Don't move to Californication

[Pugs]

Originally Posted by Krackels

Wrong.

The institute of marriage (while it wasn't always) is government sanctioned to encourage healthy behavior.

If people live together they don't get the benefits of marriage. If they marry they do. Therefore the government benefits (including the title of being married) are an attempt to encourage healthy behavior.

SOMEBODY LISTEN TO ME:

HOMOSEXUALS ALREADY HAD THE BENEFITS OF BEING MARRIED IN THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA UNDER THE DOMESTIC PARTNERSHIP PROVISION.

The only thing they didn't have was the title and government sanctioning by calling it 'marriage'.

This is nothing more than homosexuals pushing their agenda to try and make their lifestyle more acceptable.

Obviously, I disagree. I disagree with a number of points.

People who live together (if they're an opposite-sex couple) do get the benefits of marriage. Its called common-law marriage. This is not open to homosexuals.

The legal institution of marriage is not about promoting "healthy behaviour." It is about legally defining and protecting the rights of the parties involved. The fallacy of promoting "healthy behaviour" is what led to prohibition, led to telling private businesses that they can't allow smoking (which is a legal activity), led to some of the ridiculous "environmental" laws, etc...

The fact is that "healthy behaviour" is entirely subjective. Trying to legislate your brand of morality onto others is called oppression. Some flavors of Christianity were persecuted and fled Europe because they were being oppressed in this manner. They came to this place now called the United States. They, along with a bunch of atheists, Deists, Naturalists, Creationists, etc... framed the government of this new country to be free from oppression.

Further, I disagree that homosexuals had the benefits of being married under the "Domestic Partnership" statutes. A direct quote from the Supreme Court of California's decision reads that they are afforded: "most of the substantive elements embodied in the constitutional right to marry..." MOST, not all. Kind of like segregated schools were "seperate but equal."

The Fourteenth Amendment includes the provision that everyone receive equal protection under the law. "Seperate but equal" has been ruled to violate this tenent over and over again.

[Krackels]

Originally Posted by DanTheEldest

And now we reach the crux of the matter--does the 14th Amendment actually apply to gays in the area of a "right" to marriage as it's traditionally defined? The question boils down to whether homosexuality is innately inborn, genetic, or whatever you wish to call it in the same way that a black person doesn't have any choice in their skin color, or whether it's a chosen lifestyle that doesn't merit civil rights protection because it is simply that--a choice of behavior.

The very fact that there are 'ex-gays' and former homosexuals should decide that.

I don't know any ex-blacks or ex-Asians.

[chrisxd45t]

Originally Posted by Krackels

We have an amendment in the constitution giving us the right to keep and bear arms.

Not in the California Constitution, which is what I was referring to and what this thread is about.

Originally Posted by Krackels

Show me where it says in the constitution that homosexuals are entitled to government endorsement by redefining marriage to be the joining of any consenting adult.

Homosexuals aren't specifically singled out, but it does say that ALL citizens have certain rights which the government of CA cannot contravene.

Originally Posted by Krackels

This fight for legalizing homosexual marriage is a measure to make homosexuality more accepted that's all.

If that's the case then it's not working, because some people still remain intolerant.

Originally Posted by Krackels

Homosexuals already have the right in the state of California to join into domestic partnerships which give them every benefit of marriage except for the title "Married".

The practice of "separate but equal" has already been determined to be unfair and unconstitutional.

[Pugs]

Originally Posted by DanTheEldest

And now we reach the crux of the matter--does the 14th Amendment actually apply to gays in the area of a "right" to marriage as it's traditionally defined? The question boils down to whether homosexuality is innately inborn, genetic, or whatever you wish to call it in the same way that a black person doesn't have any choice in their skin color, or whether it's a chosen lifestyle that doesn't merit civil rights protection because it is simply that--a choice of behavior.

Dan,

This argument was used in regards to interracial marriage. I wouldn't be married to my wife right now because I'm a quarter black. I don't know if there were restrictions on my three-quarters Asian part being allowed to marry her or not, but the quarter that's black would have definitely killed our chances of getting married. The argument that was made is that you can "choose" to marry within your own race so interracial marriage is just a choice that doesn't require equal protection under the law.

Or how about the choice to be a manual laborer? Do lower-income people get less protection under the law since they "chose" not to get an education and pusue other careers?

[DanTheEldest]

Originally Posted by Pugs

The fact is that "healthy behaviour" is entirely subjective. Trying to legislate your brand of morality onto others is called oppression. Some flavors of Christianity were persecuted and fled Europe because they were being oppressed in this manner. They came to this place now called the United States. They, along with a bunch of atheists, Deists, Naturalists, Creationists, etc... framed the government of this new country to be free from oppression.

So where does one draw the line? If human sexuality is indeed innate (the central thrust of the gay agenda) and your own life experiences and choices have no bearing on it, then where does it end? If a man decided that his inborn sexuality embraced "non-human" love interests and he wished to make a goat his "wife", should he receive constitutional protection for the union? What about if he's an interspecies polygamist and wants to marry a goat, a sheep, and a horse? By this same logic, if you deny him, you're perpetrating oppression of his sexuality.

[DanTheEldest]

Originally Posted by Pugs

Dan,

This argument was used in regards to interracial marriage. I wouldn't be married to my wife right now because I'm a quarter black. I don't know if there were restrictions on my three-quarters Asian part being allowed to marry her or not, but the quarter that's black would have definitely killed our chances of getting married. The argument that was made is that you can "choose" to marry within your own race so interracial marriage is just a choice that doesn't require equal protection under the law.

The implicit presumption that homosexuality is simply an extension of the civil rights movement is flawed, IMO--a false comparison perpetuated by a movement looking to move from "tolerance" to full "acceptance".

[DanTheEldest]

Originally Posted by Pugs

Dan,

Or how about the choice to be a manual laborer? Do lower-income people get less protection under the law since they "chose" not to get an education and pusue other careers?

I dunno....by the logic of the gay agenda people who do manual labor were doomed to their lifestyle by their genes. They had absolutely no say in the matter.

And honestly, that's just a dumb comparison. Stop trying to make an economics-based straw man.

[Pugs]

Originally Posted by DanTheEldest

I dunno....by the logic of the gay agenda people who do manual labor were doomed to their lifestyle by their genes. They had absolutely no say in the matter.

And honestly, that's just a dumb comparison. Stop trying to make an economics-based straw man.

Agreed,

That was a pretty weak strawman that I threw up there.

I've actually got to do some real work (otherwise they'll makie me into an economics-based strawman!). I'm gonna try to carve out sometime to respond to the other points that you and Krackels made later. By then there'll prolly be a billion other posts to respond to as well!

And I need to thank most everyone in this thread for posting opinions and having a fervent debate without the mud-slinging and personal attacks and profanity that often charge this type of topic.

[DanTheEldest]

Originally Posted by Krackels

The very fact that there are 'ex-gays' and former homosexuals should decide that.

I don't know any ex-blacks or ex-Asians.

Indeed. I've found it interesting how many woman became lesbians after experiencing male-related trauma earlier in their lives, whether it was molestation in childhood or an abusive father, boyfriend, or husband. Likewise with men; there are cases (more than you might think) about previously-straight men who decided they were gay (and sometimes abandoned wives and families) after getting deeply involved in pornography. IMO, human sexuality is anything but genetically determined. If they ever do conclusively find a "gay gene", I'll willingly eat some crow, but I don't see it happening.

[SpringfieldXD.40]

Originally Posted by Pugs

And I need to thank most everyone in this thread for posting opinions and having a fervent debate without the mud-slinging and personal attacks and profanity that often charge this type of topic.

+1 Guys- I have been quietly lurking, following both sides of the debate, and you guys are doing a fine job keeping it friendly. Well done, gentlemen!
(and ladies- sorry- almost forgot about Bree )