Party "A" and Party "B"

[Mooseman]

Is that true?

See the Let's say part.....

It'd probably end up falling under the non-discrimination thing; i.e. they can't do it.

Actually, yes they can since they do it for lots of behaviors that are more "risky"... Sky diving, rock climbing.... etc.....

 

[Spiderman]

I thought the Let's Say part was in reference to the higher rates, not whether it's a higher risk. That part seemed to say there's data saying such unions are higher risk.

And those others are actions or activities, not a "state". If the courts say that being homosexual is something unchangable about a person like their skin color or gender, then it IS discriminatory.

 

[Mooseman]

The courts would have to make that ruling then, but i doubt they will, unless it can be proven, which it hasn't yet (IMHO).
The insurance companies use lots of things to determine risk and cost.... weight, smoking, genetic history, etc....

 

[EricBess]

What is this directed at? Marriage is a lifestyle choice for ANYONE.

True enough

You know what, I don't care anymore. ...

No need to be passive/aggressive. I said this was based on my understanding. If such studies have been done, certainly no one here has posted links that I am aware of.

No, marriage has not always been defined that way. And I'm pretty sure you know that. Even if it was, tradition is not a justification for oppression. So is you being disconcerted.

Oversoul, would it help my argument to say that marriage between a man and a woman is sanctioned of God? I think we've previously established that you don't give credit to religious arguments, but choosing to ignore an argument because it is religious in nature could potentially threaten my constitutional rights to freedom of religion if not done with care. Basically, I'm saying here that tolerance and understanding is going to need to go both directions if we actually want to agree on something here.

As I understand it, it doesn't offer the same legal benefits as a marriage does. Fix that, and I bet the issue goes away.

According to Califonia law, for all legal purposes, they are exactly the same, so the issues don't go away.

My guess is that the people wanting same-sex marriages want the word for the same reason that other people want them NOT to have the word but are okay with civil unions. They find something special about the concept of "marriage." And it's unfair for the government to deny that to some people based on tradition or silly, baseless fears.

I actually think that this is the key to the whole issue. If the government recognizes same sex marriage, then they believe this will give them affirmation of their lifestyle. In other words, it's about gaining approval even more than it is about tolerance.

You know, I used to substantially agree with you. But the government doesn't make decisions by first checking with every religious organization and seeing how they feel about the terms used in legislation. They just use whatever terms they deem appropriate. If a religious group wants to also use a certain term, they don't stop them. But they don't defer to religious groups that complain over matters of semantics.

Marriage has a religious connotation and likely always has, so I don't see this as a matter of semantics. However, I don't believe that you can make a statement like this and then complain because someone used their religious background to make a political argument. I'm still confused why the burden should be on the religious "nuts" who have been at this for some time. Relatively speaking, it is the same-sex camp that is more recent, so it seems that if suggestions about revamping the system to make everyone happy were to emerge from all of this, it could just as easily come from that group as from religion.

I hope my comments didn't reignite this furvor. That was not my intent. I was responding to the comment about the initiative failing and misunderstood which initiative was and I'm afraid that I extrapolated based on that misunderstanding.

I actually had thought that the initiative to reverse the laws in Florida was set to pass. It is very surprising to think that it didn't and wonder what that says about our society in general. I would be curious to read what the Florida's voter's pamphlet said on the matter.

 

[Oversoul]

No need to be passive/aggressive. I said this was based on my understanding. If such studies have been done, certainly no one here has posted links that I am aware of.

Links to what studies? Studies showing that people can/can't help who they are. I think I'm pretty safe in claiming that there are no such studies. Seems quite impossible to study. At the very least, one can always say, "You're not REALLY trying." That alone seems sufficient, and there are several more sophisticated tricks...

Oversoul, would it help my argument to say that marriage between a man and a woman is sanctioned of God?

First Amendment. First Amendment. First Amendment. First Amendment. First Amendment. First Amendment. First Amendment. First Amendment. First Amendment. First Amendment. First Amendment. First Amendment. First Amendment. First Amendment. First Amendment. First Amendment. First Amendment. First Amendment. First Amendment. First Amendment. First Amendment. First Amendment.

I think we've previously established that you don't give credit to religious arguments, but choosing to ignore an argument because it is religious in nature could potentially threaten my constitutional rights to freedom of religion if not done with care.

When it comes to legislation, the establishment clause of the First Amendment is supposed to prevent any argument that is religious in nature from applying. A religious belief is not grounds for a law. The free exercise clause has nothing to do with it.

I actually think that this is the key to the whole issue. If the government recognizes same sex marriage, then they believe this will give them affirmation of their lifestyle. In other words, it's about gaining approval even more than it is about tolerance.

Not approval, but equality. Otherwise, I agree.

Marriage has a religious connotation and likely always has, so I don't see this as a matter of semantics. However, I don't believe that you can make a statement like this and then complain because someone used their religious background to make a political argument.

It's still, by definition, a matter of semantics. And in saying this, we again go into semantics...

Hypothetically, if the word "marriage" really did have a fully religious origin, I still wouldn't care. It's actually from Old French and probably originated from a phrase "to provide with a young woman." But even if it actually had origins in the phrase "to bind into a union sacred to the gods--also this union/phrase is the official property of the Church of the Holy Nimbus and no earthly kings shall have any part in our affairs" it could still have reasonably made its way into usage as a legal term. And no amount of whining by religious institutions about, "That's our word" would have any legal merit.

I'm still confused why the burden should be on the religious "nuts" who have been at this for some time. Relatively speaking, it is the same-sex camp that is more recent, so it seems that if suggestions about revamping the system to make everyone happy were to emerge from all of this, it could just as easily come from that group as from religion.

They are indeed more recent. There just so happens to be a pretty solid explanation for that. It has to do with certain bits of history that are rather ugly. I don't think that I need to elaborate on those.

Why does everyone need to be happy? We've got one group, basically saying, "We want to have equal rights under the law." And on the other hand, we have another group, who is responding, "We do not want you do be able to do what we can do, even though it doesn't actually affect us at all."

I actually had thought that the initiative to reverse the laws in Florida was set to pass. It is very surprising to think that it didn't and wonder what that says about our society in general. I would be curious to read what the Florida's voter's pamphlet said on the matter.

You know that's actually a good point. The voter's pamphlet might very well have misrepresented or poorly articulated the amendment. Now I'm curious too...

 

[Spiderman]

According to Califonia law, for all legal purposes, they are exactly the same, so the issues don't go away.

Really? Now you're going to go make me look it up...

 

[EricBess]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The way I read this, it actually encourages people to exercise their beliefs. I argue that by telling me that my standpoint is religious in nature and therefore not valid that such prohibitions against me are indeed a violation of my first amendment right to exercise my religion.

Now, I don't believe this is your intent. My point is that we are both free to express our opinion and as long as everyone has the same protections under the law, we are good.

I have nothing against same-sex couples being able to live their lifestyle and I even support them having the same legal protections, but we are talking about a definition here.

In other words - marriage is a union between a man and a woman expressing a covenant between them and their creator and is, as such, sanctioned by God. This is a religious stance, but I firmly believe that society is strengthened by traditional family units. And sure, argue the divorce issue, but I don't think divorce is the problem so much as too many people don't take marriage seriously when they get into it. By redefining marriage to say that it includes same-sex couples, you are further progressing into a realm where the term has very little eternal significance.

On the last paragraph - we are free to disagree, but you cannot simply state that I am "wrong" because I am stating that this is a very firm believe that I have. You have the right to disagree with that belief, but you certainly cannot tell me that I don't believe such. If I am right, then passing amendments such as prop 8 and other is for the good of society, which is the ideal purpose of government process in the first place.

Spidey - found it. California Family Code 297.5 reads in part, as follows:

"Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses."

Seems pretty all-encompassing. The ONLY argument I have heard that isn't covered under this is one guy who argued that the domestic partnership laws require that they be living together to file for domestic partnership status.

 

[Oversoul]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

The way I read this, it actually encourages people to exercise their beliefs.

Nothing in the First Amendment says anything about what individuals should or should not do. Rather, it says what the government is not allowed to do.

I argue that by telling me that my standpoint is religious in nature and therefore not valid that such prohibitions against me are indeed a violation of my first amendment right to exercise my religion.

I'm not the government, so I can't violate your First Amendment rights. If I were trying to silence you, which I have not done, that could potentially fall under other laws depending on the situation, but the First Amendment would have nothing to do with it. I have made no prohibitions against you.

In other words - marriage is a union between a man and a woman expressing a covenant between them and their creator and is, as such, sanctioned by God.

But when it comes to the law, this definition cannot be used because that would very much violate the First Amendment. Yes, a religious institution is free to use it. That is protected. You, as an individual, can express that. Also protected. But the state cannot endorse it. That's unconstitutional.

This is a religious stance, but I firmly believe that society is strengthened by traditional family units. And sure, argue the divorce issue, but I don't think divorce is the problem so much as too many people don't take marriage seriously when they get into it. By redefining marriage to say that it includes same-sex couples, you are further progressing into a realm where the term has very little eternal significance.

Eternal? What are you talking about? And gays aren't going to be starting any traditional family units one way or the other. They're simply not going to say, "Well, I can't get married to someone of the same sex, so I'd better just settle for an opposite-sex marriage and raise a traditional family like the gods intended." That's silly. And they can still raise children, so that's not the issue either. Even accepting your proposition that the society is strengthened by traditional family units (which you have not supported with anything), there's nothing magical about the word "marriage" that, because it would apply to same-sex couples too, would decrease the number of traditional couples. And "marriage" is already quite usable and used for all sorts of things that aren't the "traditional family unit." If you think that one more such thing will be the proverbial straw that breaks the camel's back, then provide some evidence. And "it's my religious belief" doesn't count.

On the last paragraph - we are free to disagree, but you cannot simply state that I am "wrong" because I am stating that this is a very firm believe that I have. You have the right to disagree with that belief, but you certainly cannot tell me that I don't believe such. If I am right, then passing amendments such as prop 8 and other is for the good of society, which is the ideal purpose of government process in the first place.

The firmness of your belief has no bearing on whether I call it wrong.

 

[EricBess]

Oversoul - Okay, so where I say "you", read, "the government". Makes no difference. Government cannot tell someone to stop being religious in order to participate in politics and it cannot tell people to put aside religious believes when determining policy. I do agree that such policy should never cause minorities to be descriminated against, but I do not believe that is happening here. Disagreeing on this point is a large part of the controversy to begin with, but under California law, all of the same legal rights are granted.

And my point wasn't on the firmness of my belief. My point is that even if you claim that the substance of my believe is incorrect, it is still an absolute fact that it is my belief. I apologize if my intent on that statement wasn't clear

Oversoul - we clearly have very differing opinions on this matter and I think that this was established very early in this dialog. I respect your opinions on the matter and I hope that you respect mine. Neither one of us is going to convince the other. For my part, there were portions of this thread that I at the time felt were uncivil, but later came to realize were just your way of approaching things. Beyond that, I have felt that this has been a civil discussion and I hope that you feel the same way.

 

[Oversoul]

Oversoul - Okay, so where I say "you", read, "the government". Makes no difference. Government cannot tell someone to stop being religious in order to participate in politics and it cannot tell people to put aside religious believes when determining policy.

When did this happen?

I do agree that such policy should never cause minorities to be descriminated against, but I do not believe that is happening here. Disagreeing on this point is a large part of the controversy to begin with, but under California law, all of the same legal rights are granted.

Once again, we already know that "separate but equal" is a sham.

And my point wasn't on the firmness of my belief. My point is that even if you claim that the substance of my believe is incorrect, it is still an absolute fact that it is my belief. I apologize if my intent on that statement wasn't clear

At what point did you get the impression that I might claim your beliefs are not your beliefs? Seems pretty tautological that they are...

Oversoul - we clearly have very differing opinions on this matter and I think that this was established very early in this dialog. I respect your opinions on the matter and I hope that you respect mine.

I respect people. But I don't respect opinions. My own included.

Neither one of us is going to convince the other. For my part, there were portions of this thread that I at the time felt were uncivil, but later came to realize were just your way of approaching things. Beyond that, I have felt that this has been a civil discussion and I hope that you feel the same way.

Certainly. I've seen uncivil before. You're not it.

 

[EricBess]

Just a comment on "separate but equal". Gays and Lesbians have the same right as anyone else to marry, they just choose not to. Many hetrosexual couples also choose not to marry, even though they could actually marry each other if they wanted to.

Man being with man and woman being with woman are fundimentally different than man being with woman. Biologically that's just the way it is. There isn't anything "equal" about that.

 

[Oversoul]

Just a comment on "separate but equal". Gays and Lesbians have the same right as anyone else to marry, they just choose not to. Many hetrosexual couples also choose not to marry, even though they could actually marry each other if they wanted to.

First off, that's a sham argument. And a very common one. The people that make it always seem to think that it's totally reasonable, but they never apply it to any other thing. And it could be applied to just about anything. "But we do have equal rights. I can vote if I own land, and you can vote if you own land. It just so happens that one of us owns land." "But we do have equal rights. I can own a firearm if I can get a permit, and you can own a firearm if you can get a permit. It just so happens that one of us can get a permit." "But we do have equal rights. I can practice the religion of the Holy Nimbus, and you can practice the religion of the Holy Nimbus. It just so happens that one of us is a follower of the Holy Nimbus." "But we do have equal rights. I can marry someone of the opposite sex, and you can marry someone of the opposite sex. It just so happens that one of us is heterosexual."

Secondly, what I said about "separate but equal" was with respect to the state of California offering civil unions instead. The institutions are separate. And so they are (as the Supreme Court stated on a different issue so long ago), inherently unequal.

Man being with man and woman being with woman are fundimentally different than man being with woman. Biologically that's just the way it is. There isn't anything "equal" about that.

Any two people being with each other is different from any other two people being with each other. So what?

 

[EricBess]

You separated my statements. They were intended to be taken together. Thing is, my second paragraph responds to your first paragraph. Yes, you could "apply the argument to just about anything", but I'm not doing that. I'm applying the argument to marriage. Anyone can own land, there isn't anything fundimentally different between two people that would cause one to be able to own land and another not, so drawing a line there would be arbitrary and designed to diseninfranchise. In terms of marriage, however, the line was drawn by whatever being created us. No one can deny that men are very different than women and, as such, that man with woman is very different than either same-sex relationship.

 

[Oversoul]

You separated my statements. They were intended to be taken together. Thing is, my second paragraph responds to your first paragraph.

I accidentally cut the one paragraph without remembering to paste it back in. I was lazy and instead of editing my post, I just made a new one. It might as well have been part of the other post. It doesn't matter.

Yes, you could "apply the argument to just about anything", but I'm not doing that. I'm applying the argument to marriage.

And that's the whole problem with the argument. You would find it tyrannical applied to virtually anything else, but for some reason, with marriage it's fine. Why?

Anyone can own land, there isn't anything fundimentally different between two people that would cause one to be able to own land and another not, so drawing a line there would be arbitrary and designed to diseninfranchise.

So you'd be okay with only landowners being allowed to vote, as used to be quite common?

In terms of marriage, however, the line was drawn by whatever being created us.

No. Marriage was invented by humans. And it's been modified throughout history. Also, there's no evidence that any beings created us in the first place.

No one can deny that men are very different than women and, as such, that man with woman is very different than either same-sex relationship.

I'll deny it right now. Men and women are not that different. They're very, very, very, very similar. There are some differences that are usually pretty obvious to us, but then they would be, wouldn't they? As humans ourselves, we're much more attuned to the differences in individual humans than we are in other things. It often takes training to differentiate between males and females of, for example, many insects. Or even between two different species of insects. Actually, to most non-geologists, rocks are just rocks. They're all the same as far as we're concerned. But unless two people are identical twins, it's usually quite easy for me to keep track of which one is which. We're all experts on distinguishing humans from each other (to the point that if someone isn't, that person is diagnosed with a brain dysfunction).

It is, of course, possible to emphasize the differences between men and women a lot. This seems to have led to cultures with strict gender roles. That's why there used to be a lot more polygyny.

 

[EricBess]

And that's the whole problem with the argument. You would find it tyrannical applied to virtually anything else, but for some reason, with marriage it's fine. Why?

Quite the contrary - I fully believe that marriage is an important aspect of society.

So you'd be okay with only landowners being allowed to vote, as used to be quite common?

In the very quote, I said that this would be an arbitrary disenfranchisment.

No. Marriage was invented by humans. And it's been modified throughout history. Also, there's no evidence that any beings created us in the first place.

And on this point, I couldn't possibly disagree with you more. In fact, I think that the disagreement over this point is likely where everything else diverges. As for myself, I see plenty of evidence of a creator.

I'll deny it right now. Men and women are not that different. They're very, very, very, very similar.

Biologically, I'm pretty sure that there are some fundimental differences.

It is, of course, possible to emphasize the differences between men and women a lot. This seems to have led to cultures with strict gender roles. That's why there used to be a lot more polygyny.

There is plenty of evidence of the importance of gender roles, particularly when discussing family dynamics and children. I agree that there is far less importance of gender roles when dealing with businesses or other societal issues. But do we still equate marriage with family and children?

 

[Oversoul]

Quite the contrary - I fully believe that marriage is an important aspect of society.

Non sequiter. The importance of marriage had nothing to do with what I said.

In the very quote, I said that this would be an arbitrary disenfranchisment.

What? No, you didn't. You said nothing about voting. That was me. And it ignores the whole point of what I was saying anyway.

And on this point, I couldn't possibly disagree with you more. In fact, I think that the disagreement over this point is likely where everything else diverges. As for myself, I see plenty of evidence of a creator.

But you are apparently unable to present this evidence?

Biologically, I'm pretty sure that there are some fundimental differences.

There are far more similarities than differences. And like I already said, you're much attuned to the differences, because you're human. Being able to keenly spot differences helps you to identify others and is of great importance.

There is plenty of evidence of the importance of gender roles, particularly when discussing family dynamics and children.

Let's see it.

I agree that there is far less importance of gender roles when dealing with businesses or other societal issues. But do we still equate marriage with family and children?

Not legally, we don't.

 

[EricBess]

And it could be applied to just about anything. "But we do have equal rights. I can vote if I own land, and you can vote if you own land. It just so happens that one of us owns land."

Anyone can own land, there isn't anything fundimentally different between two people that would cause one to be able to own land and another not, so drawing a line there would be arbitrary and designed to diseninfranchise.

.

 

[Spiderman]

"Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses."

Wait. Is "registered domestic partners" the same as civil union?

Gays and Lesbians have the same right as anyone else to marry, they just choose not to.

Wait. Is this in response to something else or a stand-alone statement? If the latter, it was my impression that they *don't* have the same right, because it's not legal (hence all of these intiatives and people going to one state to get married as opposed to their own and stuff).

 

[EricBess]

Wait. Is "registered domestic partners" the same as civil union?

Yes. Different states use different terminology.

Wait. Is this in response to something else or a stand-alone statement? If the latter, it was my impression that they *don't* have the same right, because it's not legal (hence all of these intiatives and people going to one state to get married as opposed to their own and stuff).

As Oversoul points out, this is an argument that is typically very weak, but nevertheless true. They simply don't have the right to marry "each other". What I was stating needs to be taken in context, though. In general, I agree that this is generally a weak argument. Basically, I'm saying "they have the same right to marry, they just have to find someone of the opposite gender that they are willing to marry" and they choose not to do that.

But my main reason for bringing that up is actually the next paragraph in that post. There has been a lot of talk about how "separate, but equal" doesn't work. In the case of marriage and same-sex couples, however, I wanted to point out that there is nothing "equal" when comparing a same-sex couple to a hetrosexual couple. Biologically, there are some very fundimental differences. That being the case, I contest that you must have a separate definition to describe something that is not fudimentally equal in the first place.

I'm all for making sure that the same legal rights are afforded and, in the case of California at least, they are. If there is some way in which same-sex couples contest that they are not equal, then we should be working to address that, not trying to alter the definition of marriage.

And Oversoul - just because there are a lot of similarities between genders certainly doesn't address the fact that the differences that do exist are very significant.

 

[Oversoul]

There has been a lot of talk about how "separate, but equal" doesn't work. In the case of marriage and same-sex couples, however, I wanted to point out that there is nothing "equal" when comparing a same-sex couple to a hetrosexual couple.

Ah, thanks for clarifying. So you're a bigot.

And Oversoul - just because there are a lot of similarities between genders certainly doesn't address the fact that the differences that do exist are very significant.

And yet AGAIN, of course they would seem significant TO YOU. Legally, they should not be.