Proposition 8: Who Needs Civil Rights Anyway?

Post Reply New Topic

Zero's "bowing out" at this point because every single one of his contentions has been proved to be either false, or based solely in personal or religious taste - which is not the basis for law in the United States. (It is the basis for law in Vatican City and Saudi Arabia, though, and you can just see how advanced those political powerhouses are...)

I really dislike this sort of 'oh yeah, well what you really meant was...' type of argument. Don't tell us what Zero thinks or what Zero meant. Zero knows that, you and I can only guess at it.

My guess as to why Zero dropped out of this thread is partly because he said what he wanted to say, and partly because the thread became just him vs. 4 or 5 other people. I've argued in threads where the people who disagreed with me outnumbered me significantly, and it isn't comfortable. Especially when, like this thread, people make accusations against you personally because you happen to hold certain views.

Not really. If gay marriage isn't allowed the the maintained status quo won't allow anyone to be proven correct.

It's going to happen. The momentum is there. That is why the push back is so hard.

I love this song:

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bja2ttzGOFM[/youtube]

First rule of debate. If any side can not acknowledge that they might be wrong, there is no point in debating.

This is a hot topic with people holding very personal views that are not subject to change. Sooner or later that degrades into a "did not, did to" argument that goes nowhere. I think that point has been reached. I don't believe I'm going to change the mind of anyone who feels passionately about the subject.

I've also said I'm a pragmatist. Seeing the common trash allowed to breed and what it results in makes me question if indeed forced sterilization should be introduced. I'm not a blind bleeding heart that sees reproduction as an absolute right. I've seen too many messed up kids from parents who know nothing about parenthood other than stick it in the hole, wait nine months and then line up for state benefits while the kid rots sitting in front of a TV 24/7.

The world is not ideal. It forces you to reevaluate what you think on many topics.

Okay, fair enough. I'm not really sure why I took umbrage to that statement anyway. It's not as if I'm a viable potential parent. I don't even like kids.

Tell you what, I'll make you a deal. You let me have my 1138 rights and responsibilities (we don't even have to call it marriage) and I'll let you have your forced sterilizations.

As leader of the Gay Liberal Conspiracy, I can make this offer in good faith.

Be careful of what you wish for. Some day you might find yourself on the to-be-sterilized list.

ruveyn

As the globalist thinkers want a global population reduction of over 80%, I don't doubt a whole lot of us "common people" will be on the list.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dCFFxidhcy0[/youtube]


This magnificent woman states the case for equal marriage far more eloquently than I ever could hope to. My only regret is that I don't live in her district.

Here's where I get confused.

What is pragmatic about opposing same-sex marriage?

Will legal same-sex marriage make more people gay? I doubt it. But it might make more people realize that they are gay, and it might make them think twice before entering into an opposite sex marriage that will only do themselves and their spouses harm.

Will legal same-sex marriage threaten opposite sex marriage? Again, I doubt it. In fact, it seems to me that the people in North America who are most committed to the institution of marriage are the outsiders that are trying to get in.

Will same sex marriage lead to more broken homes, and disadvantage children? Well, I think the evidence is pretty firmly on other causes for the breakdown of "traditional" marriages. Divorce was a fact of life for a substantial number of marriages long before same-sex cohabitants were extended any recognition, let alone the prospect of marriage.

Does banning same sex marriage lead to any legitimate public policy goal? Yet again, I doubt it. I have yet to see a convincing public policy argument in favour of establishing a ban. But I have seen a convincing public policy argument in favour of same-sex marriage, and that is the freedom of every individual to form families with another person of their choice. That family may or may not extend, in time, through procreation or adoption, but from the moment of their decision to form a family, two people should be on an equal legal footing, regardless of their sex.

Heterosexual couples should be free to eschew marriage, and homosexual couples should be free to contract it, because equality before and under the law is the hallmark of a free society. I am not prepared to sacrifice that liberal principle on the altar of tradition.

Are they?

(I don't mean this as some sort of snide insinuation, BTW, I really am curious. If that were true, it would be pretty persuasive for me.)


I don't see how equality under the law even comes into the picture, unless I agree with you that marriage should be defined as 'between any 2 persons'.

That would be a good argument for civil unions, but very few people oppose those.

I can assure you that my partner and I definitely are.



As I said in a previous post on this thread, I really don't care what they call it, I just want the 1138 rights straight couples get. Unfortunately, a great many people *do* oppose civil unions. If that wasn't the case, I think this discussion would be necessary, as I would likely already be civilly united.

This isn't ironic, it's rather a statement in itself from people who were once mistreated, and wrongfully so, due to the superficiality of their skin color alone.

You are putting the conclusion before the argument. Equality under the law comes into the picture, because that is the standard that is applied to the judicial review of law that seeks to apply differentially to people in different classes.

If a law says, for example, "gay people can't vote," there would be little question that equality under the law had been violated, and egregiously so. The fact that a larger number of people don't feel the same way about a law that says, "gay people can't marry each other," does not mean that the court has the option of backing away from determining the question that has been brought before it.

It has long been established that "separate but equal" is not a valid remedy for violations of equal protection. If you can't have separate schools and water fountains for "coloureds" then it's not a significant leap of reason to argue that you can't have a separate kind of family relationship for same-sex couples.