That first video really captures what the entire anti-gay marriage fight is about. The Christian fundamentalist lunatic fringe can't attack either interracial or interdenominational marriages any longer, so they turn to the gays as a group to attack. It is true -- insert any group you can think of, and the intent stays the same: discrimination based on a single group characteristic or trait.
If this idea gains approval in many more states, which group will get picked on next? Biological scientists, all of whom are atheistic believers in the theory of evolution?
Physical scientists for rejecting the belief that the Earth is only 6,000 years old?
I don't live in California, however, I still hope Prop 8 fails miserably so these kooks will finally do us all a favor and shut up.
I've always figured it was seen as a chance to be cruel to others -- coming from people who do not believe that turnabout is fair play. It's sticking it to people who won't get the chance to stick it to you.
When my father was a boy, being left-handed was seen as deliberate disobedience. They tied his left hand behind his back and made him learn to write with his right hand. If they caught him cheating, they'd whack him with a switch.
If 8 passes, then wouldn't it be funny if the California supreme court decided to counter by dissolving all marriages as unconstitutional, but conceding that formerly married couples could still form civil unions, which is 'just as good as marriage was, mostly'.
The comparison between same-sex marriages to opposite-sex marriages between people of different racial backgrounds is somewhat disingenuous. They are not the same thing. The cultural and historical basis for marriage was first and foremost procreative, and most often arranged virtually as a business transaction between the families. Only in more recent times has marriage evolved into a bond by choice between two loving people.
I believe the fundamentalist religious ought to just shut up and I most definitely don't share their parochial views, but I feel that the institution of marriage has been so damaged, in no small part by virtue of the fact that it sort of straddles a secular and religious status, and to an even greater extent because of the abominable legal precedents that have arisen surrounding its dissolution, that in all seriousness it should perhaps be abolished and replaced with a formal legal contract that defines in effect a family corporation. The religions could continue to administer their traditional notions of marriage ceremonially, but only the family corporation would carry any legal status whatsoever. That contract need not be constrained as to the sex of the parties, or for that matter to the number of parties so-bound.
The comparison between same-sex marriages to opposite-sex marriages between people of different racial backgrounds is somewhat disingenuous. They are not the same thing. The cultural and historical basis for marriage was first and foremost procreative, and most often arranged virtually as a business transaction between the families. Only in more recent times has marriage evolved into a bond by choice between two loving people.
Are we to understand that the Prop 8 advocates are just pining for the simpler, better times when marriage was about property and procreation rather than love and family?
The comparison between same-sex marriages to opposite-sex marriages between people of different racial backgrounds is somewhat disingenuous. They are not the same thing. The cultural and historical basis for marriage was first and foremost procreative, and most often arranged virtually as a business transaction between the families.
It is you who is being disingenuous. The point of raising this counter example is because of a very large number of the arguments that are advanced in support of CA prop8, Fl Amendment2 and AZ prop102 are similar if not identical to arguments raised in the past regarding miscegenation. By the time you get done with those, just about the only one left is the procreation argument. It is important to cut through the shifting sands and show why each argument is stupid.
Once we are down to the procreation argument, we can explore the implications. I.e., heterosexual marriages that are not for the purposes of procreation should also be banned. I do hope if any of these ballot initiatives passes that the people in those states will immediately ban non-procreative marriage.
That first video really captures what the entire anti-gay marriage fight is about. The Christian fundamentalist lunatic fringe can't attack either interracial or interdenominational marriages any longer, so they turn to the gays as a group to attack. It is true -- insert any group you can think of, and the intent stays the same: discrimination based on a single group characteristic or trait.
If this idea gains approval in many more states, which group will get picked on next? Biological scientists, all of whom are atheistic believers in the theory of evolution?
Physical scientists for rejecting the belief that the Earth is only 6,000 years old?
I don't live in California, however, I still hope Prop 8 fails miserably so these kooks will finally do us all a favor and shut up.
I've always figured it was seen as a chance to be cruel to others -- coming from people who do not believe that turnabout is fair play. It's sticking it to people who won't get the chance to stick it to you.
When my father was a boy, being left-handed was seen as deliberate disobedience. They tied his left hand behind his back and made him learn to write with his right hand. If they caught him cheating, they'd whack him with a switch.
If 8 passes, then wouldn't it be funny if the California supreme court decided to counter by dissolving all marriages as unconstitutional, but conceding that formerly married couples could still form civil unions, which is 'just as good as marriage was, mostly'.
The comparison between same-sex marriages to opposite-sex marriages between people of different racial backgrounds is somewhat disingenuous. They are not the same thing. The cultural and historical basis for marriage was first and foremost procreative, and most often arranged virtually as a business transaction between the families. Only in more recent times has marriage evolved into a bond by choice between two loving people.
I believe the fundamentalist religious ought to just shut up and I most definitely don't share their parochial views, but I feel that the institution of marriage has been so damaged, in no small part by virtue of the fact that it sort of straddles a secular and religious status, and to an even greater extent because of the abominable legal precedents that have arisen surrounding its dissolution, that in all seriousness it should perhaps be abolished and replaced with a formal legal contract that defines in effect a family corporation. The religions could continue to administer their traditional notions of marriage ceremonially, but only the family corporation would carry any legal status whatsoever. That contract need not be constrained as to the sex of the parties, or for that matter to the number of parties so-bound.
Are we to understand that the Prop 8 advocates are just pining for the simpler, better times when marriage was about property and procreation rather than love and family?
The comparison between same-sex marriages to opposite-sex marriages between people of different racial backgrounds is somewhat disingenuous. They are not the same thing. The cultural and historical basis for marriage was first and foremost procreative, and most often arranged virtually as a business transaction between the families.
It is you who is being disingenuous. The point of raising this counter example is because of a very large number of the arguments that are advanced in support of CA prop8, Fl Amendment2 and AZ prop102 are similar if not identical to arguments raised in the past regarding miscegenation. By the time you get done with those, just about the only one left is the procreation argument. It is important to cut through the shifting sands and show why each argument is stupid.
Once we are down to the procreation argument, we can explore the implications. I.e., heterosexual marriages that are not for the purposes of procreation should also be banned. I do hope if any of these ballot initiatives passes that the people in those states will immediately ban non-procreative marriage.