![]() |
Quote:
|
I have no religious views so this issue is different for me.I am opposed to gay marriage because it's just another thing the gay lobby wants to bitch and cry about when courts should be dealing with much more important issues.The voters of California voted NO to gay marriage, that should be respected but nooo the gay lobby has to go to Federal Court when this is supposed to be a state issue anyway with a judge who is gay(how could he be fair?) and get a sham ruling.Hopefully SCOTUS will settle this once and for all.
|
I'm sorry, but how were gays discriminated against again?
I thought homosexuals were people - not a race unto themselves. Under Prop 8 marriage was defined as a union between a man and a woman. Are gay men not men? Are gay women not women? In fact, I submit that they are men and women! Meaning, they had the SAME rights. What they wanted were SPECIAL rights. (Which is alarming because, in CA, gays are already allowed civil unions which, on paper, is the same thing. Ultimately this is nothing more than an attempt to usurp the term marriage from its traditional meaning, which shows to the shallowness of these activists.) |
Quote:
Anyway, what I meant by cultural "norm" was a little more specific - there have been and no doubt still are cultures where polygamy was/is practiced and is not considered beyond the pale by the society in which it happens. Even if it is not what everybody does (or has the power or financial means to do), it is not considered abnormal when someone else does it. Within the small fringe religious groups that still practice it here in the US, it is indeed considered the cultural norm by those people. It would have been clearer to have said that, in cultures where it is permissible and not considered abnormal, or among subcultures where it is considered the normal thing to do and accept, you will almost without fail find that is tied to practices that involve the abuse, exploitation, and oppression of females. And yes, absolutely, in any culture that allows men the right to marry multiple spouses but prohibits women from doing the same, it is by definition a discriminatory practice and a tool of sexual oppression. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
The very act of defining marriage as being between one man and one woman is discrimination against anyone who feels otherwise and is thereby excluded. Enforcing that definition is indeed denying equality. |
I am a little concerned with why did not the judicial branch in California, evaluate the constitutionality of Prop 8 before the election.
There can only be one of two outcomes of the Prop 8 vote. It passes It fails With only two possible outcomes was it not possible to evaluate the constitutionality of the outcomes? Or was Prop 8 proposed with the assumption that it would fail? If so, that is a very bad assumption and reflects poor judgment on who ever sponsored it. If an outcome of a public vote can be unconstitutional, it probably would be a good idea to fix it before the election. As it stands now, I can understand why people are pissed. Don't ask me my opinion, if my opinion doesn't matter. |
Quote:
In fact if anyone can find one instance of a culture that permits and encourages men but not women to take multiple spouses and in which there is no tendency towards the abuse and oppression of women overall, I will be very much surprised. And let's be honest here: the notion that mutual love, respect and commitment have anything to do with marriage as a contract to be formalized, recognized, and sanctioned by the church and/or state is a fairly modern one. IMO anything that takes the idea of "marriage" even one more step away from its origins as a way of one person buying another (with or without the consent of the person being purchased) for the purposes of cheap domestic labor, sex on demand, and the production of a "legitimate" heir to one's property, can only be a good thing. Personally I suspect that the reason so many fundamentalist religious types have such a problem with same-sex marriage is that when they see two men or two women together they can't figure out which one owns the other and the possibility that neither one of them owns anybody is just too much for them to contemplate without their heads esploding. :O: |
Quote:
Unless of course you're implying that hetero people are by default completely devoid of any biases and prejudices that might come into play. Which is an assumption that the very existence of Proposition 8 makes laughable to begin with. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Ultimately the reasons why two people choose to marry are their own business and nobody else's. That has nothing to do with whether or not they have the right to marry, regardless of the reasons for their desire to do so. Even if it is just for the tax breaks, that still no reason why only straight people should have the option to take advantage of them. |
Quote:
Funny how they never seem to extend that notion to its logical conclusion, which would be to restrict marriage to only those people who are both able and willing to procreate. We don't require straight people to prove that they are fertile and desirous of offspring in order to get a marriage license, we don't nullify their marriages if they fail to reproduce or find out that they can't or decide they don't want to. So obviously the "procreation argument" is utter nonsense from a legal perspective. |
Quote:
I'm not saying the judge ruled fairly, or properly, nor am I saying that he ruled from his own biased viewpoint. Either could be the case; I don't know. But the judge cannot initiate action - he has to wait until the action is brought to his bench. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
|
Quote:
Loving V Virginia was about bestowing the same rights on all men and women under the premise that all men and women are created equal. The issue of gay marriage, namely Prop 8, is specifically based upon the opposite concept, that not all men and women are created equal and therefore not placated by the same laws. A law that marriage is between a man and a woman applies EXACTLY THE SAME to ALL men, and ALL women, despite their sexual orientation. What gays are asking for is something quite different, and although you've cited this ruling repeatedly, it makes no sense in this context. |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
I don't care why people marry each other as long as they do it by mutual consent (which implies mutual respect), with each person free to make an informed decision about it and for reasons that they themselves have agreed make marriage a desirable option. Whether or not they have a right to get married has nothing to do with their reasons for wanting to do so, and IMO no list of presumed "acceptable reasons" put forward by anyone else should have any bearing on their right to do so. |
Quote:
|
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:19 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright © 1995- 2025 Subsim®
"Subsim" is a registered trademark, all rights reserved.