#47600 Proposition 8

[361]

I have had many friends (and I think all of us who attended a public high school have) who were extremely misguided in most of their decisions. Who of us didn't know a person who slept around?

Well.... I didn't know anyone in high school who slept around...

(or if I did... I didn't know about it... O_o )

Does that make me sheltered?

[Giovanni Schwartz]

I'm in high school still, and none of my friends sleeps around. Although there are the scary kids in P.E. that you never know about.

And yes, I am somewhat of a nerd.

[Eponine]

Trust me... even if you don't know about it... people are sleeping around. But that's not the ultimate point of that statement.

[vorpal blade]

Yes, Eponine, I agree with you 100%. You make a lot of excellent points.

[vorpal blade]

I think that perhaps the most significant impact on society if Prop 8 fails is the challenge to the institution of traditional marriage. Here are some quotes from a Church news release that I like:

Marriage between a man and a woman is central to the plan of salvation. The sacred nature of marriage is closely linked to the power of procreation. Only a man and a woman together have the natural biological capacity to conceive children. This power of procreation – to create life and bring God’s spirit children into the world – is sacred and precious. Misuse of this power undermines the institution of the family and thereby weakens the social fabric. [4] Strong families serve as the fundamental institution for transmitting to future generations the moral strengths, traditions, and values that sustain civilization. As the Universal Declaration of Human Rights affirms, “The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society.” [5]

Marriage is not primarily a contract between individuals to ratify their affections and provide for mutual obligations. Rather, marriage and family are vital instruments for rearing children and teaching them to become responsible adults. While governments did not invent marriage, throughout the ages governments of all types have recognized and affirmed marriage as an essential institution in preserving social stability and perpetuating life itself. Hence, regardless of whether marriages were performed as a religious rite or a civil ceremony, married couples in almost every culture have been granted special benefits aimed primarily at sustaining their relationship and promoting the environment in which children are reared. A husband and a wife do not receive these benefits to elevate them above any other two people who may share a residence or social tie, but rather in order to preserve, protect, and defend the all-important institutions of marriage and family.

It is true that some couples who marry will not have children, either by choice or because of infertility, but the special status of marriage is nonetheless closely linked to the inherent powers and responsibilities of procreation, and to the inherent differences between the genders. Co-habitation under any guise or title is not a sufficient reason for defining new forms of marriage.

...

Possible restrictions on religious freedom are not the only societal implications of legalizing same-sex marriage. Perhaps the most common argument that proponents of same-sex marriage make is that it is essentially harmless and will not affect the institution of traditional heterosexual marriage in any way. “It won’t affect you, so why should you care?’ is the common refrain. While it may be true that allowing single-sex unions will not immediately and directly affect all existing marriages, the real question is how it will affect society as a whole over time, including the rising generation and future generations. The experience of the few European countries that already have legalized same-sex marriage suggests that any dilution of the traditional definition of marriage will further erode the already weakened stability of marriages and family generally. Adopting same-sex marriage compromises the traditional concept of marriage, with harmful consequences for society.

http://newsroom.lds.org/ldsnewsroom/eng ... f-marriage

[Imogen]

the traditional family is already dead. get over it. as soon as divorce was legalized the traditional family died. and i say "HURRAY!" i'm so glad my parents didn't stay married. they hate each other. HATE. I'm glad i was raised by my (single) mother and not my father. i love him, but living with him is impossible. you may live a perfect, flawless, mormon life, but out here life just isn't like that. most people don't think of marriage as eternal. a lot of people don't even think of it as an ideal situation. you can blather on about sin and act like you're superior, vb and eponine. however, your religion shouldn't effect the laws that govern us all. i don't believe in eternal marriage. i see how that is important you guys, but that doesn't mean that belief trumps my right to marry a woman if i want to. i don't believe being gay is a sin. i think that saying that makes you silly and small minded. but i'm not going to make it illegal for you to say that, no matter how much it makes me angry. however, why should what YOU think is a sin mean I don't get to do it as long as it's not hurting anyone? who i marry, have sex with, or live with has no effect on your life. seriously. none at all. and who you marry, etc has no effect on MY life. i hope your marriages are happy and long lasting. but whether they are or not doesn't change what happens to me.

also, saying that the push for legalizing gay marriage is an indicator that society is failing is incredibly flawed. society has never been good for everyone. people always have a "golden ideal" about how great the world used to be. yeah, slavery and small pox blankets were awesome! the systematic theft of land and attempted genocide of a people was great! man i wish we could go back to those days when society was so solid! and remember when institutionalized racism was allowed? man, if we could only go back to those days, everything would be perfect! people have always been promiscuous. people have always been gay. the only difference was people didn't used to have internet and tv to broadcast all this stuff 24/7 and make is seem like it's more prevalent when really it's just our access to information that has grown.

and do you HONESTLY think someone would CHOOSE to be gay? would you CHOOSE to have fewer rights? that's like saying a black person before civil rights CHOSE to be black. it's absurd, and shows how sheltered you really are. and please don't give me "well mormon are discriminated against." yes, stupid people say horrible things about you because of your religion. it's true. but they don't try to make it illegal. and your religion isn't something you carry with you like the color of your skin and even your sexuality. no one looks at you and tries to judge if you're mormon or not.

[361]

who i marry, have sex with, or live with has no effect on your life. seriously. none at all. and who you marry, etc has no effect on MY life.

I lean towards The Butterfly Effect and chaos theory. AKA... Everything you do Imogen, no matter how insignificant, has the potential to cause world changing effects.

You may marry a man and have children. Generations later your children may be specifically responsibly for turning the key and throwing the world into World War III. Your choice to marry a woman instead prevents this outcome and affects everyone's lives on the planet... See?

also, saying that the push for legalizing gay marriage is an indicator that society is failing is incredibly flawed. society has never been good for everyone.

This is an indicator according to our prophets and scripture. I won't go into detail since you don't share our beliefs...

However, there are a sect of monks who believe that the world will end when they finish their 64-disk version of Towers of Hanoi. So is their belief that the world is ending as they near completion "incredibly flawed" ?? No... It's just another case of effect being assigned cause and saying "take it on faith that this will happen"

and do you HONESTLY think someone would CHOOSE to be gay? would you CHOOSE to have fewer rights? that's like saying a black person before civil rights CHOSE to be black. it's absurd, and shows how sheltered you really are.

There is really nothing to argue here... Some people do choose to be gay. Others are born with an innate attraction to same gender... Either way, you still choose to act, or not, act upon it...

and please don't give me "well mormon are discriminated against." yes, stupid people say horrible things about you because of your religion.

Been there, done that... Why you keep bringing up racism I don't know... Do you like yourself, Imogen? Are you happy with who you are?

Anyways, nice to see your still around

[A Mom, but not yours]

No comment on the whole issue of homosexuality discussion here, but if you are endowed, participate in an endowment session at the temple and listen very carefully to the wording of the covenants. This MIGHT give you some insight into why the church is involved in this proposition. It did me. YMMV

[vorpal blade]

you can blather on about sin and act like you're superior, vb and eponine. however, your religion shouldn't effect the laws that govern us all. i don't believe in eternal marriage. i see how that is important you guys, but that doesn't mean that belief trumps my right to marry a woman if i want to. i don't believe being gay is a sin. i think that saying that makes you silly and small minded. but i'm not going to make it illegal for you to say that, no matter how much it makes me angry. however, why should what YOU think is a sin mean I don't get to do it as long as it's not hurting anyone? who i marry, have sex with, or live with has no effect on your life. seriously. none at all. and who you marry, etc has no effect on MY life. i hope your marriages are happy and long lasting. but whether they are or not doesn't change what happens to me.

I also don't believe that being gay (i.e, having a same-sex attraction) is a sin. Engaging in homosexual acts is the sin. Some people would like to make it illegal for me to say that. I'm glad you are not like one of them. I think homosexual acts are sinful, but nothing I'm doing or saying would prevent you from doing those sinful acts. My beliefs don't affect the laws that govern us all. I just don't think it would be good for our society to change the meaning of marriage from what it has always been to cover same-sex unions. I believe I understand your point, I hope you understand my point of view and respect it. My beliefs would keep the laws the same, your belief would change the laws that govern us, and I don't that is right, either.

Here are some quotes from the Church newsroom that might better explain what I'm trying to say:

The focus of the Church’s involvement is specifically same-sex marriage and its consequences. The Church does not object to rights (already established in California) regarding hospitalization and medical care, fair housing and employment rights, or probate rights, so long as these do not infringe on the integrity of the family or the constitutional rights of churches and their adherents to administer and practice their religion free from government interference.

The Church has a single, undeviating standard of sexual morality: intimate relations are proper only between a husband and a wife united in the bonds of matrimony.

...

In recent years in the United States and other countries, a movement has emerged to promote same-sex marriage as an inherent or constitutional right. This is not a small step, but a radical change: instead of society tolerating or accepting private, consensual sexual behavior between adults, advocates of same-sex marriage seek its official endorsement and recognition.

Court decisions in Massachusetts (2004) and California (2008) have allowed same-sex marriages. This trend constitutes a serious threat to marriage and family. The institution of marriage will be weakened, resulting in negative consequences for both adults and children.

[vorpal blade]

Lets bring quantum theory into this...

Schroedinger's sins are all simultaneously equal and unequal until they are compared at which point you find out if they really are equal or not...

Since we cannot judge severity of a sin on an empirical scale....

I think it's safe to assume that all sins are simultaneously both equal and unequal until Judgement Day.

See?? Quantum Theory makes everybody happy!

361,

I have to confess that the first time I read your post I though, “Clever, but slightly ridiculous.” But then I reflected on it for some time. And now I’ve come to the conclusion that you are brilliant.

I’m reminded of a story. A preacher was giving a sermon with two little old ladies seated together in the congregation.

“Those who murder, or do anything like unto it, shall be dammed!” said the preacher.

On of the ladies turned to the other and whispered, “Amen to that, sister!”

“We should not lie, cheat, or steal.”

“Amen to that!” said the woman.

“And neither should we gossip,” intoned the preacher.

The little old ladies turned to each other, and one of them said, “Now that’s where he stops preaching and starts meddling.”

[Eponine]

As another point, if we change the defination of marriage to include a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, then what has it become? Who's to say it can't include a man and a dog? A man and three women? two men and two women? i mean, if marriage is all and only about love, and a man really loves another man *and* a woman, then, by that argument, shouldn't he be allowed to marry both of them? No. and why not? Because it's not right. Wouldn't everyone agree to that? Can't this be likened (I recognize, not entirely, but to some extent) to when the Mormons were practicing pologamy? The people decided that this was somehting that would destroy society and marriage, so they voted against it. So the Mormons stopped practicing.

And really, having the word doesn't do anything to the homosexual community. They still have the same rights that they do now. They wouldn't have any added rights. So why do they need the word? (which, btw, comes from the Bible. Marriage is a sociatal instution, but it was a religious one first. The bible also condemns homosexual behavior, so why would homosexuals want to use a word that comes from and is tied to a book that calls their behavior a sin?)

[Imogen]

As another point, if we change the defination of marriage to include a man and a man, or a woman and a woman, then what has it become? Who's to say it can't include a man and a dog? A man and three women? two men and two women? i mean, if marriage is all and only about love, and a man really loves another man *and* a woman, then, by that argument, shouldn't he be allowed to marry both of them? No. and why not? Because it's not right. Wouldn't everyone agree to that? Can't this be likened (I recognize, not entirely, but to some extent) to when the Mormons were practicing pologamy? The people decided that this was somehting that would destroy society and marriage, so they voted against it. So the Mormons stopped practicing.

And really, having the word doesn't do anything to the homosexual community. They still have the same rights that they do now. They wouldn't have any added rights. So why do they need the word? (which, btw, comes from the Bible. Marriage is a sociatal instution, but it was a religious one first. The bible also condemns homosexual behavior, so why would homosexuals want to use a word that comes from and is tied to a book that calls their behavior a sin?)

mormons stopped practicing because of a rather well timed revelation from the prophet at the time. ending the practice of polygamy gained them some rights, so it's not like they stopped just because everyone said it was bad. they wanted something. however, i would say that this was wrong of the US government. polygamy wasn't ACTUALLY hurting anyone. people just didn't think it was right. it's not like with the FLDS who force young girls into marriages.

and the slippery slope argument is a weak one. there is no one trying to make it legal to marry a dog or to legalize polygamy because it's not that common. besides, plenty of people are in polyamorous relationships that are not legally recognized and are perfectly happy. plenty of people are in monogamous relationships that are not legally recognized and are perfectly happy. marriage is not this beautiful thing given to us in the bible. it was being practiced long before the bible existed. the egyptians got married, but they didn't get the idea from the bible. and until recent human history, marriage wasn't something lovely and wonderful. it was a political tool. and look. it still is!

and the homosexual community has many fewer rights than heterosexuals. they do not have the right to legally have a partner on their health insurance in many states. they cannot file joint tax returns. i could go on and on, but you get the idea. when my former academic adviser and his partner bought their house, only he could put his name on it as owner. darrell had to be a "renter" even though it's his house too. they couldn't change that until recently.

vorpal, my beliefs wouldn't actually change the law. except in the states that have passed amendments, there is no law stating that homosexual marriage is illegal. so what i believe wouldn't actually change any law on the books. if you were saying "kill all the fags!" then i would want to make what you're saying illegal (inciting riots, hate speech and all that. that's why i think fred phelps needs to be locked up). but you're not.

look, my big issue with all of this is i don't think anyone, especially the government, has the right to tell me what to do in my bedroom and with my body. besides which, we're in the middle of a financial crisis and worrying about bill and steve wanting to get married seems like a waste of energy. we're also involved in 2 major occupations that seem like they'll never end. shouldn't we be focusing on getting our economy in order and getting out of the middle east?

[Imogen]

oh and 361, i like myself very much. and i think saying that to someone you don't know anything about is extremely rude and disrespectful. i keep bringing up racism because you guys keep making the same arguments that were used during integration, which my mother remembers all too well. if you remove "gay" from the posts and switch it with "interracial" it sounds like the '60s. even down to "this is a sign of the second coming!" discrimination is discrimination. you an wrap it in a pretty, religious bow, but it's still discrimination.

so please, get over yourself.

[NerdGirl]

I would just like to point out that legalizing same-sex marriage or even legalizing polygamy involving only adults is very different than legalizing human-animal "marriage" or legalizing marriage between adults and children (like the Warren Jeffs version of polygamy). A child or an animal cannot enter into a legal contract.

[Nanti-SARRMM]

i would vote for the privatization of marriage. marriage is instituted of God, not of man. therefore i would vote for all marriage-like arrangements to be treated as civil unions in the eyes of the government. this is the best solution to this mess in my opinion. it stops us from trying to legislate based on religious grounds and poor understanding of judicial review (see marbury vs madison) while allowing us to keep our beliefs untouched.

I like this idea more, especially what you said somewhere else, make civil unions the only legal marriage to be able to get tax breaks and the like, and then people can get married how they please in whichever church they want. It works in Mexico just fine that way. In fact, it might just help things here so non member parents can view their children's wedding/union/whatever in the judge's office or wherever, and then the couple can go get married in temple.

the traditional family is already dead... most people don't think of marriage as eternal. a lot of people don't even think of it as an ideal situation.

Which I think is unfortunate, but may be true in most of America.

you can blather on about sin and act like you're superior, vb and eponine. however, your religion shouldn't effect the laws that govern us all. i don't believe in eternal marriage. i see how that is important you guys, but that doesn't mean that belief trumps my right to marry a woman if i want to. i don't believe being gay is a sin. i think that saying that makes you silly and small minded. but i'm not going to make it illegal for you to say that, no matter how much it makes me angry. however, why should what YOU think is a sin mean I don't get to do it as long as it's not hurting anyone? who i marry, have sex with, or live with has no effect on your life. seriously. none at all. and who you marry, etc has no effect on MY life. i hope your marriages are happy and long lasting. but whether they are or not doesn't change what happens to me.

I agree, whatever things you wish to in your house, whoever you want to shoe up with should not legally be any of my or our concern. The point of the topic is whether homosexuality is a sin or not. You don't believe it is, we do, I also think that it is anatomically weird and bizarre, but that is just me. If that sort of thing turns you on, well more power to you, just don't let me know.
As for marriage though and Proposition 8, I think the entire argument, along with Connecticut, is blown out of the water for the following reasons:
1. The courts overturned a piece of legislation as voted on by the people.
2. Civil unions were already in place with all the rights that married heterosexual people had that California could grant
3. All this fight, from how I perceive it, is a change in name only. Everyone is crying out for equality, I have read some blogs saying that separate but equal is not equal, referring to segregation. But this is far different than the 60's and the civil rights movement, which it seems to be equated to. Here is the thing though; Marriage isn't a right, taxes and everything the government assigns to it is. Marriage is an institution. That is the thing.

Imogen, you say that the sanctity of marriage, or marriage itself has been destroyed. Maybe in how it is practiced, yes. But look at the two terms 'Marriage' and 'Civil Union'. What is different? In California nothing is different, all same rights are granted to both, and people are allowed to do what they do in their houses.
The difference is in the definition, in meaning of the word. To me, marriage is something more than a Civil Union, it especially means commitment, it implies sacredness, especially in a majorly christian society where most think it is sanctioned by God and has a bit of specialness to it. Maybe to you and some others Marriage and Civil Union are synonymous, but to a whole lot more people, they are different.
Last I knew this was a democracy and the majority had the say in things. Why should we let a few thousand people in one state change the word or name of something that many more in the same state don't want changed.

And again, I believe that the judges have over-stepped their bounds and legislate things like this, just to make things more politically correct or to not offend people.
That is why I am for Prop. 8., because all it is, is a name change that people are freaking out about.

And Imogen, I would like to hear your thoughts on what I just said. Really.

[Eponine]

Might I also point out, Imogen, that we (for the most part, I think) believe that people can be born with homosexual tendencies in the same way that a person can be born an alcoholic. They may have that propensity towards a particular behavior, but it is a choice whether or not they succumb and practice that behavior. Being homosexual is not something you are born with like Autism, in which you have no control over how it affects your body.

[Eponine]

Nerdgirl, stepping away from the radical, then. What about a man marrying his sister? or even brother, in that case. Who's to stop that? I thought it wasn't legal for the same reasons as homosexuality: It's something that sociecty can see is not biologicaly right because the union produces no (or seriously inhibited) offspring. Should this be legalized, also? (ps, I'm not just calling you out, nerdgirl. just responding to your comments and leading into another question. )

[NerdGirl]

That's an interesting question, Eponine. There probably aren't that many people who want to have sexual relationships with their siblings, but it's till a valid point. I'll put aside the issue of the definition of marriage for a moment and tell you my thought process.

In general, I think that consenting adults should be able to enter into a legal contractual relationship (civil union, whatever) if they have a romantic relationship so that they can have things like hospital visitation and insurance benefits. To me that would include people like adult polygamists and definitely same-sex couples, regardless of what I think of the morality of their relationships. My first thought was that sexual relationships among siblings is in kind of a unique category because those relationships can produce offspring with serious genetic disorders at a higher rate than normal. I'm not a biologist or anything, though, so I'm really not qualified to determine just how much of a risk it is. But then I thought, well you can't prevent those kinds of relationships from occurring just by not giving them any legal rights, and is really fair to not let the dependents in those relationships have the same kind of benefits as dependents in other relationships? So I guess I would have to say that if someone wants to have a civil union with their sibling, then I think we should legal let them.

I'm starting to think more and more that bismark's idea about privatizing marriage may be the best solution for everyone. Just let people have civil unions if they want the legal rights and benefits that go along with what we think of as "marriage", and leave the definition of the word out of it as far as the government is concerned.

And I also want to thank everyone who has commented on the matter thus far. This thread is really helping me to figure out (or at least better articulate) what I think.

[bismark]

this whole thing about legislating from the bench is interesting to me. it seems as if this precedence was set way back in marbury vs madison. the courts have the right under the constitution to exercise judicial review of any actions made by the legislative branch (in other words the "democratic" part of our government). any law that passes the legislature is technically by majority democratic consent (through representatives of course), but the courts have reserved the right to declare a law unconstitutional. it seems to me like the supreme court of california was exercising judicial review and striking down a law it found to be unconstitutional. this is obviously why prop 8 proponents are pushing for a constitutional amendment, so that prop 22 will no longer be unconstitutional (thus removing the supreme courts ability to strike it down). i guess my point in all of this is i find it annoying that people are blaming the courts for this. i think that is a poor argument that shows a lack of understanding of US political science.

[bismark]

here is the legalese if you care to look:

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/ar ... 147999.PDF