SF throws down the gauntlet to Cali

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Society in general. I think we do very well with marriage as it is, and I think we do poorly when we get away from that.

What do you mean, "get away from that"? When have we gotten away from marriage as man/woman and in what respect has society faired poorly due to it?

[Ben Kenobi]

Just because the majority of people vote for or against something does not make it the right thing to do.

But in a democratic society, that is how we decide what the law should be. I see no good reason put forth to change the law, or why the minority opinion ought to supercede the majority.

Can you tell us how it effects you if John and John got married.

Does it matter? If I were a white man, and don't plan to marry a black woman, how does it matter to me if we remove laws against miscegenation?

This question presupposes that one can only act on laws that effect one personally. If that were so, white men could not march with the Blacks in Birmingham. Nor could straight men support homosexuals.

Even if you feel it's an abomination against God, it still has no real effect on you.

To which I reply, "No man is an island, entirely of himself. Every man is a piece of the continent, a part of the main."

Even if your children see it they won't catch it and become gay. Your wife won't wake up one morning with homo fever.

I make neither argument. Please continue stomping on those strawmen.

Why can't you let these peopel marry.

Men and women are not mere interchangeable parts to be swapped at will in a contract. Marriage is much more than a contract, and derives benefits precisely because it joins one man and one woman together.

Also many gay people have fought and died for this country.

I don't dispute that, nor do I denigrate homosexuals.

They deserve every right of an american citizen.

And what right are they denied? They can marry a person of the opposite sex just like everyone else.

[Ben Kenobi]

"get away from that"? When have we gotten away from marriage as man/woman and in what respect has society faired poorly due to it?

I cannot answer that question because we have not yet gotten away from marriage as being one man or one woman.

Yet, one can make speculations based on divorce. You have children growing up in broken families, with a single parent. On average, these children do much worse than a child in a home that has remained together.

The same we can say for children raised without a father or a mother. Children need role models in parents of both genders in order to properly function in society. They need to learn their roles, as well as how to interact with the other side.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
I cannot answer that question because we have not yet gotten away from marriage as being one man or one woman.

Oh, from your tone, I thought you had a concrete example.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Yet, one can make speculations based on divorce. You have children growing up in broken families, with a single parent. On average, these children do much worse than a child in a home that has remained together.

How are children in broken homes relevant to a pair of gays who don't want children?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
The same we can say for children raised without a father or a mother. Children need role models in parents of both genders in order to properly function in society. They need to learn their roles, as well as how to interact with the other side.

Why do you assume that children from a gay marriage wouldn't have a gender role model of the other sex? (trying to avoid the obvious butch/*****/transgender point) I am the product of a single parent and my grandfather was my male role model. I don't see why a 2 parent gay household wouldn't include grandparents into the equation. Not that I really believe you need both genders to raise a healthy child, as I haven't seen any evidence that a product of a single sex coupling is any less of a socially fit person than that of a normal marriage.

[Ben Kenobi]

relevant to a pair of gays who don't want children?

It's not. Children are the one of the biggest benefits of marriage, so those gays fail to derive this benefit from their union.

Why do you assume that children from a gay marriage wouldn't have a gender role model of the other sex?

Why should we encourage and advocate marriage without these built-in role models? If one of the benefits of marriage are these role models for children, then the inability of same sex unions to provide them inside the union, is a good reason to treat them differently from marriage.

I am the product of a single parent and my grandfather was my male role model. I don't see why a 2 parent gay household wouldn't include grandparents into the equation.

It is not the ideal situation. You have been fortunate to have a grandparent as a male role model.

Not that I really believe you need both genders to raise a healthy child,

Why then do you reflect fondly on your grandfather? Your own argument refutes you.

as I haven't seen any evidence that a product of a single sex coupling

What product can come from such coupling?

Secondly, children are not products to be bought and sold at will. They are not owned by their parents, nor are they to be distributed on demand.

[Pax]

1. In this society we elect officials to make laws in our best interest. We made not always agree with those laws. Some laws may not actually effect you. This one does not in the sense that you feel it does. That is to say it does not actually speak to your religous points of view. It does not even challenge your beliefs. It only makes a statement about the men and women who want to marry eachother. If you are a a christian you should join a church that has a pastor that will not perform same sex marriages. Then you don't have to worry about what gays do or don't do.

2. Bayard Rustin worked hand in hand with Martin Luther King in the struggle for rights for all americans and even when african americans are enjoying the fruits of his labor. The gay community that he represents is still unaccepted members of society. Gays, straights, arabs through Z should all be working to advance the cause of freedom, here and elsewhere.

3. You're right no man is an island. It's actually your unacceptance to give people freedoms that's the worst plague on society. Your statement saying that gays are free to marry anyone outside of their sex is saying that they are free to follow your beliefs but not theirs. that's great. I'm glad to be an american where at least I know I'm free!

4. There are many laws in place that are actually damaging to American soicety, to the world. Gay marriage is not one of them.

5. Ben people love who they love. Allowing gays to marry is showing that you believe in the founding fathers vision. It's saying that you respect other people opinion.

6. One of the issues that black americans had during WW1, WW2, Korea, and Vietnam is what am I fighting or again? Our politicians talk about freedom. Let's stop talking about and start being about it.

This is not one nation under god. This is life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.

[Pax]

1. Many couples don't have children. Don't want children. Sometimes children make a couple grow apart.

2. There is no perfect time in world history where the 2 parent household was the be all end all. You must have watched too much leave it beaver and father knows best. Child molestation, prostitution, drugs, and etc came around long before this country was founded. The yankee Clippers used to bring Opium back from the orient. American Companies used child labor, Company towns literally owned their employees. There are no values that you will save by oppressing gays.

3. So what, he liked his grandfather. He could have had his father in the house and hated him. His father could have abused his mother as often happens. Raped his sister as often happens, or been an alcoholic, womanizing, gambling, drug addict as often happens. Or it could be two men of the same sex who love eachother and their adopted child or no child.

4. Getting married for kids, staying in the marriage for kids are two of the worst reasons to be married IMO. The product of marriage is supposed to be love and happiness.

[asleepathewheel]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It's not. Children are the one of the biggest benefits of marriage, so those gays fail to derive this benefit from their union.

Is the primary purpose of marriage procreaction, in your opinion? If so, I can see why you are arguing this. If not, then I'm confused as to the relevance.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why should we encourage and advocate marriage without these built-in role models? If one of the benefits of marriage are these role models for children, then the inability of same sex unions to provide them inside the union, is a good reason to treat them differently from marriage.

What about people that don't want children?

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
It is not the ideal situation. You have been fortunate to have a grandparent as a male role model.

yes

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Why then do you reflect fondly on your grandfather? Your own argument refutes you.

I think that even without my grandparents, I would have been raised to be quite normal on just the strength of my mother. I know plenty of people without a decent gender role model at home that turned out perfectly normal and I know several people from 2 parent households that are pathetic individuals.

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
What product can come from such coupling?

Lesbians can conceive, Gays can adopt. Truthfully, by coupling I meant in the marriage sense, not in the conception sense, I misspoke

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Secondly, children are not products to be bought and sold at will. They are not owned by their parents, nor are they to be distributed on demand.

Where is this coming from?

[Ben Kenobi]

Then you don't have to worry about what gays do or don't do.

Sit in, strap on and shut up!

No thank you. I will speak up on an issue to which I disagree.

Secondly, you fail to address my point on how the majority determines the laws of the United States.

Gays, straights, arabs through Z should all be working to advance the cause of freedom, here and elsewhere.

But why should people only be able to agree with you! You are speaking up for an issue that has no bearing on your life. Why should I not be accorded the same right?

the worst plague on society.

Plague is a strong word. Like how AIDS is the gay plague.

Your statement saying that gays are free to marry anyone outside of their sex is saying that they are free to follow your beliefs but not theirs.

Not my beliefs. That's what the law says in the states, that marriage is between one man or one woman. Isn't that why you are out there railing to change the system?

Secondly, you are free to follow your beliefs in having a lover of the same sex. You are not free to have the state affirm your relationship as marriage.

4. Gay marriage is not one of them.

Evidence please, on the vast and overwhelming benefits provided to American society.

5. Ben people love who they love. Allowing gays to marry is showing that you believe in the founding fathers vision.

I sincerely doubt the founding fathers would sanction homosexual marriage. I believe their thoughts would be closer along the lines of 'perversion.'

Our politicians talk about freedom.

So how are they not free? They can hold any job in the united states. They are not barred or restricted from higher education. They are not beaten or spat upon, or segregated in their daily life. They are free to seek a relationship with a man, if they are a man, and a woman if they are a woman. I find these astonishing freedoms when compared with the black men in the US Army clamouring for freedom in the Second World War.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Indeed, DD. While I'm for gay marriages, it is amusing to see people back San Fran against California's law, while a few months ago they wanted the Alabama Supreme Court judge to get slapped down because he was going against federal law. At least be consistent.

The situations weren't comparable. The Alabama case involved a state official violating the U.S. Constitution by improperly establishing a religious doctrine on government property.

SF is not violating the Constitution, and is in fact undertaking this act precisely to challenge the constitutionality of the state's law prohibiting same-sex marriage.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
SF is not violating the Constitution, and is in fact undertaking this act precisely to challenge the constitutionality of the state's law prohibiting same-sex marriage.

They lack any legal leg to stand on in that arguement given the actions they have taken.

[Ben Kenobi]

1. Many couples don't have children. Don't want children. Sometimes children make a couple grow apart.

So? The vast majority of marriages enjoy benefits from children, and if not the marriage, then society enjoys tremendous benefits from them. The same cannot be applied to homosexual couples.

2. There is no perfect time in world history where the 2 parent household was the be all end all.

No, but this is the ideal. We should always seek to affirm the ideal rather than settling for what we see around us. You by raising this critique, affirm marriage as one man and one woman as the ideal.

You must have watched too much leave it beaver and father knows best.

Nope.

3. So what, he liked his grandfather.

Irrelevant to that point at hand. His grandfather was his male role model, and helped him to become the well adjusted man we know today.

4. Getting married for kids, staying in the marriage for kids are two of the worst reasons to be married IMO.

Why? Staying in the marriage for kids will on average, be better for them than breaking up. Marriage is not easy, and everyone has rough patches. In affirming the love, what will couples do when they find it difficult to love each other? Will they weather the storm, or insist on their entitled happiness?

[Ben Kenobi]

Is the primary purpose of marriage procreaction, in your opinion? If so, I can see why you are arguing this. If not, then I'm confused as to the relevance.

I am saying that children are one of the benefits society recieves from marriage, one of the biggest benefits.

I think that even without my grandparents, I would have been raised to be quite normal on just the strength of my mother.

Are you better off because of your grandfather? Did he not fill in some gaps that your mom could not? Was it sometimes easier to talk to him than your mom?

I know plenty of people without a decent gender role model at home that turned out perfectly normal and I know several people from 2 parent households that are pathetic individuals.

Fallacy of testimony.

Lesbians can conceive, Gays can adopt. Truthfully, by coupling I meant in the marriage sense, not in the conception sense, I misspoke

Again, what product can come from such coupling? If children are the product, then no children can come from the coupling of one man with one man, or one woman and one woman. It just will not happen.

[Agathon]

Ben, if you were a woman and had the same desires you do now, and Mariah Carey came on to you, would you virtuously resist in the name of the Lord?

Remember than the Man himself said that he who looks with lust on a woman has committed adultery already in his heart.

Surely if you cannot control your own affections it is unreasonable to ask gay people to do the same.

[Pax]

1. Are you for the state telling you that you are not allowed to marry the person you love? Then stand for freedom to marry who you want. If you think that the state should decide that consenting adults can't marry then vote for government control of your bedroom and your household. I personally like all the freedom I can get. The air smells better and the beer has more alcohol in it. Seriously, what I was taught in school is that the founders recognized that church and state should be separate. They realized that people are different. I'm sure that the founders would have voted for slavery and against gay marriage. That does not matter as much as the words they left us. A blue print for life. The ideas they left us to with. Freedom of religion, Speech, Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, avoid entangling alliances. I believe in those ideas. Is there an American that does not.

2. Ben, If you are against gay marriage then that's okay. I personally don't want to marry another man or woman so long as I live. I think marriage sucks. But I do believe, that people who are fool enough to jump even with my warnings should be allowed to do so. As far as your religous beliefs, You should be allowed to stand on every corner and preach agianst the abomination. You be allowed to go missions to the gays in their public places and preach the gospel and convert all who are willing to convert. But you should not be allowed to deny them their life.
3. You are misinformed if you think that gays have not been persecuted for the way choose to live. If you think that gays have not been denied jobs you are misninformed. Turn on the news. We don't know how many gays have served this country because they were forced to hide themselves. even today, people look at their gay family members with shame and scorn. They carry this. They don't want to be just like us. they want to be apart of us. Free. Free to marry, to love, work, raise a family. Why can't we give them that.

4. The plague is the plague of fear and unacceptance all that is different from yourself. The plague of persecution, Inquisition, the plague of conflicts between peoples who have more in common than not, yet refuse to allow the other to live as they wish.

[Pax]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi Why? Staying in the marriage for kids will on average, be better for them than breaking up. Marriage is not easy, and everyone has rough patches. In affirming the love, what will couples do when they find it difficult to love each other? Will they weather the storm, or insist on their entitled happiness?

This is an enntirely separate issue, but I've seen many cold households where the parents are just there because of the kids and barely speak too eachother. They would be better off apart or dead because they are not living.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
1. Are you for the state telling you that you are not allowed to marry the person you love?

Are you for the principle that allows inferior governing bodies to pick and choose the laws they will and will not follow? Or to put it more bluntly do you believe that a mayor has the authority to ignore state law?

[Pax]

I believe unjust laws should be changed, challenged, broken in the spirit of the boston tea party.
I guess I'm just a Patriot.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
I believe unjust laws should be changed, challenged, broken in the spirit of the boston tea party.

So Judge Moore was right in what he did then?

[Pax]

If it was an unjust law he was right. But was it unjust?
A muslim man should not have to submit to christian law. If the judge wanted to get a paper weigh with the 10 commandments and put it on his office desk fine, a poster of the 10 commandments on his wall fine. But not in the courtroom, not on the bench, and not in the public spaces. Separate Church and State.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Pax Africanus
But was it unjust?

To him it was. After all if we are willing to let governing bodies to cherry pick which restrictions a democratic society choses to place on thier power, who are we to judge?

[civman2000]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui

Quote:

I think that both issues are almost one and the same. I think it's about ideas this country was founded on. Separation of church and state.

I think they are the same for another reason. A more local legal entity is violating the laws set up by a higher legal entity. In Alabama, the state SC was violating federal Constitutional law. In California, San Fran was violating California state law.

If you condemn one for violation of the law, then I think you have to condemn the other.

I see the second case as SF enforcing federal constitutional law, which is violated by California state law.

Generally on civil disobedience: I believe everyone has the responsibility to stand up for what they believe is right, even in violation of the law. However, in a democratic society, I also believe they do not have the right to resist their punishment for their action. They can and should defy unjust laws, but also accept the consequences of violating those laws because they do not have the right to impose their own beliefs on the rest of the society.

[Pax]

Originally posted by DinoDoc
To him it was. After all if we are willing to let governing bodies to cherry pick which restrictions a democratic society choses to place on thier power, who are we to judge?

I guess that's a good point. Although it makes no sense to me.
A judge.
I work for the government. I am a christian. I may wear a cross or some religious article under my clothes. I am not allowed to force my beliefs on others. In my court there will be all manner of people. I must give them each a fair deal. I cannot be biased.

My first action is to make muslims submit or walk before a representation of my good christian beliefs so now he knows that this is the law I go by he feels that he a muslim will get a fair deal.WTF!!!!

[Ben Kenobi]

Surely if you cannot control your own affections it is unreasonable to ask gay people to do the same.

Agreed.

I won't bang Mariah Carey, if gay people can hold their end up.

How's that for a deal?

[civman2000]

Ben: Say specifically why gays should not be allowed to marry. I understand your arguments that not letting them marry does not discriminate them, but are there any reasons that allowing them to marry would be harmful?

[Ben Kenobi]

1. Are you for the state telling you that you are not allowed to marry the person you love?

Yes. If I love my mother, I ought not to be allowed to marry her.

government control of your bedroom and your household.

Marriage, to be recognised by the state, requires a witness. Ergo, marriage cannot both fall under the provisions of privacy and be recognised by the state.

Seriously, what I was taught in school is that the founders recognized that church and state should be separate.

Remember the established church of England, the Anglicans? That's the whole purpose of a seperation of the church and state, to preserve religious freedom. It does not mean that those who are Christians ought to abandon their principles when they enter the door of the legislature. If that were so, then the entire constitution ought to be thrown out, because you affirm one nation under God.

I'm sure that the founders would have voted for slavery and against gay marriage. That does not matter as much as the words they left us.

If the founders do not interpret the constitution to recognise marriage for homosexuals, why should we?

2. Ben, If you are against gay marriage then that's okay. I personally don't want to marry another man or woman so long as I live. I think marriage sucks. But I do believe, that people who are fool enough to jump even with my warnings should be allowed to do so.

Provided they are one man and one woman. Yes, there are benefits to remaining unmarried. "The one who can accept this, should accept it."

But how many gay men do you hear clamouring for a chaste lifestyle?

But you should not be allowed to deny them their life.

But you just said that people can choose not to get married. How will they die if they are not married?

3. You are misinformed if you think that gays have not been persecuted for the way choose to live.

Why should their homosexual proclivities have anything to do with their job in the military forces? They should not be asked whether they are gay, and it should not matter one whit for their job. The very fact that they are allowed to serve, is evidence that they do have access, that they are not kept out.

people look at their gay family members with shame and scorn.

So? That will not be alleviated by marriage.

Free to marry, to love, work, raise a family. Why can't we give them that.

No one is free to marry whomever they love. Not one of us.

4. The plague is the plague of fear and unacceptance

And AIDS is a plague of sores, and infections, devoted to gays.

[Ben Kenobi]

them to marry would be harmful?

To whom?

To society? To each other? Can't really answer the question unless you specify to whom the harms would apply.

I have already stated some harms to society, in the problems of children growing up without parents of both genders.

[Ben Kenobi]

A muslim man should not have to submit to christian law.

So then a Muslim ought to be able to have four wives?

[MrBaggins]

Society deems it acceptable to raise children in single parent households, however...

[civman2000]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


To whom?

To society? To each other? Can't really answer the question unless you specify to whom the harms would apply.

I have already stated some harms to society, in the problems of children growing up without parents of both genders.

To society. To each other. To anyone.

I'll acknowledge that it is quite possibly harmful for kids to grow up without parents of both genders--so why are single people allowed to adopt? And I would guess that (as others have said) having an abusive father would be worse than having no father and two mothers. And yet we allow the first and not the second.

Is it harmful in any other ways?