The silenced majority

apple =/= orange.

The way your argument would work is if one was actually required to be heterosexual in order to get married.

Again, your position has been reduced to seeking to change language & understanding without popular support to do so.

Why do you perceive me as having a problem with homosexual people?

"We" are not actually wanting or trying to discriminate. We are just standing in defense of our traditional culture & Republic as it teeters on the brink of all out social re-engineering from a top down egalitarian authoritarianism.

Singularity

I can certainly see your side of it. You want a way to keep the institution of marriage limited to heterosexuals only--specificially one man and one woman. And while there is no logical, airtight, and secular argument for keeping homosexuals out of the institution, there is most certainly a religious one. Unfortunately, our legal system separates church and state, so this presents two problems: first, your only airtight argument flies out the window, and secondly, the absence of that very argument eliminates any good reason to exclude homosexuals from changing the legal definition to include them. So how can we legally discriminate by allowing heterosexuals the priviledge to marry the autonomous, rational partner of their choosing, yet eliminate homosexuals from participating?

The answer is to keep the legal meaning of "marriage" as defined (and ONLY defined) as between one man and one woman. This is a tricky position to defend when religion is taken out of the equation. Those who push for marriage equality realize the institution is discriminatory and there is no reason the definition can't be changed. There is nothing wrong with homosexuality and allowing homosexual couples the right to marry is one step closer to acceptance. The acceptance argument is used by those in opposition to marriage equality, too, but from the other side of the fence. The institution is discriminatory ONLY on number and gender preference, and allowing homosexual couples to marry is one step closer to acceptance, which is something that must not happen. Therefore, keep the definition limited to heterosexual preference only.

We all know the arguments VERY well; what fascinates me more than the argument, though, is the experiences behind each of them. What leads a person to either defend the marriage argument or claim the institution is discriminatory if it is limited to one man and one woman? I'm guilty of assuming (and wrongfully so, i'm sure) that many of those so-called "defense of marriage" people have had very limited contact with homosexuals, and most certainly don't have homosexual friends and/or family members. Isn't it terrible to assume that?

I don't know why. I've always just assumed that those people really dislike gay people and have some deep-rooted belief system against homosexuality, and that's why the gay marriage issue must be fought with such fervor. And you know what? The reality could be that many who are against gay marriage have no problem with homosexuality (or even gay marriage itself), but want the process to come about democratically, not through judicial activism.

In any case, maybe i'm becoming one of those aged codgers who thinks that the other sides' argument is automatically wrong! Man, am I getting that old!?

The silenced majority

Oh no. You again.

I promise to respond tomorrow when I have more time as your posts are always well worded and not easy to address with the limited amount of time that I have at the present moment.

As a bit of a brief response, I'm not opposed to homosexuals seeking to have the equal protections under the law that they currently enjoy and want maintained. My position is in defense of our traditional culture as it constantly faces slanderous indictments as being a product of racism, homophobia, sexism,classism etc..

I see the pro-gay marriage crowd as having characteristics indicative of being such a movement. More often then not the argument is made that our society once prevented blacks from marrying whites leading to the natural assumption that any characteristics of traditional culture = wrong (racist, sexist, homophobic etc...).

Anything/anyone that defends traditional culture is "wrong" just as well.


More often than not, just as well, the argument is made that anything culturally rooted in religion has no Constitutional justification, which is correct. That isn't to say that such cultural traditions do not have "value".

We are a people who stand on the shoulders of Giants and have the luxury of debating such trivial matters like gay marriage because of the great men that came before us.

If these "great men" were steeped in the traditions of such an oppressive theocratic culture that needs to be socially upturned, why then did they give us the freedom and liberty to do so?

CaptainCourtesy

And there are plenty more of them...all giving the same results.

__________________
"Never fear. Him is here" - Captain Chaos (Dom DeLuise), Cannonball Run

====||:-D

Orius

What do you mean by "traditional culture"? I would like this defined.

In lack of your definition, I will assume what you mean by "traditional culture" so that I can respond to this comment. It's not that traditional culture is being oppressed or deemed "wrong" (although there are some who believe this), it's that "traditional culture" (i.e. gays should not be married) is trying to create universal applications upon the rest of society.

If we are living in a pluralistic society, then you have every right to practice "traditional culture", but others should have the right to not practice it. No one is forcing you to marry a man as your way of life, but if my way of life involves marrying a man then what does that have to do with you?

I personally don't get "traditional culture", but I see no reason why you should be barred from practicing it. Gay marriage is not an attack on traditional culture, it is an assertion that non-traditional culture should have the right to co-exist with traditional culture. Again, no one is preventing you from marrying a woman, and no one is forcing you to marry a man. If you want to uphold traditional culture, then you practice it.

I believe religion has value even though I'm not religious, but I do not agree with religion being able to enter its own value judgments into law which hinders other from living life non-religiously. Similarly, if it is your religious belief that two men should not marry, then don't marry a man, it's that simple. I am not religious and I see no problem with marrying a man, and since there is no rational argument to be presented for why pluralism cannot include two married men or two married women, there is no reason to deny them this right.

If it's so trivial then why is the right-wing fighting it tooth and nail? Why not just let gays have their marriage and then move on with your traditional way of life? The answer to that question is that the hardline conservatives not only wish to perpetuate traditional living themselves, but they also think that the rest of society should conform to the same principles, a society that is diverse and holds many different cultural and social values. This is where I have a problem.

Yes, in the grand scheme there are many more important things we could be discussing, but central to this issue is that it seems, based on the precepts of what "shouldn't" be allowed according to religion, that every attempt is being made to enter that religious value into law. One problem: this is a pluralistic society and not everyone is Christian. Not everyone is religious. Not every religious person thinks same-sex marriage is a problem.

The answer is that they accounted for religion in their legislation, but didn't limit it to religion. This means that you, as a religious person, can practice your beliefs without discrimination, but that religion does not have the authority to tell the other half what to do and not do, as was the case with the Church of England. However, now the Church and religion is getting mixed up in politics again, which denegrades and minimizes the democratic freedoms that non-religious individuals hold dear.

In Canada, gay marriage passed with no problem. Now it is a thing of the past. A few hardline groups are trying to get it changed, but they won't succeed. The thing is, the vast majority are not for or against it, they simply don't care as they are not gay and thus it has no relevance to their lives. Now you never hear about it, because it really isn't a big deal.

the makeout hobo

Who is attacking the founding fathers here? You're finding affronts where there are none. Most pro-gay marriage advocates are largely fine with our culture, there's just one small thing that needs to be improved on. These great men knew that, they knew that society was going to mature and grow over time, that's why most of our founding fathers encouraged changing society of needed. After all, as one of the greatest once said, "The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." Luckily we've progressed as a society past the point that our problems need to be solved with blood, but the essential message, that we must always and continually fight for a better society, stands to this day.

__________________
The Makeout Hobo is real, and does indeed travel around the country in his van and make out with ladies... If you meet the Makeout Hobo, it is customary to greet him with a shot of whiskey and a high five (if you are a dude) or passionate makeouts (if you are a lady).Vague is a man of honor

The silenced majority

I'll try to sum it up using characteristics: Christianity, capitalism, authority, the family, patriarchy, hierarchy, morality, tradition, self restraint, loyalty, prescription, prudence, patriotism, private property, individuality, upward (or downward) social mobility, nationalism, heredity, ethnocentrism, convention, continuity and conservatism.

Basically the long standing things in our culture that shouldn't be constantly impugned because it's now vogue to view America, American culture & society as the workings of racists, bigots & homophobes.

The public itself had already created the universal application when it contracted the government to provide legal benefits to married couples. Gays are not discriminated against. They are free to marry as long their association falls within the qualifications that the public has set be eligible for marriage.

In a pluralistic society one side has the right to object to government putting it's stamp of approval on homosexuality too. If & when the Govt places homosexual marriage on par with hetero marriage (the fact that I even have to say is a "hetero marriage" is a victory for you people), then the distinct role that 2 parents of the opposite sex play in raising children is blurred and lost forever.

This isn't about extending benefits. It's about changing the existing understanding of what a word means.

No. If the public doesn't see a purpose in changing the definition of marriage to include homosexuals, they won't When the courts arbitrarily say that 2 homosexuals have a "right" to be married, when it's the public that establishes the criteria for marriage, it creates a detachment and resentment for government IMO.

If traditional marriage continues to be impugned as being discriminatory, it's not going to bode well for the gay rights movement IMO.



The public establishes the qualifications for legal marriage, if the public doesn't want to include homosexual relationships as qualified for marriage, it's the public's prerogative to not include them.

People who oppose homosexuality for religious reasons have no "right" to take away homosexuals basic Constitutional rights, but they do have the "right" to not change the legal understanding of the definition of marriage to include homosexual relationships.

They can cite Leviticus if they want to.



Some of us are tired of ceding ground to identity-groups that target anything in the aforementioned definition of traditional culture , portraying their demands as - civil rights denied.

You don't have to live by their social values; why is the gay marriage movement forcing the traditionalists to live by theirs?

As long as a majority of the public sees no reason in changing the existing legal understanding of what marriage is, or continues to seek referendums defining marriage as a union of 1 man and 1 woman, religion or not, homosexual marriage isn't going to happen.

Then the only logical course of action is then seeking to end government recognized marriage on a basis that it's discriminatory to homosexuals & take it to the courts.

That should win over a lot of people who were on the other side of the issue.

Please.

The only reason why religious people are involved with politics at all is because 60+ years of creeping secularism has America on the bring of being an all out ideological P.C. authoritarian state; a society that is currently erasing it's distinct cultural history & identity in lieu of a feel-good multi-cultural one.

How many laws have been written in past 30 years that involved the re-introduction of religion in to politics BTW?

I'm a federalist. If a State wants to legalize whatever; I'm fine with that. Just as long as my State and our electorate aren't forced to go along with it.

No offense, you could probably imagine what I think of the opinions of foreigners.

obvious Child

Irrelevant. Under the California Constitution, the State Supreme Court is mandated to uphold the California Constitution as well as the Federal Constitution.

See Scalia showing that argument to be a giant myth. When SCALIA says there is no such thing as an Activist Judge and effectively stated that those who use that are defining it as any judge who rules in a fashion you dislike, your argument is fundamentally weak.

Just because the people all want something does not make it right nor does it make it Constitutional.

__________________
"Maybe God doesn't care how you say your prayers, just as long as you say them" - Jeffery Sinclair

obvious Child

So "traditional marriage" really means whatever the hell we want it to mean. That's stupid. If we looked at history for what traditional marriage really is, we see that the traditions of marriage are constantly changing. In Europe, Marriage has essentially come full circle.

Which proves that the public is a bunch of idiots. It doesn't even understand the terms it uses.

faminedynasty

If that's terrible then I'm abominable, because I tend to assume that those on the wrong side of gay marriage (those in opposition to its legalization) would have been on the wrong side of the issue of slavery and the wrong side of the issue of segregation. It's not systematic oppression near the extent of those other atrocities, but it is similarly an appeal to tradition in an attempt to deny people basic rights (and something that is essential to their happiness as human beings) simply because of the way they are born.

__________________
"We may have destroyed this country, but we got rich doing it!" --The GOP
There is a special place in hell for those who care only about themselves.