Prop 8 Support Defense for those of us who are LDS or like-minded in moral values

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Not at all. I'm not the one trying to impose change.

In a free society, limitations on freedom must be justified. Prohibition of same-sex marriage represents a limitation on the freedom of same-sex couples, and therefore must be justified if it's to be considered legitimate.

That being said, I do think there are plenty of valid reasons to allow same-sex marriage.

 

[DallasApple]

[QUOTEI would say it's unnecessary, since the fact that homosexuality is natural in human society can be inferred from the fact that it does occur naturally.

][/quote]

I would say to that...it is TOTALLY unecessary for a man and a woman to have sex...But unless they were trying to procreate..

Hell...but at least thats "natural"...

YES Im a barbarian...YES I am ...I have had sex thousands and thousands of times( Im 40)...AND had sex deliberately trying to have sex and NOT get pregnant..

Maybe I need to be shot...(in the head)...

Love

Dallas

 

[Magic Man]

I like "Nada" more.

It's not really a question of what you like more. It's a question of not insulting someone. Now, stop.

Right, and to infer from that it's natural in human society is, well, stupid. The claim that it is to express affection is just that: a claim based on projection and one with which experts disagree.

No, the experts do not disagree. Experts agree that it is to express affection. You might want to check actual experts, and not just pick and choose based on which results support your theory. It's obviously natural in human society, considering it's been happening in it for thousands of years.

Not quite. I said it doesn't serve nature's only interest: procreation.

Nature doesn't have interests. A rock is natural, and yet it doesn't procreate. Now, who is projecting? To continue to procreate we kind of need to have an ecosystem able to support all of our procreations D). If we continue to procreate unchecked, that ecosystem will soon no longer be able to support us, and we will not be able to procreate. So, I'd say a measure like homosexuality that helps keep the procreating in check only serves to further the effort to procreate longer. (I know I'm repeating myself, but you seem to have ignored the first time. I assume you'll ignore this too, but oh well.)

That puts the ball in your court. The onus is on you to show it.

Nope. The onus is still on you. For one, you need to show why my previous explanation doesn't hold up (Good luck). For another, you still need to show why homosexuality not adding to procreation means it's bad or why rights should be denied to homosexuals.

 

[Magic Man]

Not at all. I'm not the one trying to impose change.

Again, what do you think Prop 8 is doing? It's imposing a change on the law to ban gay marriage.

Regardless of the semantics, the onus is on you to justify not allowing someone equal rights. If you weren't allowed to own a car because of your race, would the onus be on you to show why you should be allowed to own a car, or would it be on the law to show why you shouldn't be allowed to own one?

Besides, we've given you the reasoning, and you've ignored it. Marriage is a basic human right, as acknowledged by the Supreme Court. So, that right should be extended to everyone assuming they are consenting adults. Now, it's on you to show why its shouldn't be extended to everyone assuming they are consenting adults.

 

[Sententia]

Marriage is a legal contract that bestows additional rights onto the two people entered into the contract and those rights can not be denied to anyone because of race, sex or age. Every man and woman in my country is born with and has the same rights.

Sounds simple yes? If your religion prohibits it then fine that is a personal religious choice but it has nothing to do with the legal union.

 

[Nanda]

Wow, I had all sorts of points to respond with, but Dallas, mball and Penguin seem to have beat me to nearly all of them, and at this late point, I'd just be rehashing.

But I will say that I don't care for being called Nada, and if you can't spell my name right after the error has been called to your attention, then you're attacking me personally (and childishly), and have no place in civilized debate.

 

[cardero]

Now, can someone please give a reason why the benefits of marriage should be extended without resorting to "because it's the right thing to do"?

That would be like asking "Marriage-Good God Y'all-What Is It Good For" which would make an interesting thread in itself. I am not sure of the reasons and extended benefits for marriage but I understand that others really believe in them.

 

[DallasApple]

I'm tired of this,,,

I really am..

Love

Dallas

 

[kiwimac]

And we are trying to show you that our actions are right. That's what makes this point subjective.



Why does progress invole same-sex marriage to me that is a sign of a non-progressing society. Homosexual relations are a sin. God will punish any society that approves of them. Allowing homosexual marriage would bring the natural consiquences of the destruction of our society. The desctruction of society woudl be a violation of my right to a productive and progressive society.



Yes, because society projects a contradictory image that those things are ok.

Althought I wil admit that I include dthe rasing children i my post as more of an extra point rather than a sticking point. I can see how it is p[artially related but it isn't that big of a deal.



Except that as I pointed out above the acceptance of homosexual marriage would bring punishment upon our society. That punishment would adversly affect me and thus violate my rights.

The troubles happening in todays world aren't just an accident. They are the result of the wickedness of the world.

How about a deal. We gather all those who want have a homosexual marriage in one place and all of those who want heterosexual marriages in another place. That way both can have what they want and the consiquences of either group wont adversely affect the other.

Please prove that a: Homosexuality is a sin and that b: that homosexuality AND THAT HOMOSEXUALITY ALONE will bring punishment on a society.

 

[LuisDantas]

One of the hardest things in this kind of thread is to actually put oneself in the shoes of those who disagree with us.

There's been plenty of encouragement (not all of it sound or sane) for the Prop 8 supporters to do so. But it occurred to me today that I have a hard time reciprocicating, so let's see what I can muster in written form. So, the thoughts below are my attempt at thinking of myself as well-meaning supporter of Prop 8 would. Needless to say, I may be guessing very wrong, which is why I'm doing this in the open, so that the most glaring mistakes may be called to task. (As painlessly as reasonably possible, I hope)

- Marriage is a very significant matter indeed (for someone with my beliefs); one of a very few select goals worth shaping one's life around. It's a window of opportunity for entering into a life that grants both valued responsibilities and unique, delightful rewards.

- Still, it is not at all easy to find true communion with a spouse these days (that's probably a good part of the reason why I joined my faith in the first place: to be among people that are likely to share or at least respect my most personal goals and perhaps cooperate with them at the most intimate levels).

- The answer, of course, is certainly not to give up on thrusting a spouse-to-be. That way lies nihilism and hopelessness, which I am certainly not courting. I would much rather be called a fool for an honest, dedicated attempt at attaining a life with full meaning and happiness than be recognized as a wise man just because I correctly predicted harsh and hopeless times.

- And yet, all too often I end up being accused of not want to cooperate, of being elitist or discriminatory, just because I refuse to let go of that what I deem important. What do people expect me to do? Ruin my own life so that everyone else doesn't feel left out? That is just destructive nonsense in the guise of mishappen "respect".

- Therefore, I just can't afford to hope to be understood by the public at large. It is too much to expect from them, and the price involves concessions that are simply not to be considered; there is no point in giving up on the prospects of a happy, healthy, loving family simply because others fail or refuse to understand just how prized a jewel that is.

- Still, it sure hurts to be called disrespectful or worse by so many people. It is not my fault that there are homosexuals and they are not up for marriage; I did not make them so! I sincerely hope that as many of them as possible overcome that sad situation and learn to lead healthy, fulfilling lifes. I just won't let my own perspectives of doing the same be hurt by a derailing of the concept of marriage if I can help it. Marriage is for building happy families, and is difficult enough for normal people; why do they become so enraged when it's their own natures and behavior that makes such a prospect unlikely for them? Putting my own home down won't make them any less homeless, you know!




Of couse, I don't really agree with much of what I said above, but it has been a rewarding exercise to try to reconstitute what I assume must have motivated many supporters of Proposition eight.

I would like some feedback, especially from those who think I'm being unfair in my portrayal above. Tell me just how, in which specific ways, I am not "getting" they way you who sincerely support Proposition 8 think. It's only fair, since I myself corrected some of you so often in these last few days

 

[Dirty Penguin]

Because that's our reason too.


What about my right to living in a productive, progressive, society? What about my right to raise my children the way I want?

WHAT...WHAT...WHAT...!!!!!!????

WHAT rights ....OF YOURS..... will be violated by allowing gay marriage?

This is exactly what I have been talking about. Gay marriage has nothing to do with YOUR morality..... and how you raise your family...unless, like I said, you're into pushing your morality on those who don't believe what you believe or share your vision.

 

[texan1]

Just an FYI - I have had close friends that are gay all of my life. And believe it or not, I haven't turned gay. My heterosexual marriage is still going strong and the kids are doing great. I feel no threat whatsoever to my family values.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

In a free society, limitations on freedom must be justified. Prohibition of same-sex marriage represents a limitation on the freedom of same-sex couples, and therefore must be justified if it's to be considered legitimate.

Using that same reasoning, laws that prohibit a father from marrying his consenting 14 year daughter are also unjustified.

That being said, I do think there are plenty of valid reasons to allow same-sex marriage.

Then why don't you give one? Wait. I know why. You can't. "It feels like the right thing to do" is not a valid reason. Wisdom would have us consider all the legal, political and social ramifications not just now and in the immediate future, but a hundred years from now.

You said:

Our understanding of any physical process, may help us understand the consequences and effects of our decisions and actions, but it does not provide us with any sort of value judgement about whether those consequences and effects are good or bad.

I concur. Social mores are worked out over generations. They evolve. The collective memory might simply have found the aforementioned legal, political and social ramifications of sanctioning homosexual unions too weighty. More likely, though, is that it goes against the human archetype--"innate universal psychic dispositions that form the substrate from which the basic themes of human life emerge" (thanks to Wikipedia). This brings us back to an earlier question: Should society align itself with the evolutionary "purpose" or direction of consciousness (the human archetype), run against it, or play apathetic? Either way, the onus is on you to show how it is in society's interests to sanction homosexual unions the same way it sanctions unions of the opposite sex. Doing something that feels right is not necessarily conducive to civilized behavior and social progress.

 

[Rolling_Stone]

WHAT...WHAT...WHAT...!!!!!!????

WHAT rights ....OF YOURS..... will be violated by allowing gay marriage?

This is exactly what I have been talking about. Gay marriage has nothing to do with YOUR morality..... and how you raise your family...unless, like I said, you're into pushing your morality on those who don't believe what you believe or share your vision.

Some don't think the question of morality should even enter into the discussion. Even so, what about the rights of society to set standards?

 

[kiwimac]

Society is made up of people. Society has no rights intrinsic to it that the individuals making it up do not have.

 

[Sunstone]

Society is made up of people. Society has no rights intrinsic to it that the individuals making it up do not have.

Excellent point! Frubals!

 

[Magic Man]

Just an FYI - I have had close friends that are gay all of my life. And believe it or not, I haven't turned gay. My heterosexual marriage is still going strong and the kids are doing great. I feel no threat whatsoever to my family values.

Well, you're obviously lying because that's impossible.

 

[9-10ths_Penguin]

Using that same reasoning, laws that prohibit a father from marrying his consenting 14 year daughter are also unjustified.

No, because a father marrying his 14-year-old daughter would have significant harm associated with it. This justifies the prohibition.

Try again.

Then why don't you give one? Wait. I know why. You can't. "It feels like the right thing to do" is not a valid reason. Wisdom would have us consider all the legal, political and social ramifications not just now and in the immediate future, but a hundred years from now.

Aside from the one I already gave? Sure. Here are a few:

Expediency

To a large degree, marriage is a matter of governmental expediency. When two people get married, the state recognizes that they intend to join their lives in practically every way possible. To go along with the emotional and spiritual bond of marriage, the state creates a legal bond as well by default, in acknowledgement of the fact that this is what most married couples want.

The intent of a couple to join their lives in this way does not depend on the genders of the people involved. Also (generally, anyhow), society doesn't have an issue with a same-sex couple having many of the legal effects of marriage: I've never heard of any place that forbids a person in a same-sex couple from giving power of attorney to his partner, for example.

Given that the intent to join their lives together is readily apparent and given that society doesn't have a problem extending rights and responsibilities of marriage to same-sex couples through other means, it is just as valid for government to acknowledge same-sex couples as they do opposite-sex couples. It also fulfils the same purpose: benefit to the citizenry by expediting a process that would otherwise be difficult and costly.

Protection of Families

Some of the rights and benefits of marriage are wrapped up in the concepts of families. These rights are generally not based upon the merits of the married couple but on the merits of the children, and the benefit to that child of an environment that is conducive to being protected and raised properly.

It is legal for same-sex couples to have children. Several means are open to them to do so. Many same-sex couples do have children. Any rights or benefits of marriage that are extended to same-sex couples on the basis of their children (or potential children) can be extended to same-sex couples on the same basis.

Children in same-sex-parented families need just as much support and are just as worthy of benefit as children in opposite-sex-parented families. The rights, benefits and responsibilities of marriage that relate to families and children cannot be justifiably denied to same-sex couples on the basis of the merits of the parents, since these rights have nothing to do with the merits of the parents.

Defense of Liberty

As I mentioned before, it is a general principle of free societies that limitations of freedom must be justified to be valid. Arbitrarily denying any freedom, for instance the freedom to marry someone of the same sex, is an affront to and an assault on this principle that forms part of the foundation of our society.

You said: I concur. Social mores are worked out over generations. They evolve. The collective memory might simply have found the aforementioned legal, political and social ramifications of sanctioning homosexual unions too weighty. More likely, though, is that it goes against the human archetype--"innate universal psychic dispositions that form the substrate from which the basic themes of human life emerge" (thanks to Wikipedia).

If you're going to invoke some sort of human archetype to defend your position, first you need to establish that such an archetype, or even the idea of archetypes in general, is valid.

This brings us back to an earlier question: Should society align itself with the evolutionary "purpose" or direction of consciousness (the human archetype), run against it, or play apathetic?

You say "I agree" and then manage to wind your way back to being completely contrary to the point I made that you claimed you agree with.

There is no such thing as "evolutionary purpose". The term makes no more sense than "geologic purpose" or "meterological purpose".

Either way, the onus is on you to show how it is in society's interests to sanction homosexual unions the same way it sanctions unions of the opposite sex. Doing something that feels right is not necessarily conducive to civilized behavior and social progress.

Well, even though the onus wasn't actually on me, I did show how it is in society's interest to sanction same-sex marriage. It's not just a matter of same-sex marriage "feeling" right... though I don't discount a person's conscious and moral prompting as elements of his or her stance in favour of same-sex marraige.

 

[texan1]

Well, you're obviously lying because that's impossible.

I know it's hard to believe, but my values and religious beliefs are strong enough to withstand a gay couple in California getting married.I feel for those who are weaker than me. Can you imagine how rough their lives were before this ban was enacted?

The sad thing is, there have always been, and will continue to be, gay couples living together and committing to each other whether or not this ban is in place. How will society survive when this group of people, maybe as much as 1% of the population, is getting married without procreating????

 

[Magic Man]

I know it's hard to believe, but my values and religious beliefs are strong enough to withstand a gay couple in California getting married.I feel for those who are weaker than me. Can you imagine how rough their lives were before this ban was enacted?

The sad thing is, there have always been, and will continue to be, gay couples living together and committing to each other whether or not this ban is in place. How will society survive when this group of people, maybe as much as 1% of the population, is getting married without procreating????

*sticks fingers in ears* LALALALA I'm not listening to you LALALALA