 am UTC

clintonius wrote:There's an assumption here. Can you figure out what it is?

Do you mean an assumption about the accuracy of the pie chart? It was used entirely for illustrative purposes, and its accuracy doesn't really affect the general basis of my point.

If you mean something else, then I am embarrassingly in the dark.
Eggnog stick!

User avatar
Malice
Posts: 3894
Joined: Sat Jul 21, 2007 5:37 am UTC
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Contact:

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Malice » Sun Nov 23, 2008 6:43 am UTC

I think Clint means the assumption that the dominant religion = majority opinion. Christianity holds only a plurality of the public, at about a third.
Image

User avatar
Jorsh!
Posts: 19
Joined: Thu Jul 31, 2008 1:30 am UTC
Location: Alberta, Canada

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby Jorsh! » Sun Nov 23, 2008 6:50 am UTC

Malice wrote:I think Clint means the assumption that the dominant religion = majority opinion. Christianity holds only a plurality of the public, at about a third.

Ah. Fair enough. I concede that point, and notice that others have since made the connection I originally intended. Good for them.
Eggnog stick!

User avatar
jestingrabbit
Factoids are just Datas that haven't grown up yet
Posts: 5967
Joined: Tue Nov 28, 2006 9:50 pm UTC
Location: Sydney

Re: Arnold trying to terminate Proposition 8?

Postby jestingrabbit » Sun Nov 23, 2008 8:56 am UTC

I actually thought clintonius was referring to the idea that all christians agree on every proposition, that their beliefs are monolithic. Now, regarding whether or not Jesus existed blah blah blah, they would be pretty much in unison, but then you get a wide range of christian belief on stuff like homosexuality even within a particular denomination: some episcopalians (aka anglicans aka CoE) don't mind if they have gay priests and bishops; some episcopalians are dead against it. So to say that the beliefs of those 33% should be running the show is meaningless, as they are not ideologically homogenous.
ameretrifle wrote:Magic space feudalism is therefore a viable idea.


Return to “News & Articles”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: iamspen and 25 guests