CA Senate Approves Resolution Opposing Prop 8

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: DealMonkey

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Moonbeam

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Not at all. Bigotry is an irrational evil based on irrational programmed in hate, generally derived from blind acceptance and inculcated belief in of some ancient religious text. It had lead to the deaths of millions and millions of people. There is nothing at all irrational about the contempt I have expressed for your bigotry. Your bigotry is evil and I need nor rely on no belief system to tell me so. The disgusting nature of bigotry and the evil it causes is self evident. And you will know it too when the time comes when I bring to the ballot a measure to outlaw Christians from marrying or when I come to separate you from your balls.

Wiktionary:

bigot (plural bigots)
one who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices
one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ.

You are one among the many, my friend. It is you who cannot abide a dissenting voice, not I. I address arguments. You attempt to discredit.

You imbecile. I can abide your dissenting voice just as the world has suffered for centuries from the misery caused by bigots like you. What you will not do, so long as dissenting voices like mine are able to post, is spew your bigotry comment free. You are a hideous bigot whose self love of your egotistical garbage is more important to you than allowing love between any two people who are in love. You are a disgusting blight on the face of humanity, a moral leper spewing irrational hate. You will put your filthy hate into law. Show me where I will do that, you scum. How does it feel, you bigot, to reap what you sow?

There are times when I realize that drugs are better off illegal.

Atreus21, you need to go look up the word "intolerant." Because without understanding intolerance, you cannot understand bigotry. You, like a lot of other bigots in this world, object to the label that suits them so perfectly, because you don't understand it.

Arguing against someone with bigoted views, or labeling them properly as a bigot, does not make someone a bigot.

Get it f'ing straight.

Hehe, But you have to remember that a bigot is completely blind to the fact that he is a bigot. Bigotry IS the non-recognition of an unconscious and irrational prejudice or intolerance precisely because it IS unconscious.

A bigot believes his bigotry is good, that segregation, for example, saves white people from being contaminated by black people. Such a bigot believes this because he has an unconscious assumption that governs and stands behind all his opinions on race, namely, that black people are evil. He therefore naturally argues that segregation is proper, because without it blacks and whites would mix. The fact that the races might mix is all he needs to justify segregation because even an idiot knows it's not good to dilute good with evil.

The real truth that is isn't good to dilute good with evil, that the bigot is, in his mind, on a sacred, moral, and urgent journey to save society from an obvious evil, is the smoke screen behind which the falsity of the assumption that blacks are evil is prevented from entering consciousness. The bigot is about saving us from evil, is at war with evil, hates evil, and cannot therefore see that what is really evil is his false unconscious belief.

To ask a racial bigot who hates blacks to see his bigotry is asking him to see that he HIMSELF is everything he means when he calls somebody a *****. Our poor poor Atreus, here, is an icky queer and he's not too happy about the news.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: OrByte
What is funny is that even Ken Starr, while speaking in front of the SC, made comments on more than one occasion that California voters approved an "unwise" Proposition but it is the will of the voters and it must stand.

Well the Mormons pissed off people enough to lose their many wives. Time to take away their rights to one. No Mormons should be allowed to marry in California. They just breed more Mormons, and everybody knows that can't be good.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Liberals are supposed to be about freedom of speech, thought, and open-mindedness.

(mild tangent post)

Liberals are about those things. But you and several righty posters misinterpret what those things mean.

1) Freedom of speech means the GOVERNMENT doesn't get to arbitrarily silence controversial or dissenting voices. Freedom of speech does NOT mean that private citizens cannot call out other people for their espoused views. Similarly, freedom of speech does NOT mean that a private citizen gets to espouse whatever viewpoint they wish without being criticized for it. Since I don't see anyone here claiming that you should be silenced by the government or claiming that you don't have the right to speak your point of view, I think we can dispense with the accusation that any liberals here are against your freedom of speech.

2) Open-mindedness means giving differing points of view some level of consideration, not that you cannot ultimately dismiss that point of view as wholly without merit. Intelligent Design proponents and Young Earth creationists love to accuse scientists of being 'closed minded' when they refuse to consider the role of god in evolution, when the reason god is not considered is because supernatural elements are untestable hypotheticals, and as such are beyond the purview of science. And some points of view are so ridiculous that one need not consider them very long. If you say Apollo pulls the sun into the sky from his chariot and I don't bother engaging you in a debate, this doesn't make me closed minded. "Don't keep your mind so open that your brain falls out."

Your points of view have been addressed over and over every time this issue forms a thread. You cite the same arguments, link to the same articles and op-eds. Neither you or anyone you can reasonably point to can show that gay marriage or gay adoption has any ill effects whatsoever upon society, let alone such ills so as to justify denial of equal rights.

You claim that nothing you've said has any real ring of bigotry, which is an astounding statement since you've repeatedly admitted how uncomfortable homosexuality makes you, and that it's the ultimate justification for your position. Can you at least admit that if you felt no discomfort with gays on a personal level that you would not be arguing against their marriage? That the bedrock of your position isn't rational argument and real-world consequence, but some gut reaction you experience when you see two men kiss? Most people who argued against interracial marriage also did so because they were uncomfortable with it, and such people constructed logical sounding arguments to support their position, but the position was still based upon their prejudice.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Deal, I've always thought you an informed poster.

It doesn't take much to see the following:

A bigot, being someone who pathologically hates dissent, would be someone you'd expect to quickly resort to personal attacks. Who, between Moonbeam and I, has resorted to this the most? Where do you find any of my posts explicitly filled with insults and ad hominem attacks?

Simply being intolerant of something isn't evil, or even necessarily wrong, such as being intolerant of racial slurs. Everyone is intolerant. It means nothing without a qualifier. You're intolerant of me, yet my intolerance is reprehensible. It's a blatant contradiction to say you're intolerant of intolerance. The truth is, you don't like what I believe in, and that's the real reason I am attacked. If I were intolerant in your favor, suddenly the cries against intolerance would cease.

Nothing I've said, not one thing, has any ring of real bigotry by its real definition. I don't irrationaly deride my opponents. I engage them in debate, and I leave open the possibility that I may be wrong. But I'm confident that I'm right, just as I'm sure you are.

On the other hand, I am attacked and insulted by people like Moonbeam and JohnofSheffield, on the basis that I am bigoted, stupid, immoral, and intolerant, which apart from its outright hypocricy, is demonstrably false if one cares to look over my posts in this thread. But they cannot be bothered.

Liberals are supposed to be about freedom of speech, thought, and open-mindedness. This type of behavior does not become you.

I like how you list being intolerant of racial slurs as a good thing, then two sentences later say you can't be intolerant of intolerance... Racial slurs are an example of intolerance that you apparently can be intolerant of, but you can't be intolerant of intolerance... No, I see no contradiction in your thinking there.

Moving on... If you're sick of all the ad hominem attacks, you could ignore Moonbeam and respond to my post.

You haven't addressed a single argument about how you feel about fertile couples who wish to marry but not reproduce, how you feel about adoption, how you feel about divorce, how preventing gays from marrying would stop the spread of HIV or how preventing gays from marrying would increase reproduction. You seem to be in a mood to address arguments, so let's hear what you have to say to those.

I haven't used a single ad hominem attack against you, for what it's worth. If I start using ad hominem attacks, will you actually respond to the questions I posed? Or are you simply focusing on those posters who are resorting to ad hominem attacks because in reality you know you have no rational argument to address the questions before you?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

You haven't addressed a single argument about how you feel about fertile couples who wish to marry but not reproduce, how you feel about adoption, how you feel about divorce, how preventing gays from marrying would stop the spread of HIV or how preventing gays from marrying would increase reproduction. You seem to be in a mood to address arguments, so let's hear what you have to say to those.

Very well.

If the state gives marriage sanction in the interest that marriage very often provides the propogation of society, why should the state be interested in providing this sanction in the absence of the quality (producing children) upon which the sanction is contingent?

The spread of AIDS is an argument I've conceded. While I believe there's possibly something to it, I don't believe it substantive enough to provide a sole basis for outlawing gay marriage.

Preventing gay marriage wouldn't increase reproduction. I don't recall saying that.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

I like how you list being intolerant of racial slurs as a good thing, then two sentences later say you can't be intolerant of intolerance... Racial slurs are an example of intolerance that you apparently can be intolerant of, but you can't be intolerant of intolerance... No, I see no contradiction in your thinking there.

Being intolerant of intolerance is a contradiction, just as being bigoted against bigotry is, or saying that the only truth is that there is no truth. Just being intolerant is not reason enough to demonize someone. It's what they're intolerant of that qualifies them as either right or wrong. So stop calling me intolerant. It's not an insult. It's not even an adequate argument. It's no different than calling me human.

It's not the fact that a racist is intolerant that makes me angry. It's the fact that he's a racist.

Tangent: Sometimes it's no wonder to me that Obama wowed liberals so much. He stood for "Change." Just as liberals are against "Intolerance." And how they were angry that some republicans didn't "want Obama to succeed."

Do they ever stop to ask themselves: "Change how? Intolerant of what? I want Obama to succeed at what?

I don't understand how thinking people can stop asking these questions in the face of such generalizations, or how liberals, who always champion skepticism and questioning of authority, can possibly trust Obama to this extent.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

You haven't addressed a single argument about how you feel about fertile couples who wish to marry but not reproduce, how you feel about adoption, how you feel about divorce, how preventing gays from marrying would stop the spread of HIV or how preventing gays from marrying would increase reproduction. You seem to be in a mood to address arguments, so let's hear what you have to say to those.

Very well.

If the state gives marriage sanction in the interest that marriage very often provides the propogation of society, why should the state be interested in providing this sanction in the absence of the quality (producing children) upon which the sanction is contingent?

The spread of AIDS is an argument I've conceded. While I believe there's possibly something to it, I don't believe it substantive enough to provide a sole basis for outlawing gay marriage.

Preventing gay marriage wouldn't increase reproduction. I don't recall saying that.

Contract law - division of property and such would be in the interest of the state (either through divorce or passing of the estate after death), and neither of those involve propogation.

Why can infertile couples get married? They can't propagate. What about old couples who are passed child-rearing age? Should we ban them from marriage, since it is not in your view of the state's interest?

What about unmarried couples? They can have children and not be wed, so that doesn't even take into account the state's interest in creating a new generation. Should we force unmarried couples with children to marry?

What about adoption? You can easily raise children without actually having any of your own?

Etc...

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

You haven't addressed a single argument about how you feel about fertile couples who wish to marry but not reproduce, how you feel about adoption, how you feel about divorce, how preventing gays from marrying would stop the spread of HIV or how preventing gays from marrying would increase reproduction. You seem to be in a mood to address arguments, so let's hear what you have to say to those.

Very well.

If the state gives marriage sanction in the interest that marriage very often provides the propogation of society, why should the state be interested in providing this sanction in the absence of the quality (producing children) upon which the sanction is contingent?

The spread of AIDS is an argument I've conceded. While I believe there's possibly something to it, I don't believe it substantive enough to provide a sole basis for outlawing gay marriage.

Preventing gay marriage wouldn't increase reproduction. I don't recall saying that.

You didn't say that. I inferred it from what you were basing your argument on. You did say that the compelling interest of the state in granting marriages was to further reproduction. You also said that gay marriage would not lead to the propogation of the species as gays are unable to breed. But inherent in the claim that preventing gay marriage because gays will not breed if they are married is the notion that if they are not allowed to marry the same sex, they will marry the opposite sex and become part of the breeding population. But they won't. They'll still be gay, they'll still have their gay sex, they'll simply do it in the absence of a state recognized marriage. So I wonder then, what good does it do to prevent people from marrying based on reproduction if there was never the intention of reproduction to begin with? There's more to marriage than the continuation of the species you know...

 

[Moonbeam]

Some words from Christians on marriage:

"Marriage is the sacred and lifelong union of a man and a woman to give themselves to each other in love and trust. It signifies the mystery of the union between Christ and the church. Marriage is given that husband and wife may enrich and encourage each other in every part of their life together. Marriage is given that with delight and tenderness they may know each other in love, ad through their physical union bay strengthen the union of their lives. Marriage is given that children may be born and brought up in security and love, that home and family life may be strengthened, and that society may stand upon firm foundations. Marriage is a way of life which all people should honour; it is not to be entered into lightly or selfishly, at responsibly and in the love of God. [Man's name] and [woman's name] are now to begin this way of life which God has created and Christ has blessed. Therefore, on this their wedding day, we pray for them, asking that they may fulfil God's purpose for the whole of their lives."

Note the first and foremost that the purpose of marriage is a union of true lovers.

What is love? More Christian ideas:

a) A desire to be together - the simple enjoyment of being in each other's presence, and the feeling that the room is different, the circumstances are different, just because the other person is there; and conversely, a feeling of lostness and longing when the other person is away. (See the Song of Solomon. If you don't enjoy each other's company for its own sake, quite apart from whatever you may be doing together, then there is a poor basis for marriage.)

(b) A mutual enjoyment of what you do together. This will usually involve having interests and cultural background in common. (If you don't have too many things that you can enjoy doing together, then the companionship aspect of marriage is going to be of a pretty low level.)

(c) A preference to do what your friend wants, rather than carrying out your own wishes. (If this is not the case, then the "mutual help" aspect of marriage is going to be a duty not a joy, and the love Paul describes in Ephesians 5:22-33 is absent.)

(d) The existence of sexual attraction. A platonic friendship is no basis for marriage. If the boy does not find the girl sexually attractive, or if the girl cannot stand for the boy to touch her, then there is good reason to doubt that they will have a mutually satisfying sex life together. The biblical standard requires that a couple does not have intercourse before marriage . but there can be and should be, a mutual awareness of a desire to commence sexual life together.

(e) All the above are ongoing, and the couple have allowed themselves opportunity to have a valid basis for real expectation that these are settled attitudes on the part of both people, and not the manifestation of a passing infatuation. Marriage is a commitment of two people to each other for life: therefore they need to be mature enough to make a decision of this scope and seriousness, and they need to know themselves and each other sufficiently well to have good grounds to believe that their care about each other is enduring .
-------
But if you are a bigot none of this is allowed for gays.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Very well.

If the state gives marriage sanction in the interest that marriage very often provides the propogation of society, why should the state be interested in providing this sanction in the absence of the quality (producing children) upon which the sanction is contingent?

The spread of AIDS is an argument I've conceded. While I believe there's possibly something to it, I don't believe it substantive enough to provide a sole basis for outlawing gay marriage.

Preventing gay marriage wouldn't increase reproduction. I don't recall saying that.

If preventing gay marriage won't increase reproduction, than banning it does not further the government's interest for reproduction that you mentioned. You have just defeated your own argument.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Brainonska511

Contract law - division of property and such would be in the interest of the state (either through divorce or passing of the estate after death), and neither of those involve propogation.

Why can infertile couples get married? They can't propagate. What about old couples who are passed child-rearing age? Should we ban them from marriage, since it is not in your view of the state's interest?

Because the state gives infertile couples the benefit of the doubt. The resources required to test each couple prior to marriage for child-bearing propensity is an expense the state is willing to forego, in face of the fact that the majority of couples can produce children.

On old couples: Elderly couples can marry, but such cases are so rare that it is simply not worth the effort to restrict them. Marriage laws ensure, albeit imperfectly, that the vast majority of couples who do get the benefits of marriage are those who bear children.

What about unmarried couples? They can have children and not be wed, so that doesn't even take into account the state's interest in creating a new generation. Should we force unmarried couples with children to marry?

Certainly not. But the state makes marriage available to them.

What about adoption? You can easily raise children without actually having any of your own?

Conventionally verified common sense implies that a child best grows up in a family made up of a mother and father. As my favorite article says, the difference between men and women extend beyond anatomy, and it is essential for a child to be nurtured by both sexes if the child is to adequately function in a society made up of both sexes. Gays are not necessarily poor parents, nor might they make their children gay, but they simply cannot provide a set of male and female parents.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Very well.

If the state gives marriage sanction in the interest that marriage very often provides the propogation of society, why should the state be interested in providing this sanction in the absence of the quality (producing children) upon which the sanction is contingent?

The spread of AIDS is an argument I've conceded. While I believe there's possibly something to it, I don't believe it substantive enough to provide a sole basis for outlawing gay marriage.

Preventing gay marriage wouldn't increase reproduction. I don't recall saying that.

If preventing gay marriage won't increase reproduction, than banning it does not further the government's interest for reproduction that you mentioned. You have just defeated your own argument.

The state has an interest in marriage because it routinely produces more citizens. Gay marriage cannot do this, so the state has no interest in granting it.

Be back soon. Going to lunch.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Conventionally verified common sense implies that a child best grows up in a family made up of a mother and father. As my favorite article says, the difference between men and women extend beyond anatomy, and it is essential for a child to be nurtured by both sexes if the child is to adequately function in a society made up of both sexes. Gays are not necessarily poor parents, nor might they make their children gay, but they simply cannot provide a set of male and female parents.

Yes, because lesbians never have any men in their lives who could potentially be a role model or father figure for a young child, nor do gay men know a single woman who could provide a nurturing, affectionate mother figure for their children... You'd be surprised how often conventionally verified common sense turns out to be completely asinine.

But what do I know? I've only had lesbian mothers my entire life... That's not nearly enough time to make an educated assertion that challenges conventionally verified common sense.

 

[Brainonska511]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Conventionally verified common sense implies that a child best grows up in a family made up of a mother and father. As my favorite article says, the difference between men and women extend beyond anatomy, and it is essential for a child to be nurtured by both sexes if the child is to adequately function in a society made up of both sexes. Gays are not necessarily poor parents, nor might they make their children gay, but they simply cannot provide a set of male and female parents.

Yes, because lesbians never have any men in their lives who could potentially be a role model or father figure for a young child, nor do gay men know a single woman who could provide a nurturing, affectionate mother figure for their children... You'd be surprised how often conventionally verified common sense turns out to be completely asinine.

But what do I know? I've only had lesbian mothers my entire life... That's not nearly enough time to make an educated assertion that challenges conventionally verified common sense.

That explains a lot... lol

 

[fskimospy]

EDIT: Saw your response.

There is no such thing as 'benefit of the doubt' in this situation. Marriage is a FUNDAMENTAL RIGHT. That means that the state has to find a reason to restrict it, not a reason to grant it. What you are arguing for is changing the benefits of marriage over to the benefits of having children, it's not an argument against marriage in any way.

I'm not sure what you aren't understanding here, as it has been explained many times to you. Fundamental rights are something you have until they are restricted, not something granted. By USSC ruling the right to marry is the same as the right to free speech. The government does not 'grant' you the right of free speech, it is something you always have unless the government can justify restricting it.

Do you understand the difference now? Saying gay people can't have kids so the government shouldn't 'grant' them marriage is incoherent, because the government doesn't 'grant' anyone the right to marry.

In order to argue for the government banning gay marriage based on its interest to further reproducion, you must show specifically how banning gay marriage will increase the number of children born, or how gay people being married will decrease the fertility rate.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
The state has an interest in marriage because it routinely produces more citizens. Gay marriage cannot do this, so the state has no interest in granting it.

Be back soon. Going to lunch.

If all the state cared about was getting more citizens, why close the borders at all? Let everyone in, grant them all citizenship, BOOM, more citizens. There has to be more to it than just "we want more citizens."

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Conventionally verified common sense implies that a child best grows up in a family made up of a mother and father. As my favorite article says, the difference between men and women extend beyond anatomy, and it is essential for a child to be nurtured by both sexes if the child is to adequately function in a society made up of both sexes. Gays are not necessarily poor parents, nor might they make their children gay, but they simply cannot provide a set of male and female parents.

Yes, because lesbians never have any men in their lives who could potentially be a role model or father figure for a young child, nor do gay men know a single woman who could provide a nurturing, affectionate mother figure for their children... You'd be surprised how often conventionally verified common sense turns out to be completely asinine.

But what do I know? I've only had lesbian mothers my entire life... That's not nearly enough time to make an educated assertion that challenges conventionally verified common sense.

Look, don't take this personally. I'm not trying to dog your upbringing. This is debate, and for me I'd prefer it to remain at least impersonal.

Wouldn't you think that a fraternal father or mother would have more of a developmental effect on their child than a male or female role-model outside of the family?

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
The state has an interest in marriage because it routinely produces more citizens. Gay marriage cannot do this, so the state has no interest in granting it.

Once again, you are working backwards. The state doesn't grant rights, it protects them, and when it wants to limit a right the state must justify the restriction. The people do not need to articulate a reason why the state should "grant" marriage to gays, the state needs to articulate why it has the power to deny gays the right to marry. Follow? In this case, gay marriage causes no harm, so the state has no basis to deny the right.

Which is exactly why the CA SC struck down the legislature's ban on same sex marriage, and why a referendum was required to change the law. See how your argument above has no force?

 

[RabidMongoose]

By the way, the funniest part of the oral arguments was Kenneth Star saying "We are all minorities of one."

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Look, don't take this personally. I'm not trying to dog your upbringing. This is debate, and for me I'd prefer it to remain at least impersonal.

Wouldn't you think that a fraternal father or mother would have more of a developmental effect on their child than a male or female role-model outside of the family?

Don't worry, I'm not taking it personally; I too enjoy a good logical debate.

As to the question do I think a fraternal father or mother would have more of a developmental effect on their child than a male or female role-model outside the family... Well, that's complicated. I'll use my brother as an example here. His father was an abusive alcoholic who beat up our mother on a regular basis. She had to flee the country to escape his abuse, and she ended up kidnapping her own son to get him out of that situation (since the courts would never grant custody to a single mother, let alone a lesbian).

My brother spent his teenage years without a father in his life. What he did have was an older male who stepped in and acted as a father figure. Skip taught my brother about the outdoors, taking him hiking, camping, rafting, and teaching him a wide variety of skills like carpentry and electrical wiring. Skip was a better father to my brother than his real father had ever been, and they're close friends to this day. Skip was not related by blood, nor marriage, to our family, but his influence on my brother's upbringing cannot be understated.

So to answer your question, I think it is entirely dependant on who the people are. I can't make a blanket statement that parents will always be better role models than people outside the immediate family, nor can I claim that having a mother and a father is inherently better or worse than having two mothers or two fathers. It's entirely dependant on the quality of the people involved. If a father is a wife-beating drunk, I don't think he's going to be a better role model for his offspring simply by virtue of his relation to them.

 

[Moonbeam]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Look, don't take this personally. I'm not trying to dog your upbringing. This is debate, and for me I'd prefer it to remain at least impersonal.

Wouldn't you think that a fraternal father or mother would have more of a developmental effect on their child than a male or female role-model outside of the family?

Don't worry, I'm not taking it personally; I too enjoy a good logical debate.

As to the question do I think a fraternal father or mother would have more of a developmental effect on their child than a male or female role-model outside the family... Well, that's complicated. I'll use my brother as an example here. His father was an abusive alcoholic who beat up our mother on a regular basis. She had to flee the country to escape his abuse, and she ended up kidnapping her own son to get him out of that situation (since the courts would never grant custody to a single mother, let alone a lesbian).

My brother spent his teenage years without a father in his life. What he did have was an older male who stepped in and acted as a father figure. Skip taught my brother about the outdoors, taking him hiking, camping, rafting, and teaching him a wide variety of skills like carpentry and electrical wiring. Skip was a better father to my brother than his real father had ever been, and they're close friends to this day. Skip was not related by blood, nor marriage, to our family, but his influence on my brother's upbringing cannot be understated.

So to answer your question, I think it is entirely dependant on who the people are. I can't make a blanket statement that parents will always be better role models than people outside the immediate family, nor can I claim that having a mother and a father is inherently better or worse than having two mothers or two fathers. It's entirely dependant on the quality of the people involved. If a father is a wife-beating drunk, I don't think he's going to be a better role model for his offspring simply by virtue of his relation to them.

Additionally, one parent then, must be better than none and two of the same sex better than one of either sex, if parents are the only issue. We muct encourage gay marriage then because being an ophen<1 gay parent< 1 straight parent<2 gay parents<2 straight parents, right? We must not let the perfect blind us to the good, no?

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Some words from Christians on marriage:

"Marriage is the sacred and lifelong union of a man and a woman to give themselves to each other in love and trust. It signifies the mystery of the union between Christ and the church. Marriage is given that husband and wife may enrich and encourage each other in every part of their life together. Marriage is given that with delight and tenderness they may know each other in love, ad through their physical union bay strengthen the union of their lives. Marriage is given that children may be born and brought up in security and love, that home and family life may be strengthened, and that society may stand upon firm foundations. Marriage is a way of life which all people should honour; it is not to be entered into lightly or selfishly, at responsibly and in the love of God. [Man's name] and [woman's name] are now to begin this way of life which God has created and Christ has blessed. Therefore, on this their wedding day, we pray for them, asking that they may fulfil God's purpose for the whole of their lives."

Note the first and foremost that the purpose of marriage is a union of true lovers.

What is love? More Christian ideas:

a) A desire to be together - the simple enjoyment of being in each other's presence, and the feeling that the room is different, the circumstances are different, just because the other person is there; and conversely, a feeling of lostness and longing when the other person is away. (See the Song of Solomon. If you don't enjoy each other's company for its own sake, quite apart from whatever you may be doing together, then there is a poor basis for marriage.)

(b) A mutual enjoyment of what you do together. This will usually involve having interests and cultural background in common. (If you don't have too many things that you can enjoy doing together, then the companionship aspect of marriage is going to be of a pretty low level.)

(c) A preference to do what your friend wants, rather than carrying out your own wishes. (If this is not the case, then the "mutual help" aspect of marriage is going to be a duty not a joy, and the love Paul describes in Ephesians 5:22-33 is absent.)

(d) The existence of sexual attraction. A platonic friendship is no basis for marriage. If the boy does not find the girl sexually attractive, or if the girl cannot stand for the boy to touch her, then there is good reason to doubt that they will have a mutually satisfying sex life together. The biblical standard requires that a couple does not have intercourse before marriage . but there can be and should be, a mutual awareness of a desire to commence sexual life together.

(e) All the above are ongoing, and the couple have allowed themselves opportunity to have a valid basis for real expectation that these are settled attitudes on the part of both people, and not the manifestation of a passing infatuation. Marriage is a commitment of two people to each other for life: therefore they need to be mature enough to make a decision of this scope and seriousness, and they need to know themselves and each other sufficiently well to have good grounds to believe that their care about each other is enduring .
-------
But if you are a bigot none of this is allowed for gays.

But Moonbeam,

How many times have we been told that Gays can't love? Or that they can't love the way God intended them to love?

Or that Gays can't love the way the Church can condone it?

Thank goodness we have the Church to explain to us what LOVE is right? :roll:

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
By the way, the funniest part of the oral arguments was Kenneth Star saying "We are all minorities of one."

I was wondering if he wore that pink tie of his on purpose!

 

[DealMonkey]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
Deal, I've always thought you an informed poster.

Thanks. For the most part you seem like one too. But now we appear to be butting heads on this particular issue. That's all, really.[/quote]

It doesn't take much to see the following:

A bigot, being someone who pathologically hates dissent, would be someone you'd expect to quickly resort to personal attacks. Who, between Moonbeam and I, has resorted to this the most? Where do you find any of my posts explicitly filled with insults and ad hominem attacks?

Being a bigot and ad homonym attacks are two very different issues.

Simply being intolerant of something isn't evil, or even necessarily wrong, such as being intolerant of racial slurs. Everyone is intolerant. It means nothing without a qualifier. You're intolerant of me, yet my intolerance is reprehensible. It's a blatant contradiction to say you're intolerant of intolerance. The truth is, you don't like what I believe in, and that's the real reason I am attacked. If I were intolerant in your favor, suddenly the cries against intolerance would cease.

I'm not intolerant of you, I simply don't agree with you on this one subject. You're intolerant because you are unwilling to grant the same rights to everyone equally. You've determined that a certain group of people cannot enjoy the same rights as the rest of us. It's intolerant and bigoted.

Nothing I've said, not one thing, has any ring of real bigotry by its real definition. I don't irrationaly deride my opponents. I engage them in debate, and I leave open the possibility that I may be wrong. But I'm confident that I'm right, just as I'm sure you are.

On the other hand, I am attacked and insulted by people like Moonbeam and JohnofSheffield, on the basis that I am bigoted, stupid, immoral, and intolerant, which apart from its outright hypocricy, is demonstrably false if one cares to look over my posts in this thread. But they cannot be bothered.

Liberals are supposed to be about freedom of speech, thought, and open-mindedness. This type of behavior does not become you.

Well, so far I haven't attacked you, I merely suggested you attempt to understand the definition of bigotry and intolerance. Nor am I advocating that you be silenced. I'm not sure where you're getting all of this, frankly.

 

[thraashman]

The biggest reason why Prop 8 should be illegal is the basic concept behind it. You're allowing a majority of people to vote on an issue that only affects a minority. There is ZERO, none, no, nada, zip, zilch affect on straight marriage if you allow gay marriage. But disallowing gay marriage defies the concept of equal right for all in this nation by letting 100% of the population create a law that doesn't affect 90% at all but seriously negatively affects 10%.

What would happen if a law was put on the ballot requiring all citizens to openly practice a religion of some sort. Well there's about a 12% atheist/non-religious population in this nation and about a 78% being Christian with 62% being members of a church. Well what if that 62% voted this on the ballot and now that 12% was to be forced to adhere to an unfair practice? I'm sure you'd all realize that this is in direct violation of the 1st amendment. But many of you think a majority rule should allow that because the people voted for it.

Well, the 14th amendment says "No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States". Marriage is a privilege, banning a US citizen the privilege of marriage is in direct violation of the 14th amendment WITHOUT A DOUBT!