Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Karlis

California Marriage Amendment to be decided

766 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Tiggs

I agree with all of that.

Good. At least we've found some common ground.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
FurthurBB

It wasn't that long ago when the only people interpreting marriage were religious figures. You couldn't marry anyone from a different religion. Then you couldn't marry people of different races. Now you can't marry people of the same sex. Marriage has always been open for interpretation. Like all former marriage bans, this one will pass in time. History will judge those who stood in the way of equality.

The sad thing is this issue has already been decided. All this talking and nonsense are only stalling tactics. Games that those of afraid of change are playing with other people's lives.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

No, but I do have an ancestor that was burnt to death by the inquisition. Does that count?

If you are still ticked off about it, it does. ;)

It's kind of like sitting in a sweet shop and shooting any child that comes in and then claiming that children traditionally don't eat sweets. It's true, but only because you've forced it to be so, rather than it naturally be that way.

That would be true, if the children were being shot over thousands of years. Then it would be traditional.

Define infrequently and mainstream. We have books still extant in which various authors praise married homosexual couples and books in which homosexual marriage's pro's and con's were debated. It's mainstream enough for two Roman emperors to have had documented homosexual marriages and frequent enough for historians to be in uniform consensus that it occurred. Since we're discussing a period in history prior to the birth of Christ, that we have any hard historical evidence at all is a pretty good indicator that it was not as infrequent as you seem to be suggesting.

I read that about the Roman Emperors and also I read that it is unclear if this was a widespread practice or one only done by the top elite. It is like saying that former President Bush owns a yacht, so everyone in America does, or that it is mainstream to own a yacht. There were a lot of things that Roman Emperors did that very few others in the Empire would have been allowed to do. If it was very common, I think we would have found more (Any?) archeological digs of Roman villas showing a family of two men on the walls, instead of the traditional man and woman.

No, not all of them. They don't tend to last long, because they generally get destroyed by those that are.

Because they are non-traditional?

Can you show me where I accused you of saying that? My point is that homosexual marriage is hardly a new thing and that the only reason homosexuals stopped getting married is due to having been banned from doing so (That and the whole being burnt to death thing, which apparently hinders long term relationships).

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant?

You said: (Bold mine)

So. The great and overwhelming historic view of marriage, as you put it, at least from a Christian perspective, is one that is merely an artificial construct propped up by murder.

I agree it is not new, and that it was supressed. Do you believe it was suppressed by the governments or by religion? If religion, then doesn't that mean that religion controlled the concept of marriage during the time it was supressed?

We could spend some time talking about the destruction of all the Goddess cults by Christianity at around the same time(and it's typically lesbian adherents) if you like, but I expect you already know how that conversation is going to go.

I'm familiar with the arguements.

In short - for the last Millennia or so, marriage has been solely between a man and a woman. That's not through choice, but through persecution. It's important to remember that, especially if you're going to make claims along the lines of "Using any definition more then a couple decades old, gay marriage should... must... be impossible." or start talking about "The great and overwhelming historic view of marriage".

OK. That one statement was over the top, I admit. But, if you do use a definition that is not considered modern, same sex marriage is considered wrong by the vast majority and to that majority it was not persecution, any more then marrying an infant, or an animal was. It is only though the window of modern thinking that we can look back and call it persecution. The same could be said of any activity that we ban today that will be legal in the future. We don't see it as persecution now, but we would at that future date.

The sad thing is this issue has already been decided. All this talking and nonsense are only stalling tactics. Games that those of afraid of change are playing with other people's lives.

I don't think anything has been decided. It still might be heard by the US Supreme Court. And from what I hear that might not be for another two years. Two years from now it will be a Presidential election year and it will be interesting to see where the candidates fall on the issue.

One thing I think that is important to understand is that whatever the US Supreme Court decides will be the law of the land. If they find in favor of same sex marriages, then it will be effective in all 50 states, but by the same reasoning, if they find against same sex marriages, then all those who are already married will have whatever rights they have taken away. That is why it was a major risk to go to Federal Court. The people who put forward the case will either be hailed as Heros, or shunned and condemned as idiots, depending on which way the US SC goes. Right now I would give good odds that the Supreme Court will side with same sex marriages.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs

If you are still ticked off about it, it does. ;)

Didn't stop me from becoming a Christian, as I recall.

That would be true, if the children were being shot over thousands of years. Then it would be traditional.

And yet - it's still a lie, no matter how long it lasts for.

I read that about the Roman Emperors and also I read that it is unclear if this was a widespread practice or one only done by the top elite. It is like saying that former President Bush owns a yacht, so everyone in America does, or that it is mainstream to own a yacht. There were a lot of things that Roman Emperors did that very few others in the Empire would have been allowed to do. If it was very common, I think we would have found more (Any?) archeological digs of Roman villas showing a family of two men on the walls, instead of the traditional man and woman.

If same-sex marriage was allowed today, so few would happen compared to different-sex marriages that it would still not appear to be mainstream. As I've already stated - historians are in absolute accord that it was a fact of pre-Christian life. That so many examples are still extant and that it is widely referred to on such a casual basis is indicative of something that was not considered to be entirely out of the ordinary.

Because they are non-traditional?

It used to be traditional to keep slaves. Turns out that was a terrible idea, too.

Maybe I misunderstood what you meant?

You said: (Bold mine)

I agree it is not new, and that it was supressed. Do you believe it was suppressed by the governments or by religion? If religion, then doesn't that mean that religion controlled the concept of marriage during the time it was supressed?

Apparently torturing, maiming and killing everyone that disagrees with you is an effective way to control anything. Ask any Dictator.

OK. That one statement was over the top, I admit. But, if you do use a definition that is not considered modern, same sex marriage is considered wrong by the vast majority and to that majority it was not persecution, any more then marrying an infant, or an animal was. It is only though the window of modern thinking that we can look back and call it persecution. The same could be said of any activity that we ban today that will be legal in the future. We don't see it as persecution now, but we would at that future date.

I think people caught on to the whole being burned at the stake thing as being persecution a few centuries ago.

By the vast majority, you're referring to the vast majority of Americans, the vast majority of whom are Christian. In England, for example, gay marriage is legal. I'll check, but I don't believe the fabric of English society has imploded as a result.

Sixty years ago in America, black people had their own drinking fountains. I believe the cry back then was "Equal, but different", too.

I don't think anything has been decided. It still might be heard by the US Supreme Court. And from what I hear that might not be for another two years. Two years from now it will be a Presidential election year and it will be interesting to see where the candidates fall on the issue.

One thing I think that is important to understand is that whatever the US Supreme Court decides will be the law of the land. If they find in favor of same sex marriages, then it will be effective in all 50 states, but by the same reasoning, if they find against same sex marriages, then all those who are already married will have whatever rights they have taken away. That is why it was a major risk to go to Federal Court. The people who put forward the case will either be hailed as Heros, or shunned and condemned as idiots, depending on which way the US SC goes. Right now I would give good odds that the Supreme Court will side with same sex marriages.

It doubt it will get as far as the Supreme Court. If it does, then I agree with you. The legal case for same-sex marriages appears to be absolutely compelling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

If same-sex marriage was allowed today, so few would happen compared to different-sex marriages that it would still not appear to be mainstream.

I agree with you here.

As I've already stated - historians are in absolute accord that it was a fact of pre-Christian life. That so many examples are still extant and that it is widely referred to on such a casual basis is indicative of something that was not considered to be entirely out of the ordinary.

I thought there was little record of what happened before Christianity, surely there is not enough to make a broad statement that gay marriages were happening in all cultures across the world in large numbers. Do the Ancient Egyptians speak of gay marriage? Do the Babelonians? Do the Indus Civilizations?

The Chinese do, but mostly only of one province and it is not called a marriage but a contract. The nature of the contract is not really specified in the information I have found online. There is also the story of Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian, but again no where in the story does it say they are married, only that they had a gay relationship and were devoted to each other.

I think you are overstating the historical evidence. Using a few specific and uncommon data points to try to proove a wide spread belief.

Apparently torturing, maiming and killing everyone that disagrees with you is an effective way to control anything. Ask any Dictator.

I think people caught on to the whole being burned at the stake thing as being persecution a few centuries ago.

It was a punishment, and as you said, done for other crimes also. If homosexuality was a crime, that implies it was a government penalty/punishment and not a religous one. And this still happens to this day in parts of the world. It is not a uniquely Christian problem as you seem to imply.

By the vast majority, you're referring to the vast majority of Americans, the vast majority of whom are Christian. In England, for example, gay marriage is legal. I'll check, but I don't believe the fabric of English society has imploded as a result.

Maybe the British are more cultured then the US? :lol:

I think the British actually have a civil-partnership law. They don't technically have gay-marriage.

Civil partnerships in the United Kingdom, granted under the Civil Partnership Act 2004, give same-sex couples rights and responsibilities comparable to civil marriage.

So they have "Seperate but Equal" in Britain. Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, New Zealand and Switzerland all has similar "Seperate but Equal" laws. The UK did not pass their law till 2004, so the USA is really not far behind. It is not like gay marriages have been allowed there since WWI.

Sixty years ago in America, black people had their own drinking fountains. I believe the cry back then was "Equal, but different", too.

This fight is not even about Marriage, or Rights. It is about being considered Equal. Which can not legislated, but can only come in time. All these court decisions will do is cause people to have to be p***ed off in private, not force them to like it.

It doubt it will get as far as the Supreme Court. If it does, then I agree with you. The legal case for same-sex marriages appears to be absolutely compelling.

I don't see opponents being happy with anything less. And... they will not be happy with the result when it comes out anyway. At best, going up the courts is a delaying tactic.

Edited by DieChecker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs

I thought there was little record of what happened before Christianity, surely there is not enough to make a broad statement that gay marriages were happening in all cultures across the world in large numbers. Do the Ancient Egyptians speak of gay marriage? Do the Babelonians? Do the Indus Civilizations?

The Chinese do, but mostly only of one province and it is not called a marriage but a contract. The nature of the contract is not really specified in the information I have found online. There is also the story of Pan Zhang & Wang Zhongxian, but again no where in the story does it say they are married, only that they had a gay relationship and were devoted to each other.

I think you are overstating the historical evidence. Using a few specific and uncommon data points to try to proove a wide spread belief.

There's certainly enough historical evidence to say what was happening in Greece and Rome, the cradle of Western civilisation and the origin of the word marriage.

It was a punishment, and as you said, done for other crimes also. If homosexuality was a crime, that implies it was a government penalty/punishment and not a religous one. And this still happens to this day in parts of the world. It is not a uniquely Christian problem as you seem to imply.

Homosexuality was criminalised in Western culture due to religious belief. Prior to Christianity no such restrictions existed.

Maybe the British are more cultured then the US? :lol:

I think the British actually have a civil-partnership law. They don't technically have gay-marriage.

So they have "Seperate but Equal" in Britain. Austria, Czech Republic, Denmark, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Ireland, Luxembourg, New Zealand and Switzerland all has similar "Seperate but Equal" laws. The UK did not pass their law till 2004, so the USA is really not far behind. It is not like gay marriages have been allowed there since WWI.

True. I keep forgetting it's only 2010 and that the legislation hasn't passed through parliament yet. Time travel can get exhausting, sometimes :P

This fight is not even about Marriage, or Rights. It is about being considered Equal. Which can not legislated, but can only come in time. All these court decisions will do is cause people to have to be p***ed off in private, not force them to like it.

Actually, what it will do is allow Homosexuals to marry. The rest will follow.

I don't see opponents being happy with anything less. And... they will not be happy with the result when it comes out anyway. At best, going up the courts is a delaying tactic.

Agreed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
DieChecker

Homosexuality was criminalised in Western culture due to religious belief. Prior to Christianity no such restrictions existed.

What about those Israelites? Oh, wait, I think you mean on a larger scale. I agree that Christianity did a pretty good job of stomping out a lot of local belief systems. Even without Christianity, the Muslims probably would have done a pretty good job in the same way a couple hundred years latter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Tiggs

What about those Israelites? Oh, wait, I think you mean on a larger scale. I agree that Christianity did a pretty good job of stomping out a lot of local belief systems. Even without Christianity, the Muslims probably would have done a pretty good job in the same way a couple hundred years latter.

Indeed. All the Abrahamic faiths are anti-homosexual at their core.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong

Indeed. All the Abrahamic faiths are anti-homosexual at their core.

Seems we are advancing past all the Abrahamic faiths and a progression is on they way religion has wet to see. Not that it's so much a battle but a massive shift in thinking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Karlis

Seems we are advancing past all the Abrahamic faiths and a progression is on they way religion has wet to see. Not that it's so much a battle but a massive shift in thinking.

Question is -- is any "massive shift in thinking" automatically a shift in the right direction? The answer depends on many aspects.

Simply because there is a strongly popular and wide-spread move in some particular direction, in society, does not mean that such popular movement is to the benefit of society.

Karlis

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
shadowhive

Question is -- is any "massive shift in thinking" automatically a shift in the right direction? The answer depends on many aspects.

Simply because there is a strongly popular and wide-spread move in some particular direction, in society, does not mean that such popular movement is to the benefit of society.

Karlis

A lot of people seem to be under the impression that gay marriage will somehow undermine and destroy society. The question I always ask is how? They never really have an answer that holds up to any scrutiny. Gay relationships don't damage society any more then interracial relationships do yet both have had people saying that allowing them will damage society.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Odin11

A lot of people seem to be under the impression that gay marriage will somehow undermine and destroy society. The question I always ask is how? They never really have an answer that holds up to any scrutiny. Gay relationships don't damage society any more then interracial relationships do yet both have had people saying that allowing them will damage society.

I would like to know how as well.

Here's what Lewis Black has to say.Gay Bandidos

Edited by Odin11

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 
Andromedan StarSeed

Well guys I have found few things that do link to this I once awhile here this about the news its still going on and I have heard about this once again in past when they say pop 8 or something down the lines.

By PAUL ELIAS, Associated Press Writer Paul Elias, Associated Press Writer – 19 mins ago

SAN FRANCISCO – A federal judge on Thursday put gay marriages on hold for at least another six days in California, raising hopes among same-sex couples that they soon will be able to tie the knot after years of agonizing delays.

Judge Vaughn Walker gave opponents of same-sex weddings until Aug. 18 at 5 p.m. to get a ruling from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on whether gay marriage should resume. Gay marriages could happen at that point or be put off indefinitely depending on how the court rules.

Walker struck down the state's voter-approved gay marriage ban last week in a case many believe is destined for the Supreme Court.

Dozens of gay marriage supporters who had gathered outside San Francisco's City Hall, a block from the federal courthouse, erupted in cheers when the decision came out. The crowd included a handful of same-sex couples who had arrived early Thursday morning to fill out marriage license applications in hopes that the judge would allow nuptials to commence immediately.

Teresa Rowe, 31, and her partner, Kristin Orbin, 31, said they were still happy with the decision even though the ceremony didn't happen.

"It's sad that we have to wait a little longer, but it's been six years," Rowe said.

In his original ruling, Walker moved to suspend gay weddings until he could consider arguments from both sides on whether the marriages should be allowed during an appeal of his ruling. He now says gay marriage should resume, but he gave conservatives the extra time to get the appeals court to weigh in.

here's this story's link here for you guys can talk more about as it keeps going on.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gay_marriage_trial

and there's other part of the story that well help you guy's to talk more with in this thread.

"As it appears at least doubtful that proponents will be able to proceed with their appeal without a state defendant, it remains unclear whether the Court of Appeals will be able to reach the merits of proponents' appeal," Walker wrote.

"In light of those concerns, proponents may have little choice but to attempt to convince either the governor or the attorney general to file an appeal to ensure jurisdiction."

Walker said there was no evidence that the sponsors of Prop. 8 "face the kind of injury" required to have standing to file an appeal.

"The uncertainty surrounding proponents' standing weighs heavily against the likelihood of their success," he wrote.

The campaign for Proposition 8 said it would immediately appeal Walker's ruling.

"If the trial court's decision is eventually reversed, refusing to stay the decision will senselessly create legal uncertainty surrounding any same-sex unions entered while the appeal is pending," the sponsors said in a prepared statement. They did not address Walker's contention that they may not having standing to appeal.

In front of San Francisco City Hall shortly before Walker's ruling was released, a phalanx of Prop. 8 supporters wearing yellow plastic ProtectMarriage vests held their ground in front of dozens of jubilant same-sex marriage backers.

"A Moral Wrong Cannot Be a Civil Right," said one protester's sign. Another proclaimed "Pervert Judge, Pervert Ruling." Others yet called for an end to "Judicial Tyranny."

But in this gay rights bastion, the weight of public opinion became clear when an open-air, double-decker tourist bus passed. Cameras snapped as same-sex couples festooned with marriage equality stickers hooted and waved.

Walker's decision came after supporters of the same-sex marriage ban warned that they would take their case to the U.S. Supreme Court if necessary to ensure that his ruling did not take effect.

The high court already has slapped down Walker once in the case. Lawyers for Proposition 8 appealed a pretrial decision to permit some broadcast of the trial proceedings, and the high court overturned Walker's decision on a 5-4 vote.

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger and Atty. Gen. Jerry Brown had urged Walker to permit same-sex marriages to resume, saying the state was well equipped to handle to gay marriage.

An estimated 18,000 same-sex couples married during the six months when such marriages were legal in California in 2008, and the California Supreme Court later ruled that those marriages would remain valid.

The sponsors of the anti-gay-marriage initiative told Walker that gay nuptials now would be clouded by uncertainty. The challengers countered that gay men and lesbians were capable of deciding for themselves whether to marry now or wait until the appeals conclude.

In weighing whether to put a ruling on hold, judges consider the likelihood that higher courts will uphold the ruling and whether irreparable harm would be caused by a postponement.

Walker, who heard 13 days of testimony in January, said in his ruling last week that Proposition 8 violated federal constitutional guarantees of equal protection and due process. He ruled that moral disapproval was not enough reason to deny gays what courts have determined is a fundamental right to marry.

here's this story that links above part!

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0813-gay-marriage-california-20100813,0,5087660.story?track=rss

I hope these to are in right place little bit where the fighting and non fighting about this topic and see where it goes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Odin11

Question is -- is any "massive shift in thinking" automatically a shift in the right direction? The answer depends on many aspects.

Simply because there is a strongly popular and wide-spread move in some particular direction, in society, does not mean that such popular movement is to the benefit of society.

Karlis

“Saying that homosexually and gay marriage is a threat to the American family and that it will somehow undermine and destroy society, is complete and utter prejudice and ignorant on a level that is staggering at this point in time.”- Lewis Black

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Silver Thong

Question is -- is any "massive shift in thinking" automatically a shift in the right direction? The answer depends on many aspects.

Simply because there is a strongly popular and wide-spread move in some particular direction, in society, does not mean that such popular movement is to the benefit of society.

Karlis

Maybe but if we look how society as a whole has loosened it's death grip on religion and it's doctrine society has improved ten fold for the majority.

Or maybe I should say our lives have become better since we don't allow religion to have it's vise like grip anymore.

Edited by The Silver Thong

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Andromedan StarSeed

Well here more for you guys to take down what I have found dose this rings the bell about Congressman Waxman speaks out on Prop.8 and House Ethics.

Representative Henry Waxman (D-West Los Angeles) strongly endorsed the decision of U.S. District Judge Vaughn Walker to overturn Proposition 8 and he told NBCLA in an exclusive interview that he hopes the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court uphold this decision.

"People should be allowed to get married," he said, " Proposition 8 is an unreasonable and unconstitutional barrier, discriminating against people who are gay."

Congress is currently dealing with two ethics scandals involving long-time colleagues of Waxman, but he does not believe these cases will have any impact on the November election.

"Whenever a member of Congress is involved in an ethics scandal," he said, " I feel extra badly because I know the esteem of members of Congress goes lower" adding " though it's hard to find it going lower than it is already at the present time."

Waxman said he thought his colleagues should be able to have a trial and a review of their cases to determine whether they'd done anything wrong.

more to this is added!

http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/local-beat/Congressman-Waxman-Speaks-Out-on-Prop8-and-House-Ethics-100580169.html

I guess this opens more view for every one to see bit more whats going on.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.