Proposition 2
Texans are being called to vote on a number of amendments to the Texas State Constitution. Among these proposed amendments is Proposition 2 which reads as follows:
"The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."
Why would somebody support Proposition 2?
Here is one argument supporting Proposition 2:
"Defend the institution of marriage: Vote YES on Proposition 2.
Marriage has always been about the Union of Man and Woman, and it is only meant to be this way. We are certainly called to love everyone equally, but we are not called to compromise the truth.
'Everyone has equal access to marriage, and everyone is equally subject to its restrictions. In our country, each person must meet the five criteria below in order to get married:
1) You cannot already be married.
2) You must be an adult and marry an adult.
3) You cannot marry a close family member.
4) You must marry a human.
5) Your spouse must be of the opposite sex.
Everyone abides by these same rules, and anyone who meets all five criteria can enter into marriage. Same-sex marriage advocates subtly distort the law in order to justify their cause. They claim, falsely, that the right to marry lies in any couple, when in fact it lies in the individual. Not just any conceivable configuration of people have the right to marry because rights belong to individuals --not groups.'- taken from www.texansformarriage.org/faq.htm"
I will take issue with the above argument piece by piece:
1. How can you support the claim "Marriage has always been about the Union of a Man and a Woman, and it is only mean to be this way. We are certainly called to love everyone equally, but we are not called to compromise the truth."?
Marriages may have started as only between males and females but it is untrue to say that marriage has ALWAYS been about man and woman. There are many instances in American Indian tribes where men married other men. Also, there is legalized same-sex marriage in other parts of the world, thus the claim that "marriage has always been about the Union of a Man and a Woman" is simply untrue. And therefore, the "truth" that this person is speaking of is, in fact, not "truth" but "fiction".
2. "Everyone has equal access to marriage, and everyone is equally subject to its restrictions. In our country, each person must meet the five criteria below in order to get married:
1) You cannot already be married.
2) You must be an adult and marry an adult.
3) You cannot marry a close family member.
4) You must marry a human.
5) Your spouse must be of the opposite sex."
The argument is that "straight people can't marry people of the same-sex either-- so since the law is equally applied it does not violate the 14th amendment (No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws)
The funny thing is that this exact same argument was used by those people that supported a ban on interracial marriages in 1967. The law stated that non-whites couldn't marry whites and whites couldn't marry non-whites, thus, the law was equally applied and, therefore it was not unconstitutional. Seems to make sense, however, In the court case Loving v. Virginia the supreme court stated that "the fact of equal application does not immunize the statute from the very heavy burden of justification which the Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally required of state statutes". Thus, simply because a law is equally applied does not mean that it equally protects.
As for the 5 requirements for what constitutes marriage... I realize your list is an accurate representation of the status quo, but just because the law IS this way doesn't mean that it OUGHT to be this way. The laws once defined "citizen" as "white land owner". It is easy to change the meanings of words... we could easily change the meaning of "civil marriage" to include same-sex couples.
3. How will changing the definition of "civil marriage" threaten "the institution of marriage"? I can honestly see no valid arguments to support this.
4. "Same-sex marriage advocates subtly distort the law in order to justify their cause. They claim, falsely, that the right to marry lies in any couple, when in fact it lies in the individual. Not just any conceivable configuration of people have the right to marry because rights belong to individuals --not groups."
This line of argumentation is obviously flawed because the same arguments could be, and were, used to justify a ban on interracial marriage... which I don't think anyone would support. You may argue that there is a difference between race and sexual orientation... to anyone that makes this argument, I must ask, is it ok to deny homosexuals equal protection of the law because you disagree with their orientation? If you don't think it's ok to deny homosexuals (or bi or transexuals) equal protection of the law then you shouldn't support a proposition that will ban a certain group of people from having equal rights. If you do think it's ok to deny homosexuals equal protection of the law then you are a fascist that is making the same flaw in argumentation that people who were against interracial marriages made.
If you still believe that this ban would not violate the 14th amendment (which calls for equal protection of the law [which Loving v. Virginia said is not simply "equal application"]) then I must make a simple analogy that I feel shows the flaw in this line of argumentation:
There are two groups of people, group A & group B. The members of Group A are biologically/psychologically prone to having deep feelings of satisfaction from drinking water. The majority of people under this government are members of Group A. As the majority, Group A decides they will make laws that give certain benefits to water drinkers. However, members of Group B are biologically/psychologically prone to having deep feelings of satisfaction from drinking juice and they don't get any satisfaction out of drinking water. Moreover, many members of Group A think that drinking juice is wrong. In this system there is not equal protection of the law for juice drinkers because the benefits of the law won't apply to members of Group B... thus, this situation would fail to pass the 14th amendment.
This has been my argument within the current social framework of the U.S.-- however, if you wish to dismiss the constitution and argue from another standpoint... then it is possible to argue:
Homosexuality is "wrong" and you shouldn't support legislation that supports people's "wrong doings".
Certainly you do not think that everything that you consider "wrong" should be illegal. Should it be illegal to say God's name in vain? If you think that it should be illegal to say God's name in vain... then you are a fascist. If you do not, then you must admit that it is not the job of the government to decide "right" and "wrong". I believe it should be the job of the government to favor those actions that promote happiness and condemn those actions which impede on another person's freedoms (i.e. actions that cause harm). Since allowing same-sex marriage would promote happiness, through benefits, to homosexuals and since these benefits do not cause any harm, I see no solid reason for banning same-sex marriage.
Giving homosexuals equal rights causes harm to no one-- Why would you want to deny homosexual couples these rights that heterosexual couples can receive by marrying?:
-Spouses are allowed to make medical decisions in the case that their husband or wife is incompetent or disabled and they generally are allowed to visit their partner in the hospital.
-Married persons are allowed to make unlimited transfers and gifts to each other without paying taxes.
-Spouses are given the automatic right to inherit without a will; the inheritance is also untaxable.
-Married people receive Social Security and veteran benefit payments upon the death of a spouse.
-Criminal penalties are imposed on spouses who abandon a child or a spouse.
Actively fighting to deny these rights to homosexual couples is outright hateful... it's not bad enough that the status quo denies homosexuals equal protection of the law... but the bigoted right is so homophobic that they feel the need to ban something that is already not legal... so ridiculous.
"The constitutional amendment providing that marriage in this state consists only of the union of one man and one woman and prohibiting this state or a political subdivision of this state from creating or recognizing any legal status identical or similar to marriage."
Why would somebody support Proposition 2?
Here is one argument supporting Proposition 2:
"Defend the institution of marriage: Vote YES on Proposition 2.
Marriage has always been about the Union of Man and Woman, and it is only meant to be this way. We are certainly called to love everyone equally, but we are not called to compromise the truth.
'Everyone has equal access to marriage, and everyone is equally subject to its restrictions. In our country, each person must meet the five criteria below in order to get married:
1) You cannot already be married.
2) You must be an adult and marry an adult.
3) You cannot marry a close family member.
4) You must marry a human.
5) Your spouse must be of the opposite sex.
Everyone abides by these same rules, and anyone who meets all five criteria can enter into marriage. Same-sex marriage advocates subtly distort the law in order to justify their cause. They claim, falsely, that the right to marry lies in any couple, when in fact it lies in the individual. Not just any conceivable configuration of people have the right to marry because rights belong to individuals --not groups.'- taken from www.texansformarriage.org/faq.htm"
I will take issue with the above argument piece by piece:
1. How can you support the claim "Marriage has always been about the Union of a Man and a Woman, and it is only mean to be this way. We are certainly called to love everyone equally, but we are not called to compromise the truth."?
Marriages may have started as only between males and females but it is untrue to say that marriage has ALWAYS been about man and woman. There are many instances in American Indian tribes where men married other men. Also, there is legalized same-sex marriage in other parts of the world, thus the claim that "marriage has always been about the Union of a Man and a Woman" is simply untrue. And therefore, the "truth" that this person is speaking of is, in fact, not "truth" but "fiction".
2. "Everyone has equal access to marriage, and everyone is equally subject to its restrictions. In our country, each person must meet the five criteria below in order to get married:
1) You cannot already be married.
2) You must be an adult and marry an adult.
3) You cannot marry a close family member.
4) You must marry a human.
5) Your spouse must be of the opposite sex."
The argument is that "straight people can't marry people of the same-sex either-- so since the law is equally applied it does not violate the 14th amendment (No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; ... nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws)
The funny thing is that this exact same argument was used by those people that supported a ban on interracial marriages in 1967. The law stated that non-whites couldn't marry whites and whites couldn't marry non-whites, thus, the law was equally applied and, therefore it was not unconstitutional. Seems to make sense, however, In the court case Loving v. Virginia the supreme court stated that "the fact of equal application does not immunize the statute from the very heavy burden of justification which the Fourteenth Amendment has traditionally required of state statutes". Thus, simply because a law is equally applied does not mean that it equally protects.
As for the 5 requirements for what constitutes marriage... I realize your list is an accurate representation of the status quo, but just because the law IS this way doesn't mean that it OUGHT to be this way. The laws once defined "citizen" as "white land owner". It is easy to change the meanings of words... we could easily change the meaning of "civil marriage" to include same-sex couples.
3. How will changing the definition of "civil marriage" threaten "the institution of marriage"? I can honestly see no valid arguments to support this.
4. "Same-sex marriage advocates subtly distort the law in order to justify their cause. They claim, falsely, that the right to marry lies in any couple, when in fact it lies in the individual. Not just any conceivable configuration of people have the right to marry because rights belong to individuals --not groups."
This line of argumentation is obviously flawed because the same arguments could be, and were, used to justify a ban on interracial marriage... which I don't think anyone would support. You may argue that there is a difference between race and sexual orientation... to anyone that makes this argument, I must ask, is it ok to deny homosexuals equal protection of the law because you disagree with their orientation? If you don't think it's ok to deny homosexuals (or bi or transexuals) equal protection of the law then you shouldn't support a proposition that will ban a certain group of people from having equal rights. If you do think it's ok to deny homosexuals equal protection of the law then you are a fascist that is making the same flaw in argumentation that people who were against interracial marriages made.
If you still believe that this ban would not violate the 14th amendment (which calls for equal protection of the law [which Loving v. Virginia said is not simply "equal application"]) then I must make a simple analogy that I feel shows the flaw in this line of argumentation:
There are two groups of people, group A & group B. The members of Group A are biologically/psychologically prone to having deep feelings of satisfaction from drinking water. The majority of people under this government are members of Group A. As the majority, Group A decides they will make laws that give certain benefits to water drinkers. However, members of Group B are biologically/psychologically prone to having deep feelings of satisfaction from drinking juice and they don't get any satisfaction out of drinking water. Moreover, many members of Group A think that drinking juice is wrong. In this system there is not equal protection of the law for juice drinkers because the benefits of the law won't apply to members of Group B... thus, this situation would fail to pass the 14th amendment.
This has been my argument within the current social framework of the U.S.-- however, if you wish to dismiss the constitution and argue from another standpoint... then it is possible to argue:
Homosexuality is "wrong" and you shouldn't support legislation that supports people's "wrong doings".
Certainly you do not think that everything that you consider "wrong" should be illegal. Should it be illegal to say God's name in vain? If you think that it should be illegal to say God's name in vain... then you are a fascist. If you do not, then you must admit that it is not the job of the government to decide "right" and "wrong". I believe it should be the job of the government to favor those actions that promote happiness and condemn those actions which impede on another person's freedoms (i.e. actions that cause harm). Since allowing same-sex marriage would promote happiness, through benefits, to homosexuals and since these benefits do not cause any harm, I see no solid reason for banning same-sex marriage.
Giving homosexuals equal rights causes harm to no one-- Why would you want to deny homosexual couples these rights that heterosexual couples can receive by marrying?:
-Spouses are allowed to make medical decisions in the case that their husband or wife is incompetent or disabled and they generally are allowed to visit their partner in the hospital.
-Married persons are allowed to make unlimited transfers and gifts to each other without paying taxes.
-Spouses are given the automatic right to inherit without a will; the inheritance is also untaxable.
-Married people receive Social Security and veteran benefit payments upon the death of a spouse.
-Criminal penalties are imposed on spouses who abandon a child or a spouse.
Actively fighting to deny these rights to homosexual couples is outright hateful... it's not bad enough that the status quo denies homosexuals equal protection of the law... but the bigoted right is so homophobic that they feel the need to ban something that is already not legal... so ridiculous.
posted by spankidiots at 11:30 PM
19 Comments:
This is all I'm going to say on this issue, because I know it will not change your mind, Jeff, but perhaps I can give another side to things for anyone else to see:
Homosexuality violates natural law. It is not hateful for me to say this. I am just stating a fact. Drinking juice, however, does not violate natural law, and thus your analogy falls apart.
To elaborate on how it violates natural law, please read the following: Jeff, have you ever looked at yourself in the shower, and thought, "Why do I look like this? Why do I have these parts?" The answer to that question only makes sense in light of the opposite sex. The parts were made to fit together. So, basically, in homosexuality the parts do not fit. Plain and simple. Just as the parts do not fit between humans and animals, and I hope that we still find that to be unnatural.
But to avoid getting into how I feel about the issue, the unavoidable issue is this: Logically, men and men do not belong together, nor do women and women. That is by following simple logic. Now, you would probably say, well they are people and they tend towards homosexuality, so they should just be able to do it. Well there are all kinds of people who tend towards other deviant, meaning unnatural, sexual behaviors (beastiality, dendrophilia, necrophilia, pedophilia); should we allow them to act as they wish because it makes them happy? I mean, who does it harm (except in the case of pedophilia where it is obvious)? Just because this one has become more "acceptable" over time, does not mean it is okay. I think it would be better for these individuals if they received the real love and care they were actually looking for so they could discover true love again. I think it is a common misconception that gays and lesbians are "stuck" where they are. There are many, many people who have realized what was wrong, figured it out, and are now heterosexual without any difficulties.
On another note, you claim that homosexuality is not harmful, but what about the effect having two same-sex parents will have on the children they adopt and raise? In fact, I discussed this issue with a psychologist, as well as read a number of cases on this, only to find that many men who claim to be homosexual were raised in single parent homes with only a mother. They had no father figure to bestow masculinity upon them, to let them know they were men too. This is not a 1:1 correlation, but it is a majority situation. Men who are gay in a large number of cases did not have a father figure present in childhood (or had an abusive father figure, and thus never learned how to properly relate to men). This only helps us to realize the problem that same-sex "marriages" will create if allowed: kids will not have a father figure in the case of women parents only, and vice versa, only compounding the potential problems.
Also, you made many comparisons between homosexuals and African Americans. To that I would simply cite this:
"The civil rights movement overcame laws against one’s right to exist, not one’s right to change humanity’s fundamental institution. The comparison is so outrageous that many civil rights leaders are offended by its mention. Even Reverend Jesse Jackson, who favors same-sex marriage, rejected the comparison, saying “Gays were never called three-fifths of a person in the Constitution, and they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote.”
The difference between Civil Rights and same-sex marriage is the difference between equal treatment and special rights. African-Americans were fighting for the same legal rights as whites during the struggle for Civil Rights—the right to co-exist as equals, to participate in public forums, and to have access to equal opportunities.
Homosexual couples, however, do not face this type of discrimination. They have the same legal rights as heterosexuals, including the right to marry within the definition of marriage. No one, homosexual or heterosexual, has the right to redefine marriage, however.
Most African-Americans understand this vital distinction and overwhelmingly reject the comparison. In fact, according to recent polls, 64 percent of African-Americans are opposed to same-sex marriage, more than any other ethnic or religious group. They understand the danger of distorting the legacy of civil rights leaders such as Martin Luther King, Jr. by invalidly extending his fight to things he never would have supported."
-Please visit www.texansformarriage.org/faq.htm to read more about why you should vote YES on proposition 2.
Also I will cite this:
"Will proposition 2 take away benefits and hospitalization of same-sex partners or common-law couples?
No. SECTION 2. This state recognizes that through the designation of guardians, the appointment of agents, and the use of private contracts, persons may adequately and properly appoint guardians and arrange rights relating to hospital visitation, property, and the entitlement to proceeds of life insurance policies without the existence of any legal status identical or similar to marriage."
-Please visit www.texansformarriage.org/faq.htm to read more about why you should vote YES on proposition 2.
But again, the biggest issue is the violation of natural law. It is simply not logical for homosexuality to be okay. Now this is not to say that these people are not people. They should be truly loved. But let me use an analogy to describe true love: A mother truly (one hopes) loves her child, and that means that if that child were to start playing with animals sexually, she would stop that child and teach him or her what sexuality truly means and how good it is and how it should be used correctly and naturally. Nowhere in there would the mother call her child names or hurt her child for what he or she did. She would simply love that child into the correct (i.e. natural) way of living. In fact, it would be apathy or hate that would allow that mother to do anything other than teach her child the natural way to live.
So let me spring from this analogy to state that I love all people no matter what they are doing, and I really do love them, but I am certainly allowed to argue against their actions. And I will not sit here and let you group me into a false dichotomy. Allow me to show you an example of this false dichotomy: "Actively fighting to deny these rights to homosexual couples is outright hateful." That is TRULY FALSE. I love them, and Jeff, I think you know me well enough to realize that I am not one of these "bigoted right [that] is so homophobic" that you speak of. So I will here point to your straw-man argument you are setting up. Straw-man arguments never cover the entirety of the issue or people in question and therefore are bogus. They do help to point out what you dislike, but I think you will agree that they do not adequately stand up in a reasonable argument.
And another thing, this "bigoted right" you speak of is trying to PREVENT any changes in the definiton of marriage that could occur through judicial action, because this is the route that homosexual activists are using (in order to circumvent a popluar vote). The hope in "banning something that is already not legal" is to prevent there ever being an issue. So it's really not that "ridiculous."
And I'm sorry if I came across as offensive at any point in this, but I will not sit back as you tacitly claim that I fall under the label of "bigoted right [that] is so homophobic." Nothing could be further from the truth in my case, and as I know, in many, many other cases. Just because somebody does not agree with you does not make them a bigot.
God bless.
In Christ,
Paul
"Homosexuality violates natural law. It is not hateful for me to say this. I am just stating a fact. Drinking juice, however, does not violate natural law, and thus your analogy falls apart."
Homosexuality has occured in every human culture and it occurs in animals... so it seems that homosexuality occurs quite naturally. Your proof that homosexuality "violates natural law" sounds like 3rd grade logic-- "they don't have the right parts". Sexuality and gender are very complex issues and breaking down these issues into whether or not they have the "right parts" is very simplistic. Sexuality has to do with what sex you are naturally attracted to-- it has nothing to do with parts. Paul, when you see a hot girl... you don't think she's hot simply because she has the "right parts". So why is your attraction fine but a homosexual attraction wrong?... both attractions occur naturally, without force. Also, to avoid sounding grotesque, if the parts truly didn't fit, then people wouldn't do it.
"Well there are all kinds of people who tend towards other deviant, meaning unnatural, sexual behaviors (beastiality, dendrophilia, necrophilia, pedophilia); should we allow them to act as they wish because it makes them happy?"
The reason that homosexual relationships are valid and the others are not is because homosexual relationships are between consenting adults... and the others are not. It's a silly comparison.
"I think it would be better for these individuals if they received the real love and care they were actually looking for so they could discover true love again."
You are saying that homosexuals do not feel "real love" for their partners... that in order to feel "true love" it must be between a man and a woman. How can you support this? I think you'll say that the love between homosexuals is selfish... and between a man and a woman is not. How can you support that? Because man and woman can make children. So to have "real love" the possibility to have children must be involved? Yes. So then, you must agree that in a relationship between a man and a woman that is barren "true" or "real love" cannot exist? No? Then you're argument falls apart.
"I think it is a common misconception that gays and lesbians are "stuck" where they are. There are many, many people who have realized what was wrong, figured it out, and are now heterosexual without any difficulties."
I agree that it is possible to deny who you are. I am attracted to women... if I was put in a certain situation I feel that I could lie to myself and convince myself that I am actually attracted to men. But why should we want people to lie to themselves? The main reason people do lie to themselves about their sexuality is because they are put in a bad situation where their family may disown them, or they are surrounded by people that won't accept them for who they are, or they face discrimination because of their sexuality, or they live in a country that refuses to give them equal rights. These things are the problem... the problem isn't their sexual orientation.
"On another note, you claim that homosexuality is not harmful, but what about the effect having two same-sex parents will have on the children they adopt and raise?"
This debate always boils down to children for some reason. When two heterosexuals get married, we do not first make sure that they will be good parents (since we still allow felons and celebrities to be parents) but for some reaoson it's an issue for homosexual couples. But, to answer your question directly, there has been no strong evidence to show that having two same-sex parents is harmful to a child or even that the children are more likely to be gay. Also, we allow unmarried adults to adopt children... I think you would have to be against that too? However, isn't it better for a child to be raised by one loving parent than by two unloving ones? I must say that the one good thing about same-sex parents is that they can never accidentally have a child and, thus, as is all too common, raise that child in a less than loving environment.
"Even Reverend Jesse Jackson, who favors same-sex marriage, rejected the comparison, saying “Gays were never called three-fifths of a person in the Constitution, and they did not require the Voting Rights Act to have the right to vote.”
You know who uses this argument all the time? Sean Hannity... perhaps you'll be able to see the absurdity in this argument when you realize that Jesse Jackson is an idiot. Sean Hannity seems to think that just because Jesse Jackson says that same-sex marriage isn't a civil rights issue then it must not be a civil rights issue. I do, however, realize that the history of racial discrimination is a great deal worse than the discrimination against homosexuals... but just because racial discrimination was worse than discrimination against homosexuals doesn't make it less of a civil rights issue.
"Civil Rights (defined by American Heritage Dictionary): The rights belonging to an individual by virtue of citizenship, especially the fundamental freedoms and privileges guaranteed by the 13th and 14th Amendments to the U.S. Constitution and by subsequent acts of Congress, including civil liberties, due process, equal protection of the laws, and freedom from discrimination."
If we can agree that interracial marriage is about civil rights, then let's see if we can use your line of argumentation to argue against interracial marriage:
1. Look in the mirror, why are we made with different color skin? Obviously we were made different colors for a reason. If we were meant to be with other races then we would all have the same colored skin.
2. Having interracial marriage will be harmful for the children that they raise. They will be unsure as to their racial and cultural place in society.
3. Marriage is defined as between a man and a woman of the same colored skin... the rules of marriage apply to everyone equally. Nobody, black or white, has the right to redefine marriage.
If removing bans on interracial marriage was about civil rights... then same-sex marriage is also about civil rights. Same-sex couples are looking to "co-exist as equals"... the laws are biased against same-sex couples just as the laws were biased against interracial couples.
"Will proposition 2 take away benefits and hospitalization of same-sex partners or common-law couples?
No. SECTION 2. This state recognizes that through the designation of guardians, the appointment of agents, and the use of private contracts, persons may adequately and properly appoint guardians and arrange rights relating to hospital visitation, property, and the entitlement to proceeds of life insurance policies without the existence of any legal status identical or similar to marriage."
I realize that same-sex couples can use private contracts (which require the use of lawyers and cost a great deal more time and money than a marriage license) but even these contracts are not equivalent to the benefits of marriage. They are unequal because states are not required to acknowledge these contracts across state borders (unlike marriage licenses). Thus, the laws are unfair because the benefits are easily and automatically attained for heterosexual couples and automatically recognized by all 50 states simply by getting a marriage license. The laws aren't equal... and even if they were equal-- separate but equal is still not equal.
The reason I am upset about this whole thing is that you are willing to deny people equal protection of the law, thus violating the 14th amendment, by not give them benefits that are simply there to make their lives easier just because their "parts don't fit". It doesn't make sense to me why you wouldn't want to help these people and make their lives better and easier? Giving them these benefits doesn't hurt the institution of marriage at all. If you could give me evidence that shows that children are harmed by living in a same-sex parented home then I would be against allowing these couples to adopt... but I would still be for allowing them to marry. I realize your intentions aren't hateful and I apologize for being rude earlier... but fighting to deny people rights that you and I have is something that I would never stand for. And you're wrong to say that these people have equal rights to you and I... again, Loving v. Virginia says that equal application is not enough to insure that a law equally protects.
Personally I think people are just blinded by the word "marriage"-- "Marriage" has an inherent religious context... and I think people are mainly afraid of mixing something that seems religious with something their religion says is wrong. I personally wish that the state would remove the word marriage from the law books and simply allow all consenting adults (heterosexual or homosexual) to have "civil unions" and leave "marriage" to the churches. This avoids the whole taste aversion that people have with "redefining marriage" which makes them think they need to "defend the institution of marriage".
"And another thing, this 'bigoted right' you speak of is trying to PREVENT any changes in the definiton of marriage that could occur through judicial action, because this is the route that homosexual activists are using (in order to circumvent a popluar vote)."
As I have shown, not allowing same-sex marriage is clearly a violation of our constitution... so it seems to me that these bans are a route that the religious right are using to avoid having the system of checks and balances overturn the status quo. And having a popular vote on a civil rights issue is just plain dumb... the majority of the public can't even spell the word constitutional let alone interpret it... so basically what this vote ends up being is a vote on who is ok with homosexuality and who isn't. If we had left it up to the states to vote on whether or not to allow interracial marriage in 1967... the southern states most definitely would have voted to ban interracial marriages... why is a popular vote good now but not then?
I know I said I would leave no further comment, but this is the last thing I will say:
- The parts still fit between a man of one race and a woman of another race, hence why interracial marriages (between man and woman) are okay. They are still human. Appearances do not matter, but the physical capabilities do. Thus, your analogy falls apart.
- One cannot compare race and sexual orientation. You can change sexual orientation, but you cannot change your race (and if this argument stoops to one about Michael Jackson, that's just ridiculous).
- Just because there always has been homosexuality (in a VERY small percentage of the population I might add, less than one percent), doesn't mean that it is natural. I can't believe that you would think this. This is such a huge logical fallacy. Just because something happens over time in a small percentage of people doesn't make it natural. People have always done any number of perverse things, and simply because people care less and less about morals does not mean that these actions should suddenly become okay.
- I would argue that masturbation is wrong as well, because it is a perversion of the beauty of sex. I don't expect you to understand that or like it, I'm just saying it.
- AGAIN, the parts do not fit, especially between women and women. It is absurd to believe that they do. There is NO way they can fit! None! Not at all! And then between men and men, well frankly there is not beauty in their parts "fitting." And I'm not just making a value judgment. I don't think that the life-giving parts of men belong in the crapper. That's a terribly twisted perversion of the beauty that is sex. And believe me, I see sex as a beautiful thing, and when I get married, my wife and I are going to have 9 kids, and it's going to be amazing. And we'll probably have sex more than those 9 times, but we will not use contraception because I don't want to risk missing out on another kid. You see you are right that kids who are born accidently, are born therefore into less-than-loving homes. And you want to know the reason why they are born into less than loving homes?? The parents didn't want them in the first place and were using sex as a means of self gratification. If you use contraception, women become masturbation machines. Then it doesn't matter if sex is with a woman, a man, a dog, my hand, a tree, whatever. It could be anything, because the only goal is to get off!! This is why contraception is so harmful. It detaches the beauty of the life giving process from sex. Sex is so cheap and dirty now because it is only there for our "beneficiality" (i.e. release of blue balls). Sex is MORE than that. Sex is more than just animal intercourse. It is AWESOME. And the fact that something I do with my wife can create life is AMAZING. In addition, if I'm not using contraception, all I'm doing is giving myself to her and saying that I want you to have ALL of me. With contraception, I am saying, I love you so much that I want you to gratify me sexually! But if you don't, I'll move onto the next. Without contraception you are saying, I love you so much that I'm willing to have more (smaller) you's running around. Now in the case of barren couples, they are still within natural law, and should be wary of not letting their sexuality become mere masturbation, the pinnacle of selfishness. Masturbation is not about giving. It is about getting off. And there is no love in that. That's what it boils down to: True love. Love is the complete, life giving, and free giving away of self. Sexual union expresses this love truly and fully if performed between a man and a woman and without contraception. This is so beautiful. This is why I will not stand here and let someone spread a lie, and tell homosexual people that they should simply remain stuck in their way of life. They are missing out on the most beautiful form of love ever! I would never want anyone to miss this chance. There is freedom that comes from being able to love like this again. Now if anyone, in light of this understanding of love and sex, should choose to remain abstinent, that is there choice and is not unnatural. See, that's another thing, it is not unnatural to control one's sex drive. I have come to love the woman I date only more when I don't consent to passionate kisses or close contact. Those things lead me to see her as an object and not as a person. I do thank God that I have the desire to give myself away to her, but I realize that I am not yet committed to her enough to do so. Therefore, I, out of respect and love for her, will withhold that desire.
- I think that parents should be good parents to begin with as well, but intentionally permitting a child to be raised without both parents is wrong. Nor do I think that it is really a responsible choice for a single woman to adopt. A child should be allowed to have both a male and a female parent. It was meant to be this way. You see, Jeff, I'm looking at the way things work, and so an argument about they way it sometimes happens is not an issue. The issue is that it should be this way, and in properly functioning family units, it is.
"So why is your attraction fine but a homosexual attraction wrong?... both attractions occur naturally, without force."
-WRONG, I gave evidence that the attraction to men occurs as a result of abuse or lack of a father figure (in the case of men) and for similar reasons in the case of women. I have talked to psychologists and read about this, and just because a number of homosexuals petitioned to have homosexuality stricken from Psychological books (the DSM, specifically) as a disorder does not change the issue of the problem. I have also heard someone discuss how they felt stuck in a homosexual situation because of external influences. He was straight to begin with and through a number of traumatic experiences (people assuming his sensitivity made him gay, as a lesser example) came to believe what everyone was saying he was. It was only after time and unconditional love from people who really cared about him did he come to see that he did not have to stay stuck in this disordered train of thought. It is not that they are gay and cannot change, it is that society forces people there. Now I understand there are other circumstances, but people are not stuck there and it is not natural. It is a lie to believe that you have to be gay and are incapable of experiencing the joy of a love that is capable of bringing life to the world (a baby), but that doesn't matter to a world that's trying to kill and prevent babies as much as possible. I'm getting into an entirely different argument, but I will say this. If you want to talk about this, that's great, but I am done here because this is a waste of time. The only way it will not be a waste is if someone reads what I have said and realizes the truth of natural law.
My question is this: Are you pursuing the truth? The question should not be about what is or isn't legal. It should be about what is TRUE, and THIS should inform the legal system.
Ultimately, it is not about settling for what is merely beneficial but striving for that which is fulfilling and life giving, for that is the only thing that is TRULY beneficial.
I hope that anyone who reads this can see the beauty that comes from true love, but I understand if this is too much for anyone to comprehend. It has taken me years to get to this point, and so I would expect the same from anyone else. I hope, however, that this is the seed that lands in the soil and promotes the growth that leads you to an understanding of true love as it was written into our very bodies. And if you would like to come to understand more of this life-giving, freedom-bringing love, please google Pope John Paul II's "Theology of the Body". If you are open to it and read through or listen to Christopher West's Audio summary of it, you will be truly amazed and changed forever. God bless.
In Christ,
Paul
P.S. - I understand that much of what I said in here is hard to grasp and will probably be scorned as religious poppycock by most people who read it, but if even one person reads it and comes (eventually) to know the fullness of God's love for us through it, it will have been worth it. May God bless you and keep you.
Oh, and I bet that this will earn me the title "romantic Christian," but I hope after my last post, you will avoid such straw-man arguments. But then again, I really don't care what you call me or anyone else who would say the same thing. I have spoken the love that is in my heart, and that is all that matters. God bless!
P.S. - There is so much more to life than what we are settling for, and I have seen it, even if only in glimpses, and it is truly awe-inspiring!!! God loves us all so much. SO much. And it is truly life changing to experience. May the peace of Christ be with you always.
Oh, and please do NOT take this as me trying to be all "holier than thou," for this could not be further from the truth. Only love would impel me to make such strong assertions, and I hope that love is all that comes across in these messages.
Please visit my blog at one6yman.blogspot.com to read more.
Copy and paste the above broken link into your browser to do visit the site. Thanks and God bless.
"My question is this: Are you pursuing the truth? The question should not be about what is or isn't legal. It should be about what is TRUE, and THIS should inform the legal system."
I agree. However, we have been talking about a proposal on a ballot... so I figured it would be best to speak in terms of the system we are using to vote... but, if you want to talk about truth let's talk about truth:
You believe that people are meant to do things and their parts are made for certain reasons. How do you know this is true?
You believe there to be true love as though it exists as a magical something... how do you know this is true?
I know you believe that sex is a holy act whereby men and women make the ultimate commitment that may result in a child. How do you know this is true?
How do you know that a sexual union expresses love truly and fully if performed between a man and a woman and without contraception?
How do you know what the "Natural Law" is?
How do you know that homosexuality is "wrong"?
You don't know any of these things... these are based on your beliefs.
I think every person regardless of sexual orientation should have the right to marry the person of their choice; otherwise you're imposing your beliefs on people that probably don't share your beliefs. I believe that equality is good as long as it doesn't harm other people... and I think any level-headed person can see that our laws aren't equal.
we can't go around legislating simply because of opinion. in my opinion, girls should not have shiny sequined purses if they are wearing simple street clothes -- but i'm not going to vote 'yes' for the fashion police. i'm also highly skeptical of every single religion -- but i will eagerly vote down a law that restricts religious practices that produce nonharmful or even possibly consensually harmful results.
there should always be a difference between what an individual thinks is right and what the government legislates as correct behavior -- and the government should treat groups and individuals with equality. this is a principle: the government should not be biased.
if the tables were turned and the majority of texas was populated by homosexuals attempting to define marriage so as to exclude heterosexuals, there would be a blood curdling cry of indignation issuing forth from your lips and from mine as well. your conception of love and marriage are your own.
if the government is telling you how to live your life or governing your consciousness, it has overstepped its boundaries.
we're approaching this from two different principles. i maintain that the government should treat all individuals equally as long as they are not engaging in nonconsensual harmful behavior. your principles come from your religion -- but let us observe that many principles of your religion are not law:
I am the Lord your God who brought you out of the land of Egypt...
You shall have no other gods besides Me...Do not make a sculpted image or any likeness of what is in the heavens above...
You shalt not swear falsely by the name of the Lord...
Remember the Sabbath day and keep it holy
Honor your father and your mother...
You shall not commit adultery
You shall not bear false witness against your neighbor
You shall not covet your neighbor's house, neighbour's wife, nor his manservant...
some of these may be good guidelines, but they are most definitely not laws. well, perjury is illegal -- so it may depend on context a tad.
Paul,
I know you said no more posts... but I'm curious as to how you'd respond to nate's comment. If you really don't want to that's fine... as I said, I'm just curious.
JP
I will answer nate's comment.
If we do not legislate from opinion then from where do we legislate. Previous legislation? Which is based on what? Opinion?
Jeff I agree with your opinion about the government using the term "marriage" at all. (I actually think that we talked about this.) That having been said, I must point out the following. You hold the constitution upon high and then deride democracy. Can't have it both ways.
As a side note: I'm not voting on this damn thing at all. Legislating morality has ALWAYS been a bad idea. See prohibition.
obviously we have some principles that we base our legislation upon and those principles are formulated in the constitution. these constitute the basic assumptions from which we derive all others.
apart from a weak invocation of the ninth amendment, i cannot really say that the supreme law of the land can be used to support the imperative that the government should treat all consensual unions between adults equally.
it is my opinion that nonharmful consensual activities should not be regulated by the government.
and there is good reason to be wary of democracy, especially when the majority decides to extinguish liberties.
if democracy is to be held higher than the constitution, then the majority opinion is the only thing separating us from repealing the second amendment (an amendment that i support, and the day they start trying to revoke it is the day i buy an uzi).
it comes back down to fundamentals -- is it more important for the government to turn the opinions of the majority into legislation than it is to protect the rights of all individuals? what should be the rights of an individual? should we base them on social norms and institutions, or is there another standard by which we can measure the fitness of actions?
it is my opinion that we should use a conseqentialist model together with a properly localized/globalized utilitarian scheme to measure the fitness of actions. in particular, having the government recognize all consensual unions between adults equally does not physically or economically (i haven't really thought this economic harm thing through -- it seems to be a far less tractable proposition) harm anyone. since this is the case, i find it very difficult to brook legal distinctions between such unions.
The constitution doesn't say that a popular vote should take precedence over the 14th amendment. Thus, there is no contradiction in using the constitution to prove my point while at the same time saying that a popular vote on civil rights is silly.
if you think proposition 2 is bad, wait till we take over.
assalamu alykum
A vote of the populace (per state (Union), granted) ratifed the 14th. Basically, you're claiming that the post-Civil War populace was smarter than our current one. You'd side with the dead over the living.
Watch yourself. That could be considered TRADITION.
I understand your point.
However, in order to do any sort of argumentation, we must start with some agreed upon axiom, and since most everybody agrees with the 14th amendment-- i figured that to be a decent starting point. If anyone wishes to deny the 14th amendment then we can go back further and find some other axiom on which to agree before we argue.
But, using the current system, one must overturn the 14th amendment before denying marriage to same-sex couples. Thus, a vote on whether or not to follow the constitution is a silly one.
I'm all for changing the system-- but this vote isn't doing that-- it's contradicting the system.
The United Nations Declaration of Human Rights includes in its Article 16.1 that “Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.”
It is my opinion that sexual orientation should also be in the list of criteria not to be discriminated against. If a person of any religion is allowed to marry, then so should a person of any sexual orientation. The argument of many is to "protect the sanctity of marriage." Most people making this argument do so from some religious standpoint. I have even heard some Christians arguing that they don't think non-believers, or even those who believe but aren't as "devout", to be married in a church setting by a religious leader. I think if that discrimination is not allowed to be made, then neither should one against homosexuals just because they are not in agreement with the religious norms. Especially when a homosexual is religious and more devout than some straight Christians (and yes these people do exist, I am friends with one).
Anyways, thats my two cents. Take it or leave it.
By the way I enjoyed all of your arguments, some of them really cracked me up!
They can get married. They have the same right to marriage as everyone else.
Dear Anon,
The line of reasoning you are using was the same exact reasoning used to support bans on interracial marriage. Mere equal application of a law does NOT guarantee the absolute equality of a law.
Thus, one cannot use this line of argumentation to justify the law-- one must make a different argument that clarifies why in instance a) this line of reasoning is considered discriminatory (interracial marriage) and in instance b) this line of reasoning is fine (same-sex marriage).
Therefore, your attempt at a cute, clever and simple retort to the problem of discrimination by saying "they can get married they have the same right to marriage as everyone else" fails horribly... at least in the mind of any logical person. I don't say this to be cocky-- rather, I say it because it is true-- follow the logic... Your argument says that because a ban on same-sex marriage is equally applied to all persons it is not discriminatory-- however, if you posit equal application as being the only necessary characteristic for a non-discriminatory law then you must accept bans on interracial marriages (or other ridiculous hypotheticals where a law is obviously [common sensically] discriminatory but equally applied) as being non-discriminatory. Therefore, you must either accept obviously discriminatory laws or you must use some other line of reasoning that doesn't involve the equal application of the law (as Paul has attempted in his "parts" argument above).
If you still think there is a point to be made by simply saying that the laws are equally applied and therefore the laws aren't discriminatory (which is what your sentence "they can get married they have the same right to marriage as everyone else" really means) then I suggest you either take a logic course or stop living... because you must understand that the argument you made is flawed... if you don't then I'm afriad I may have lost all hope in humanity-- this is a very, very simple line of logic to follow... it is imperative that you understand... if people on two sides of an issue can't agree upon something so fundamental as an elementary logical sequence then there is truly insanity-- A person that has been shown a logical flaw in their argument and is unable to reconcile the problem logically yet stills hold on to their line of argumentation-- is insane. Don't be insane.
its very apparent that god hates fags. well, they can have sex and remain law abiding citizens -- that's fine. but when they want equal treatment under the law -- fuck that!
if you're interested in living under a theocracy or having a government that selectively tells you where you can stick your dick and what kind of familial units are 'healthy' (gays can't wed, but abusive drunks can get married until they're blue in the face b/c it upholds the 'sanctity' of beating the shit out of your kids) then you need to start investing in the moon colony now.
us godless monsters don't want all the laws of your god to be the law of the land.
have the decency to respect the fact that there are other people with versions of happiness that may be incongruent with yours. i think marriage is ridiculous (as ridiculous as any other consensual union), but if it makes other people happy and it doesn't ruin my life, then they should be free to do as they please.
there are other people who think differently and behave differently. get over it and don't poke your nose into where it doesn't belong. the voters have succeeded only in making the government more BIASED -- something that the government should avoid.
its easy to hold onto irrationals that don't have any effect on our own functioning and which impede the freedoms of others. good work! associate your bias with the truth! ignore the conseqences for other people when you have to be right all the time!
i'm not china -- i'm not asking you to abandon your religious beliefs -- just don't push them on other people.
Post a Comment
<< Home