Thread: Miss California causes waves!

Originally Posted by gugi

Well, to me it seems that the problem stems mostly from one side wanting to enforce their view on the other side. It seems reasonable to me that everybody can decide on their own marriage and likewise leave others decide on theirs.

That's what I thought was the problem with her answer, but of course she's there because she's pretty. Of course there's nothing wrong with being intolerant, but that tends to irk the people your actions you do not approve and there's some speculation it has cost her the crown. Beauty as we all know is in addition to being in the eye of the beholder is also fleeting.
I don't see anything special, just the business as usual, some people feel they need to extract political dividends from everything.

Actually it seems to come from BOTH sides wanting to force their view on the other side.

Over here if a civil servant refuses to marry a same sex couple because of religious convictions they can be fired.

How's that for not forcing your beliefs on the other party?

Originally Posted by smokelaw1

YUCK! Share a drinking fountain with whitey? NO THANK YOU!


Besides the laws assisting in the generation of families, besides the rights having to do with property, medical decision making and being otherwise recognized by the state, the gays I know and love have spent a bit of time talking about the issue. I think I can sum up my opinions pretty clearly.
They want to be afforded the same rights as everyone else. Whether they have a "need" for those rights should be inconsequential. They love each other, many have children, they are FAMILIES whether the law so agrees or not. WHy should they not be treated the same.
How does calling THEIR relationship a MARRIAGE in ANY WAY redefine YOURS? My marriage is still defined as a man (me) and a woman (my wife). This so-called redefinition does not, in any way, make MINE a gay-marriage. If it did, I would probably dress better and throw WAY cooler parties.
Giving other people rights does not make the world a worse place. If you believe gay behavior is wrong, that's your business. I believe that you are wrong in that opinion. If you believe that way because of religion, that's your business, and I believe you are as wrong as those who believe that infidels and those who act in ways insulting to Allah should die. You hopefully don't kill people because of your beliefs, (I HOPE!!) but I believe that you are just as wrong...and we are both entitled to our beliefs...you believe I am wrong, too, I imagine.
How, though, does giving them the legal protections that the rest of us enjoy HURT YOU?

I've written and deleted a number of paragraphs a number of times here....I'll just stop writing. Love your brothers and sisters, no matter if you disagree with them. Equal rights for all.


EDIT: Oh yeah, and my opinion is worth approximately the same amount as Ms. California. Well, maybe less because she's pretty cute. Or, maybe more because of the legal education and practice that has not in any way impacted the purely emotional response above.

You seem to be making many unjustified assumptions about how I think. Maybe you should calm down and re-read exactly what I wrote.

I'm all in favour of homosexuals having the various rights (other than financial ones relevant to procreation.) I just don't see why those rights should be tied to marriage.

Would it not have been more sensible to separate the rights from the institution of marriage, and assign them to a nominated relationship, rather than extend the concept of marriage?

To a large extent, wasn't that being done already before they legalised same-sex marriages?

Redefining the concept of marriage was an unnecessary change. And I can't help but feel that gay people getting married are missing the point. It doesn't make them any more "normal", and it won't stop them being discriminated against by bigots.

(Before anyone gets all worked up, I put quotes around "normal" for a reason, I'm not calling gay people abnormal.)

Originally Posted by gugi

Well, to me it seems that the problem stems mostly from one side wanting to enforce their view on the other side.

This is true of almost every political decision... one side want's to enforce their views about taxes... one side wants to enforce their views about healthcare... one side wants to enforce their views about the environment. Yeah... I know this doesn't have much to do with the original post... but I don't even want to get into the debate--- he asked, she answered, let the name calling begin.

I think if the federal government stops recognizing straight marriage, then everyone will be happy, or at least equally ****ed off. let's campaign for that, eh?

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

Actually it seems to come from BOTH sides wanting to force their view on the other side.

Over here if a civil servant refuses to marry a same sex couple because of religious convictions they can be fired.

How's that for not forcing your beliefs on the other party?

And that is exactly as it should be. They are sworn to uphold the laws of the country. Our countries have a divide between religion and state.
If you work in a public position where your duty is to perform tasks prescribed by the law, then you either a) do your oath bound duty. b) get lost.

Sorry Alex. No sympathy vote from me.
If they don't want to do it, they should seek a non-public function where there objections are not a problem, or they should get out entirely.
They can't choose which laws to obey, any more than I get to choose my tax bracket.

Would you have the same sympathy for a civil servant refusing a muslim and a christian or a Morrocan and a Dutch person?

Originally Posted by Rajagra

You seem to be making many unjustified assumptions about how I think. Maybe you should calm down and re-read exactly what I wrote.

I'm all in favour of homosexuals having the various rights (other than financial ones relevant to procreation.) I just don't see why those rights should be tied to marriage.

Would it not have been more sensible to separate the rights from the institution of marriage, and assign them to a nominated relationship, rather than extend the concept of marriage?

To a large extent, wasn't that being done already before they legalised same-sex marriages?

Redefining the concept of marriage was an unnecessary change. And I can't help but feel that gay people getting married are missing the point. It doesn't make them any more "normal", and it won't stop them being discriminated against by bigots.

(Before anyone gets all worked up, I put quotes around "normal" for a reason, I'm not calling gay people abnormal.)

First off, the post was not largely directed at you. Second, I am quite calm, and did not assume that I know what you thought.

As for the rights not being tied to marriage, I am 100% all for that. I don't think the state shoudl be in the marriage business AT ALL. I don't think a civil servant should be ALLOWED to marry ANYONE. That is for the church to do, as far as I am concerned. The state should simply honor the "checked box" on a form that says "married" or "not married" based on whether a person belongs to that group or not.

As far as I know no one redefined "marriage" except for those trying to add a defintion to the constitutions. It has always meant the same thing to me, regardless of one's gender.

And yes, in some states, same-sex partners get the same rights as different sex patners. But by NO means all. And read the consitutional amendments seeking to ban gay marriage. Those very rights are witheld specifically. Not jus tthe word "marriage," but ALL rights related thereto (depending on which state we are discussing).

Originally Posted by LX_Emergency

Actually it seems to come from BOTH sides wanting to force their view on the other side.

Over here if a civil servant refuses to marry a same sex couple because of religious convictions they can be fired.

How's that for not forcing your beliefs on the other party?

Well, not doing your job is an excellent reason to be fired. This has nothing to do with the problem. In US the marriage is a lot more decoupled from the state than it is in Europe. A couple of my friends got married by their friend who got the right to do so over internet- she just signed up as clergy for some religion and that was it.
Where I come from the marriage is purely state officiated business any religious ceremonies and certificates are optional and can be performed 'after' the state sanctioned one. In fact the main religions require to see the state issued document before they would perform their stuff.
Here in US my friend who is a pastor has been refusing to marry people for decades. He believes he is a part of a holy supernatural event that takes place and would refuse to be so if for example the couple has been living together, or he feels they are not really committed enough Christians.

Of course, there are people who think the word 'marriage' is in some way sacred and should be reserved for only heterosexual couples. Going with traditions could be a bit inconvenient, though - our western societies don't recognize such biblical traditions as having multiple wives (I wonder what happens if a person has married multiple times in say Saudi Arabia, may be one of the guys with the legal knowledge will let me know).
I personally care a lot more about substance than form, so to me it doesn't seem essential whether gay couples can 'marry'. As long as their union is treated the same way as a union between heterosexuals and not discriminated against, it looks good to me. But at this point it seems awfully convenient to be able to call it 'marriage'.

As you're well aware, Alex, a lot of Christians in US do not believe it's proper to call the LDS adherents Christians. In my mind it's similar to not willing to extend the word 'marriage' to the gay people.

Originally Posted by gugi

I personally care a lot more about substance than form, so to me it doesn't seem essential whether gay couples can 'marry'. As long as their union is treated the same way as a union between heterosexuals and not discriminated against, it looks good to me.

+1, (oh boy, I said I wasn't getting into this) this rings true to me, but I can understand how gay couples could see this as unsatisfying.

Originally Posted by gugi

As you're well aware, Alex, a lot of Christians in US do not believe it's proper to call the LDS adherents Christians. In my mind it's similar to not willing to extend the word 'marriage' to the gay people.

I'd like to hear more about this idea, I can't completely follow this yet.

I am slightly confused here, when did marriage become a Christian thing ??? exactly???

Believe it or not there are some Non-Believers that actually do think that Marriage is only between a Man and a Woman and that Homosexuality is a life style choice same as Heterosexuality or Bisexuality...

Yeah, yeah sure there is a Gene, and I am sure someday we will prove it...

And by the way since when do Gay couples have less rights ???

Do not all states recognize Civil Unions now???? or am I missing something here.....

Originally Posted by Del1r1um

I'd like to hear more about this idea, I can't completely follow this yet.

It seem that a lot of people who oppose gay marriage are willing to accept the practice of gay people to live together and have almost all civil rights due to that (adoption of children may be one of the notable exception) as long as their union is not called 'marriage'.
It seems to me that it's almost exactly the same with a lot of Christians in US being perfectly happy with LDS being another religion, as long as the name 'Christian' doesn't get attached to it.
Or when scientists are perfectly happy to have intelligent design and creationism taught in schools, as long as they do not carry the label 'science'. Of course 'science' is quite a technical term and broadening it to cover things like creationism makes it completely empty. OTOH the marriage label being extended to something that is in essence 99% the same makes a lot of sense to me.