• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Ban on gay marriage in CA still unclear

The Bible presents marriage as a divine institution. If marriage were of human origin, then human beings would have a right to decide the kind of marital relationships to choose. Marriage, however, began with God.
Click to expand...

So again... only Jewish, Christian, and Islamic marriages are valid? :confused:
 
Truth Detector said:
Marriage is not discrimination. It is a ceremony between a man and a woman to create a binding contract in the eyes of God to procreate and have children.
Click to expand...
Is that what happens at city halls? A contract before god?
 
Heretic said:
So again... only Jewish, Christian, and Islamic marriages are valid? :confused:
Click to expand...
Quick learner:mrgreen: Didn't you know that, all marriages were invalid until the bible came along.
Forget that this is a secular nation built on the principle of freedom and that marriage is a state issue not a religious issue.
 
asking for legal experts to clear this up...
Just what is the distinctionn in the eyes of the law between marraige and civil union?
 
Truth Detector said:
How is that? Now you are attempting to divine a meaning I never stated?

My Statement:

The purpose of marriage between a man and a woman is to provide a contract that binds them in a solemn promise before God for life to procreate and create and raise children as a FAMILY. Gays cannot procreate, it is a LIFE style. Only a MAN and a WOMAN can.

How is that suggesting that a man and a woman who may choose not to have children don’t meet this requirement? Are you suggesting that they won’t?
Click to expand...

Because one of the reasons you give that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry is because they can't procreate and your tenets of marriage imply that marriage is for the purpose of procreating.

Well there you go; you think we should all abide by YOUR opinion. But that doesn’t make a compelling argument. There is nothing discriminating about marriage. It is no more discriminating than a small minority attempting to re-define it.
Click to expand...

What is there to abide by? I'm simply saying that it should be an option that people are allowed to choose. How would you have to abide by anything? How would it affect you?

Now you are asking me to educate you in your feigned ignorance?

A Divine Institution.

The Bible presents marriage as a divine institution. If marriage were of human origin, then human beings would have a right to decide the kind of marital relationships to choose. Marriage, however, began with God. It was established by God at the beginning of human history when He "created the heavens and the earth" (Gen 1:1). As the Creator of marriage, God has the right to tell us which principles should govern our marital relationships.

If God had left us no instructions about marriage after establishing it, then marriage could be regulated according to personal whims. But He has not left us in the dark. In His revelation contained in the pages of the Bible, God has revealed His will regarding the nature and function of marriage. As Christians who choose to live in accordance with God’s will, we must study and respect those Biblical principles governing marriage, divorce, and remarriage. In some instances, the laws of a state regarding marriage, divorce and remarriage ignore or even violate the teachings of the Bible. In such cases, as Christians, "we must obey God rather than men" (Acts 5:29).

The Institution of Marriage

Another great essay on the topic:

Definitions
These perspectives share a concern to define marriage, whether as a means to trace the evolutionary development of its different types or as a prelude to the identification of its distinctive functions in society. Many attempts have been made to identify the essential nature of marriage and to list its purposes, a project often as revealing of the observer's assumptions as of the observed practices. Across cultures, the ceremonial and social phenomena conventionally defined as marriage assume myriad forms and serve varied purposes, yet marriage is usually defined as the formal ideological recognition of a sexual relationship between one man and one woman (monogamy) ; among one man and two or more women (polygamy: polygyny) ; or among one woman and two or more men (polygamy: polyandry). Because sexual intercourse is approved in this relationship, the children of a marriage usually possess a status superior to children born beyond its boundaries.

In an argument against such essentialism, the anthropologist Edmund Leach rejected universal definitions and instead approached marriage as a ‘bundle of rights’. Among the classes of rights allocated by institutions ‘commonly classed as marriage’, Leach noted that in different societies ‘marriage’ may serve:

(i) to establish the legal father of a woman's children;
(ii) to establish the legal mother of a man's children;
(iii) to give the husband a monopoly in the wife's sexuality;
(iv) to give the wife a monopoly in the husband's sexuality;
(v) to give the husband partial or monopolistic rights to the wife's domestic or other labour services;
(vi) to give the wife partial or monopolistic rights to the husband's labour services;
(vii) to give the husband rights over the property of his wife;
(viii) to give the wife rights over the property of her husband;
(ix) to establish a joint fund of property, a partnership, for the benefit of the children of the marriage; and
(x) to establish a socially significant ‘relationship of affinity’ between the husband and his wife's brothers.

Leach's essay, and the debate it provoked in the late 1950s, had a seminal influence on approaches to marriage as an ethnographic problem, as a culturally specific set of beliefs, practices, and institutions. Because marriage did not establish all of these types of rights in any known society, Leach concluded that the ‘institutions commonly described as marriage do not all have the same legal and social concomitants’ and that the meaning of marriage in any society could emerge only from detailed investigation of its ethnographic context. At the same time, Leach's essay typified an approach that has focused on how marriage may structure relationships between individuals and among groups, and has stressed the interrelationship of principles of descent, rules of residence, and issues of power over property.

marriage: Definition, Synonyms from Answers.com

I will give you and others the last word; I have made my argument.
Click to expand...

Considering that marriage isn't limited to Christianity, I see no reason for the Bible's ideals of marriage to be the ultimate ideals of marriage for everyone. Again, other religions perform marriages too. Should their views just be tossed aside? I personally didn't even get married in a church, but in a courthouse. Does that mean my marriage isn't good enough because it doesn't follow the tenets of the Bible exactly? As rivrrat already stated, marriage isn't limited to religion either, but it is also a legal contract. Why should one religion get to define tenets of marriage and who should or shouldn't be allowed to get married?
 
rivrrat said:
Denying it to one group of people IS discrimination.


Why should they be content with being discriminated against? With "separate but equal"? Not to mention the fact that civil unions don't give the same legal privileges.

Why weren't blacks happy not being allowed to marry whites? Why weren't women happy not being allowed to vote?

I agree that marriage SHOULD be a religious ceremony ONLY. I don't think the state should be involved at all. No rights or priviileges should be granted to anyone, it should just be a religious thing.

However, that's NOT the way it is. It's not a religious ceremony, it's a legal contract that CAN be celebrated with a religious ceremony but certainly does not have to be. And as it is now, what the anti-gay marriage folks are doing is legalizing discrimination in the name of religion for something that is a legal contract.
Click to expand...
Isn't marriage a form of slavery? Should we allow the enslavement of a certain segment of the population? I believe there is a Constitutional amendment forbidding it.
 
Truth Detector said:
Marriage is not discrimination. It is a ceremony between a man and a woman to create a binding contract in the eyes of God to procreate and have children.
Click to expand...

Gods do not issue the marriage license.
 
ludahai said:
No, it doesn't mean that. It means that given the same situation (i.e. man marrying a woman) all must be treated equally. Man marrying man is NOT the same situation, so equal protection does NOT apply. If you can find a SCOTUS decision where it does, I will stand down, but I don't think it exists.
Click to expand...

Let's make this a logic sentence:

"All women have the right to X, but men do not have this right."

If X is "drive a car," surely you would agree that this law is gender discrimination and violates the 14th amendment.

If X is "marry a man," then the same should apply. I have not changed any of the fundamentals other than what X is.
 
Cultural Ignorance

"Cultural Ignorance"
dclxvinoise said:
Truth Doctor said:
Why don't you explain why Gay activists cannot be content with Civil Unions?
Click to expand...
Why should they have to be? Why aren't churches content with the government allowing gay marriage, and not forcing them to perform them if it goes against their belief system?
Click to expand...
The government has not outlawed or prohibited the formation of civil unions (marriages); the government (at the direction of the public) chooses to allow registration of certain styled civil unions (marriages) with the purpose of providing some benefit.

That is how positive rights work, and positive rights may not be equally endowed; see affirmative action.

***

The fundamental issue to confront is the entitlement society, which perceives that egalitarianism is mandated by the constitution through some generalized association with terms "equal rights" and anti-discrimination.

The constitution of most liberal democracies is written in terms of negative rights, in terms of restrictions on government, as obligations of government to abstain from certain actions.
Negative rights contain an inherent property which facilitates the "equal protection of laws".

Second and third generation rights (positive rights, positive obligations) are argued against because they can overwhelm the first generation rights (negative rights, negative obligations) of individuals -- the right to be left alone.

As positive rights can be instituted in the range from responsible to ridiculous, one is encouraged to emphasize a deontology of negative rights and remain aversive to the consequentialism of postive rights.
 
Last edited:
Ikari said:
Gods do not issue the marriage license.
Click to expand...

It would be cool if they did, though. I mean, if I was going to get married and Zeus signed my license by hurling a lightning bolt at it, then i'd be ecstatic! Plus I think the divorce rate would go down, and there would be some really cool jokes going around, things like, "I knew my marriage was doomed from the start when Cthulu issued our license".
 
American said:
Isn't marriage a form of slavery? Should we allow the enslavement of a certain segment of the population? I believe there is a Constitutional amendment forbidding it.
Click to expand...

I don't disagree. ;) I just think that everyone should be allowed to choose whether or not to willingly allow themselves to be enslaved. :mrgreen:
 
rivrrat said:
I don't disagree. ;) I just think that everyone should be allowed to choose whether or not to willingly allow themselves to be enslaved. :mrgreen:
Click to expand...
Bear in mind that it carries a death sentence, as in "til death do us part"....;)
 
Excellent graphic showing county by county where the margins for or against were in the state:

Proposition 8 and Proposition 22: A tale of two votes - Los Angeles Times

Obviously only the populous SF Bay Area/central coast was strongly for the amendment while large areas of the state were against it. I would speculate that many more in the Bay Area would have rejected it had it not been from the overwhelming local media barrage condemning the proposition. Thus the usual bogus shame ploy obvious worked on many who probably don't have strong opinions and could be easily influenced otherwise in the future. Outside of LA County and the SF Bay Area counties, I doubt the same sex avocates can influence much in the way of change in the future. Some more demographics from the exit polling:

cbs5.com - Black, Religious Voters Backed Gay Marriage Ban
 
Truth Detector said:
I don't discriminate or hate; that is your forte'. I take offense with your desperate attempts to suggest that I do.

There is nothing hateful or indiscriminate about merely questioning the reasons same sex couples so desperately want to redefine a term that has been with us for over 2000 years and FALSLEY claim it as a RIGHT.

The purpose of marriage between a man and a woman is to provide a contract that binds them in a solemn promise before God for life to procreate and create and raise children as a FAMILY. Gays cannot procreate, it is a LIFE style. Only a MAN and a WOMAN can.

Your desperate hysterical drama has been noted however.

I expect the gay activists and disrespectful Liberal activists to carry on with their hysterics and law breaking behavior. After all, the ONLY laws they follow are the laws THEY agree with. Thank God the majority of us don't all act out in such an immature, irrational and narcissistic way.
Click to expand...

Marriage in the *Christian view has been a religious institution for 2000 years. Also in the Christian view is marriage only for procreate, there are many married couples that don't believe in procreation or would rather adopt so with this view they could be the next victims of religious prosecution. In some cultures marriage is also used to gain property or other goods.

It is hateful to say that one loving couple shouldn't have the same rights as another to marry be it because the couple are from different religions, different shades of skin color, different parts of the world, the same gender or any other reason that religion has tried to bar certain groups the right to marry.

What about native populations of the 7 continents that where married by elders of the tribe or others where marriage was nothing more then a man picking a mate and moving her into his dwelling.

Sadly a lot of religious people have a Christian and Eurocentric view of the world, they refuse to understand that not everyone in the world lives the way they do, they then turn around and try and force people to conform to their view point, in many cases people who refused to conform where murdered or wiped out (see Native American genocide), I fear the dark path where banning gays marriage will lead to, I fear intolerant religious people who are so convinced their way is the only way that they will stop at nothing to force people to conform or die. History is stained in blood that shows I have good reason to fear.

*I use the term Christian because you yourself are using what sounds like Christian arguments, you claim to not go to church but I am guessing you still hold certain Christian views and the main backers of Prop H8te where Christian, I know other Religions like Islam and Judaism had similar people who are intolerant of homosexuality, I didn't want to single out just one group of hateful people, but it saves time typing out one group.
 
Last edited:
There are still millions of provisional ballots and absentee ballots that have not been counted, so we still have a little while before we no for sure if California passed prop h8te or not.
 
downthecenter said:
I like you don't believe that "marriage" should be the word, because it offends people on the right
Click to expand...

Allowing blacks to sit in the front of the bus and to drink from the same drinking fountains as the rest of society probably offended many on the "right" as well. But we changed the laws in spite of it because the laws were unfair, discriminatory and wrong.
 
disneydude said:
Allowing blacks to sit in the front of the bus and to drink from the same drinking fountains as the rest of society probably offended many on the "right" as well. But we changed the laws in spite of it because the laws were unfair, discriminatory and wrong.
Click to expand...

In spite of the wishes of a great deal of the Democratic party, who passed pretty much all of the segregationist and Jim Crow laws, yes. "Right" indeed.

(Sure, if "right" simply means "bad.")
 
Negative Rights

"Negative Rights"
veganshawn said:
It is hateful to say that one loving couple shouldn't have the same rights as another to marry be it because the couple are from different religions, different shades of skin color, different parts of the world, the same gender or any other reason that religion has tried to bar certain groups the right to marry.
Click to expand...
The right to marry -- aka. form civil unions exists; there are no laws against the formation of civil unions -- aka. marriages; the negative right to form civil contracts exists.

This issue is about requesting, and being granted, positive obligations of the public government; yet, the public government is not mandated to equally endow positive rights.
 
Last edited:
Harshaw said:
In spite of the wishes of a great deal of the Democratic party, who passed pretty much all of the segregationist and Jim Crow laws, yes. "Right" indeed.

(Sure, if "right" simply means "bad.")
Click to expand...

It was placed in quotes to make reference to the post I was responding to.

The point being.....just because changing something that is wrong might offend someone is generally not a good reason to resist doing the right thing.
 
disneydude said:
Allowing blacks to sit in the front of the bus and to drink from the same drinking fountains as the rest of society probably offended many on the "right" as well. But we changed the laws in spite of it because the laws were unfair, discriminatory and wrong.
Click to expand...

You should probably have read my entire post. I stated that I believe we should come to middle and allow for all people to be happy. It's a very simple process, allow civil unions for those who are "gay" and allow "marriage" for those who are not. We have to afford the same rights for all people in our nation. But that doesn't mean that we have to call it the same. They don't call it the same thing in Spain and everyone there is happy. Civil Unions with full status rights are the perfect solutions. If you would pay attention to what I am saying you would fully grasp what I am hoping for. On a Federal level we need to protect the rights of both homo/hetero union. If the word "marriage" upsets people, then we change that and offer the same rights branded differently.

Why you would compare that to Jim Crowe laws is beyond me. I'm from the South and I would never advocate taking away the rights of any human being. These are two different issues from two different eras.
 
downthecenter - the reason why people compare them to Jim Crowe laws is the separate but equal notion of marriage vs civil union.
 
UtahBill said:
asking for legal experts to clear this up...
Just what is the distinctionn in the eyes of the law between marraige and civil union?
Click to expand...

One is recognition. Marriages are recognized by both the state govenrments and the federal. Civil unions are not, and may be invalidated or ignored depending on which state you move to after getting one.
 
veganshawn said:
downthecenter - the reason why people compare them to Jim Crowe laws is the separate but equal notion of marriage vs civil union.
Click to expand...

Shawn- I understand why they compare the two. But again it is two very different ideas. Jim Crow laws were separate but equal laws. I'm not talking a definition of separation. I'm not saying that we redefine and reconstitute Jim Crow type laws. I'm saying that we simply affirm that Civil Unions and Marriage are equal institutions and have the same rights and privileges. It is okay to define marriage in many different forms. If the "marriage" word is so divisive, yet many Americans would accept "civil unions" why not push forward with that. Why not allow every person in this nation to have rights as "joint tenants in common" whether they be straight or gay. That is what I am stating. Jim Crow laws were segregation laws that were meant to subjugate a "lesser" people. This idea is both antiquated and does not fit into what we want here.

Give the "right" their marriage and give the "left" their civil unions. It's really quite simple. Every person should have the same privileges. Regardless of what people want to call it.
 
downthecenter said:
Shawn- I understand why they compare the two. But again it is two very different ideas. Jim Crow laws were separate but equal laws. I'm not talking a definition of separation. I'm not saying that we redefine and reconstitute Jim Crow type laws. I'm saying that we simply affirm that Civil Unions and Marriage are equal institutions and have the same rights and privileges. It is okay to define marriage in many different forms. If the "marriage" word is so divisive, yet many Americans would accept "civil unions" why not push forward with that. Why not allow every person in this nation to have rights as "joint tenants in common" whether they be straight or gay. That is what I am stating. Jim Crow laws were segregation laws that were meant to subjugate a "lesser" people. This idea is both antiquated and does not fit into what we want here.

Give the "right" their marriage and give the "left" their civil unions. It's really quite simple. Every person should have the same privileges. Regardless of what people want to call it.
Click to expand...

I think given the choice most would take civil union over nothing, but what happens to a marriage like mine where my wife and I are both agnostic, if we define marriage only by religious terms do I have to call my marriage a civil union? Where do we draw the line on religious intolerance?
And in many cases the same people (who passed this law) would try and ban civil unions for being to much like marriage? I know that many on the right say it isn't about h8te, but I beg to differ.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom