Federal Appeals Court rules Prop 8 Unconstitutional

[Livewire]

While the issue is far from over, the Appeal Courts ruling on gay marriage in California is a first step towards the legalization of Gay marriage in California and beyond.

https://usnews.msnbc.msn.com/_news/...calif-ban-on-gay-marriage-is-unconstitutional

Thoughts?

 

[Shining Raichu]

My first thought: neenurneenurneenur.gif

But honestly this just makes me so happy. The morons fighting for Prop 8 should just give up and leave well enough alone - I mean, even setting aside the fact that they're essentially opposing the entire concept of equal rights to fulfil their selfish and misguided wishes, a total of four judges have now told them that what they're doing goes against the constitution. So what are they trying to prove at this point? That the legal fabric of the country doesn't matter? Or that they can twist it to meet their own bigoted ends if they wish really really hard?

 

[Esper]

The 8th Circuit Court ruled that it's unconstitutional, but sadly we still have to wait for the eventual Supreme Court ruling. Still, the language they used in the ruling was pretty scathing of the pro-Prop 8 side. They said that in order to single out a group of people and treat them differently you have to have a justifiable reason and they said they found nothing of the sort. So, basically, they said that there is no justifiable reason to prohibit people from marrying.

I read a little more about the ruling and it seems to be worded cautiously so that it can better stand up in the Supreme Court. Apparently a lot of decisions from the 9th Circuit (which includes California and a bunch of other states) often get overturned because they are generally more liberal than the conservative-learning Supreme Court.

I think we're all hoping that eventually it not only gets overturned, but that all anti-marriage laws everywhere in the country get thrown out.

 

[Dawn]

My thoughts? Nothing remotely surprising or outrageous to see here. I'm expecting legalization within a couple of years accounting for court processes and am more than ready for it and the potential wave of people trolling that follows.

On a separate note though... Calling people bigots for having a different opinion and attempting to represent their opinion in court is the worst variety of irony, that of the pot calling the kettle black.

 

[Oryx]

My thoughts? Nothing remotely surprising or outrageous to see here. I'm expecting legalization within a couple of years accounting for court processes and am more than ready for it and the potential wave of people trolling that follows.

On a separate note though... Calling people bigots for having a different opinion and attempting to represent their opinion in court is the worst variety of irony, that of the pot calling the kettle black.

big·ot
noun
a person who is utterly intolerant of any differing creed, belief, or opinion.

[source]

Definition of BIGOT

: a person who is obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance

[source]

It's a word with a definition. Just because it has a negative connotation doesn't mean using it to define a group of people that are utterly intolerant of homosexual marriages is bigoted in itself. The people pushing for Prop 8 are bigoted in that they're so incredibly intolerant of the idea that gay people should be able to get married that they want to force everyone to conform to their own beliefs by disallowing anyone to marry if they don't marry under their belief system (the belief that only a man and a woman should be married). They very closely fit the definition of bigots.

Having a different opinion doesn't make you a bigot. There are people that believe gay people getting married is wrong, but they aren't actually bigoted because they're tolerant of the idea that they're not the only opinion in the world and therefore don't try to outlaw same sex marriage for people who don't agree with them. However, Prop 8 is the definition of a bigoted law. The people that support it are intolerant in that they are unable to tolerate the idea that other people might do something that they believe is wrong, and therefore feel the need to push their views onto others in the form of laws.

 

[Shining Raichu]

To my mind, it's bigoted to be against gay marriage because it has nothing to do with the bigots. They shouldn't be allowed an opinion or a vote because they don't have a stake in the issue at all (at least not one that exists outside their heads). They are going out of their way to restrict the rights of others when at the end of the day, it's not going to affect their lives in the slightest. They're attempting to play with the lives of other people, force their own restrictive moral code onto society as a whole and tell other people how they're allowed to live. To legally pursue an issue that has no bearing on your life in the effort to take away the rights of a specific group of people is more than just a 'differing opinion' and it goes beyond simple disapproval; it is active bigotry.

And in the end, that's exactly what the Appeals Court ruled, that the very idea of voting to strip the rights of others is not something that should be allowed in the Democratic system. In other words, "mind your own business, this doesn't concern you".

 

[Dakotah]

About bloody time, I say. I've been hoping for this for quite some time. I know a few people in California who want to be married. They even contemplated for a time coming up to Canada to get married, but in the end decided to wait. Now they're one step closer to realizing their dreams.

 

[Dawn]

@Toujors: Saying that someone should not execercise their right to defend their opinion in court because they refuse to believe what you belief and instead stick to their own beliefs is about as tolerant as literally attempting to bully them into silence. Oh wait--That's exactly what it is!

Bully (verb):
"Use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants."
(Source)

For a cause as righteous as gay marriage we have quite the tendency to make ourselves look very bigoted in our own right and it bothers me as someone who may have to answer for it as a supporter. If future generations are to see us as heroes and not just an angry mob that happened to be fighting for a good cause and won then we must show some restraint and tolerance for our opponents.

 

[Dakotah]

@Toujors: Saying that someone should not execercise their right to defend their opinion in court because they refuse to believe what you belief and instead stick to their own beliefs is about as tolerant as literally attempting to bully them into silence. Oh wait--That's exactly what it is!

To defend in court one's opinion, one must first be subject to prosecution. But this is not the case with same-sex marriage supporters. Most court cases aren't about same-sex marriage opponents having to defend their beliefs, rather it is the supporters who are forced to defend the attack being leveled upon them by the opponents.

Such was the case when Prop 8 was being put to the people, and such was the case when Prop 8 was being argued in court. In both instances, the opponents of same-sex marriage routinely denigrated same-sex couples relationships, describing them as less desirable, a threat to children, and a threat to non-same-sex couples marriages. This is the classic example of what a bigot does. A bigot demeans and insults and fabricates. All of which same-sex marriage opponents have been guilty of time and time again.

Same-sex marriage supports, aren't angels by any stretch of the imagination, but by and large their response has been a defensive one, not an offensive one. Not everyone who disagrees with same-sex marriage is a bigot, but those who advocate against it, and who work to make the laws conform to their prejudiced beliefs, those are bigots. They are defined by their actions. Not by their beliefs.

We who are supporters of same-sex marriage do not wish to silence, or bully into silence, those who object to same-sex couples getting married. On the contrary, we wish for them to speak out. Often. For when they do, they illustrate quite effectively just how desperate and prejudiced they are. Their arguments serve to further our goals, which is to ensure all of us are treated as equals under the law.

We welcome our opponents their arguments, but just as they are free to voice their opinions, so too are we free to deride them for doing so. And they are equally free to deride us for our positions.

There is no law that prevents people from voicing their beliefs. There is only law that prevents them from acting on those beliefs, if those beliefs infringe the rights of others.

 

[Shanghai Alice]

A bigot demeans and insults and fabricates.

Admittedly, I'm no Hijiri Byakuren, but I find it hard to stomach a lesson on tolerance from someone who then takes several potshots at people who have opposing mindsets.

Contrary to popular belief, not all same-sex opponents are frothing idiots who go home and plot how to best implement an oppressive theocracy. Granted, the more vocal ones are raging idiots, but I hope you avoid the common mistake of "Lunatic Fringe = Everyone that disagrees with me". The more vocal advocates of any cause tend to get noticed, and tend to make a splash in sensationalist media.

That said, I'm actually fairly neutral on the issue. Honestly, I wouldn't get a same-sex marriage myself, and all I really want is for people to stick to their beliefs and practice what they preach. If you're a Catholic who says you're opposed to X, then don't do X. If you're not, that's your business. Hypocrisy is my main pet peeve, not people following different paths.


Still, to get back on topic, it looks bad when you use barbed words like "prejudiced" and "desperate" to describe people who don't agree with you, immediately after calling for tolerance and an end to bigotry.

If you're being persecuted, accept it with grace, and protest it with dignity.

However, don't call for peace and love while you make cracks about your opponents. That's something I'd expect from a 1950s Banana Republic Communist dictator, not a rational minded person.

Shanghai out.

 

[Oryx]

@Toujors: Saying that someone should not execercise their right to defend their opinion in court because they refuse to believe what you belief and instead stick to their own beliefs is about as tolerant as literally attempting to bully them into silence. Oh wait--That's exactly what it is!

I'm fine with them believing whatever they'd like. I actually do have friends that believe that same-sex marriage is wrong. I've talked to them about it and realized that their opinion won't be swayed, and we've just not talked about it since then because it's not relevant to my immediate life. While I believe their opinion doesn't really have a rational basis, I'm tolerant of it.

P.S.: Although intolerance is a large factor in bigotry, it also has to be overwhelming, stubborn, obstinate, take your pick of words that the dictionary uses to describe bigotry. One person saying that they personally dislike people that are anti-gay is not bigoted, it's intolerant yes but not so intolerant to the point that they are trying to outlaw people reasonably arguing against gay marriage.

Bully (verb):
"Use superior strength or influence to intimidate (someone), typically to force him or her to do what one wants."
(Source)

For a cause as righteous as gay marriage we have quite the tendency to make ourselves look very bigoted in our own right and it bothers me as someone who may have to answer for it as a supporter. If future generations are to see us as heroes and not just an angry mob that happened to be fighting for a good cause and won then we must show some restraint and tolerance for our opponents.

I agree that people could be more tolerant. But on the other hand, this goes back to my belief in the difference between something being right, and something being justifiable. It's right to be tolerant of people even as they tell you that you're incapable of creating a cohesive family unit, that you are unable to raise a child correctly, that you personally are not good enough to be trusted to get married. But it's justifiable to harbor resentment and anger towards those people. It may not be the perfect saint-like thing to do, but it doesn't lack any kind of justification. I'm sure I would be resentful towards people like that as well if I was raised knowing that they thought all those things about me.

Saying on a Pokemon forum that you think people that try to suppress gay peoples' rights based on their own beliefs are bigoted is far from bullying. Where's the power? Where's the influence? Where's the intimidation? If that was true, I could say you were bullying Shining Raichu by implying he was bigoted himself. Are you a bully?

Let me give you an analogy and ask you what you think about that: It's the middle of the Civil Rights Movement. A group of white people are trying to pass a law that strips a right of everyone of color, it could be the right to marry for the sake of this analogy or any other right (right to vote, right to own property, etc). Black people call those specific white people bigots. Are the black people bigoted for saying that?

Notice that the person you are calling out doesn't say anything about people that are against gay marriage but don't support Prop 8. Only the people trying to push it through. Not all people that have anti-gay views, but the specific group of people that are trying to take away gay rights based on their own views.

@Alice: I wish all people who believed gay marriage was wrong treated it like you did. The world would be a better place.

 

[Dakotah]

Admittedly, I'm no Hijiri Byakuren, but I find it hard to stomach a lesson on tolerance from someone who then takes several potshots at people who have opposing mindsets.

Why must I tolerate someone who is intolerant?

Contrary to popular belief, not all same-sex opponents are frothing idiots who go home and plot how to best implement an oppressive theocracy. Granted, the more vocal ones are raging idiots, but I hope you avoid the common mistake of "Lunatic Fringe = Everyone that disagrees with me". The more vocal advocates of any cause tend to get noticed, and tend to make a splash in sensationalist media.

If you read fully my post you would realize that I already stated that not all who oppose same-sex marriage are bigots. Please do me the courtesy of at least reading in full my statements before leveling accusations.

That said, I'm actually fairly neutral on the issue. Honestly, I wouldn't get a same-sex marriage myself, and all I really want is for people to stick to their beliefs and practice what they preach. If you're a Catholic who says you're opposed to X, then don't do X. If you're not, that's your business. Hypocrisy is my main pet peeve, not people following different paths.

If only the world was so black and white. Most people eventually come to realize there are no absolutes in life. Everything is fluid, including our beliefs and our ideals. To use your example, the Catholic Church teaches that contraception is wrong, and yet a huge majority of those professing to be Catholic do not agree with that teaching. Similarly, a good majority of Catholics do not agree with the Church's teaching on homosexuality. Should they be labeled hypocrites because they don't agree with the Catholic Church? Of course not. Because the way they view things is determined by their experiences as an individual.

Still, to get back on topic, it looks bad when you use barbed words like "prejudiced" and "desperate" to describe people who don't agree with you, immediately after calling for tolerance and an end to bigotry.

It is never wrong to assign a label to someone who demonstrates an action associated with that word. An individual who calls people who are gay immoral, perverted, etc. is a prejudiced individual. Prejudice is never a rational emotion. It is born of fear and ignorance. Likewise is the term desperate appropriate to describe the actions of groups advocating against same sex marriages. As more and more people accept and welcome the recognition of same-sex couples' relationships, you see the rhetoric from those against us getting more desperate in nature. You see a willingness on their part to further stretch the truth or to disregard it entirely. You see a willingness also to instil fear in those they wish to convince. (ie. Vote no for marriage equality so that schools can't teach children that homosexual relationships are good). The more pointed the rhetoric, the more desperate they sound. And right now, opponents of same-sex marriage sound very desperate indeed. All their arguments are failing, both in the courts and in public opinion.

However, don't call for peace and love while you make cracks about your opponents. That's something I'd expect from a 1950s Banana Republic Communist dictator, not a rational minded person.

Shanghai out.

I make no "cracks" about those who disagree with same sex marriages. I do, however, call people out on their prejudices when they act in a prejudicial manner. There is a clear distinction between action and thought. It is not their thoughts that earns a person the label of bigot. It is the actions they take.

 

[Shanghai Alice]

Why must I tolerate someone who is intolerant?

Because perpetuating the cycle of hatred does nothing positive?

If you read fully my post you would realize that I already stated that not all who oppose same-sex marriage are bigots. Please do me the courtesy of at least reading in full my statements before leveling accusations.

And I quote:

We who are supporters of same-sex marriage do not wish to silence, or bully into silence, those who object to same-sex couples getting married. On the contrary, we wish for them to speak out. Often. For when they do, they illustrate quite effectively just how desperate and prejudiced they are.

Granted, you could say that it was just assumed you didn't mean all of them, but I've learned the hard way that at PC, you leave nothing up to assumption.

If only the world was so black and white. Most people eventually come to realize there are no absolutes in life.

I say that I am 100% opposed to hard drugs. That is an absolute, because it's unambiguous. Let's use that as an example.

Everything is fluid, including our beliefs and our ideals.

An easily changed belief is one not worth having.

To use your example, the Catholic Church teaches that contraception is wrong, and yet a huge majority of those professing to be Catholic do not agree with that teaching.

Key word highlighted. People having lapses of judgment and slipping up, I can understand.

But if someone tells me they are a Catholic, I will take it as a given that they do not knowingly contradict any of the beliefs of the Church. If you call yourself X, then you are either X, or you are wrong.

That doesn't mean "You believe X, or you are wrong", it simply means "If you preach X, and you do not practice X, then you are not X."

Cafeteria Catholics aren't.

Similarly, a good majority of Catholics do not agree with the Church's teaching on homosexuality.

A good amount of gay marriage advocates love to twist the Bible and try to trap Christians.

In fact, many of the "bigoted, anti-Gay" passages were from Leviticus. I am not a Levitical priest, so the passage pretty much don't apply to me. People need to cut out the "If it's in the Bible, then Catholics will defend it to the death!" mindset. New Testament? Yes. Old Testament? A lot more complicated. As you said, a lot more than black and white.

Should they be labeled hypocrites because they don't agree with the Catholic Church? Of course not. Because the way they view things is determined by their experiences as an individual.

Yes, they should. If they preach one thing by claiming to be Catholic, and then practice the opposite, then they are, by definition, hypocrites.

And individual behavior is something people can control. I can't claim to be pro-life and then murder eight-year old children, and then try to claim relativism and personal viewpoint.

If you say something, stick with it. That's my belief. I don't care what you believe, but please, stick to your guns.

Just like you're doing right now. If you suddenly started despising all homosexuals, you would be a hypocrite, right?

It is never wrong to assign a label to someone who demonstrates an action associated with that word.

I could throw out a dozen slurs that would prove you wrong.

An individual who calls people who are gay immoral, perverted, etc. is a prejudiced individual.

That's human nature. The point is, do you follow through with it? Also, everyone is entitled to their sensibilities and ideas, so long as they openly claim to be what they are, and not what they aren't.

Prejudice is never a rational emotion. It is born of fear and ignorance.

Yes, you're right. However, think of one thing that you oppose, and then try to imagine what the opposition would think of you.

Prejudice used to have a lot more meaning than it does today. Today, it's become "They tell me that something I do is wrong, so it's prejudice!"

Likewise is the term desperate appropriate to describe the actions of groups advocating against same sex marriages. As more and more people accept and welcome the recognition of same-sex couples' relationships, you see the rhetoric from those against us getting more desperate in nature. You see a willingness on their part to further stretch the truth or to disregard it entirely. You see a willingness also to instil fear in those they wish to convince. (ie. Vote no for marriage equality so that schools can't teach children that homosexual relationships are good).

I would actually say that I'd much rather not have school propagandizing my child one way or the other, actually. However, when people say "Stop indoctrinating my child!", they usually mean, "Stop teaching kids things I don't like, and start teaching kids things I do, for the sake of 'balance' and 'fairness!'"

Schools are a place of education. Real Life is where people learn to think for themselves.

The more pointed the rhetoric, the more desperate they sound. And right now, opponents of same-sex marriage sound very desperate indeed. All their arguments are failing, both in the courts and in public opinion.

Statistically, yes. That is true.

I make no "cracks" about those who disagree with same sex marriages. I do, however, call people out on their prejudices when they act in a prejudicial manner. There is a clear distinction between action and thought. It is not their thoughts that earns a person the label of bigot. It is the actions they take.

Let me be clear on one thing before I respond to this.

Anyone that threatens, harms, or in any way "bullies" anyone for their beliefs, is deserving of justice. Be that prison, chewing out, fines, lawsuits, whatever. I don't agree with using force to convert others, mainly because, as people are learning today, the converts typically aren't the most zealous members, and are typically less trouble than their worth.

Still, acknowledging the fact that people have different viewpoints, and people have things that offend them, I say that people have the right to protest against things which they believe are wrong.

The main point I disagree with you on is that I don't think that the mere possession of an opposing viewpoint does not make someone a bigot, even if they voice it. The mere fact that somebody tells you that they disagree with you does not make them prejudiced, it means they disagree with you.

The viewpoint is one thing. How it is expressed, how it is argued, that is another thing entirely. I openly love C.S. Lewis and Chesterton, but I cringe whenever I read a badly written post telling me "jesus is ur SAVIOR!!!!!" I do my best to not feel any ill will towards the person (but, hey, I'm human. The key point is that I still say that I should love others, even if I'm not the perfect example of what I want to be. I'm making an effort, and I'm trying to remain consistent), but I abhor the way they express their beliefs.


You have stated that you dislike the rhetoric and arguments used against homosexual marriage, and that's A-OK. You're entitled to that opinion. But to make sweeping statements about people simply because they disagree with you is not.




Gruh. Sorry if this comes across as overzealous. Do I need to tone it down? I'm trying not to get too into it, but...

 

[Richard Lynch]

Still, acknowledging the fact that people have different viewpoints, and people have things that offend them, I say that people have the right to protest against things which they believe are wrong.

The main point I disagree with you on is that I don't think that the mere possession of an opposing viewpoint does not make someone a bigot, even if they voice it. The mere fact that somebody tells you that they disagree with you does not make them prejudiced, it means they disagree with you.

The viewpoint is one thing. How it is expressed, how it is argued, that is another thing entirely. I openly love C.S. Lewis and Chesterton, but I cringe whenever I read a badly written post telling me "jesus is ur SAVIOR!!!!!" I do my best to not feel any ill will towards the person (but, hey, I'm human. The key point is that I still say that I should love others, even if I'm not the perfect example of what I want to be. I'm making an effort, and I'm trying to remain consistent), but I abhor the way they express their beliefs.

Now hold on there... you act as if the viewpoint is it's own entity. There has to be a reason behind a viewpoint, otherwise it's just schizophrenia. If someone says they disagree with gay marriage "just because", well... that's the answer a desperate parent would give to a child because there actually is no reason. As you said, to preach X, you must believe X... well, expressing a viewpoint pretty much is preaching, and where there is preaching there is belief.

My point being, there is a reason behind the viewpoint, and that reason is always prejudiced at the center. If you boil that reason down to the bone, no matter what it is (destruction of the nuclear family, the children involved, etc), it will always end with "because they are gay", and that is bigotry.

 

[-ty-]

I think we are getting off topic. This should not be a semantics war, let's stick to the substantive stuff!

This decision may very likely be appealed to the US Supreme Court. I am certain that it will at least be filed for an appeal, but I think that at least 4 justices will want to settle this issue once and for all!

Basically the S.C., like most of government, is dichotomous. There are four justices that are proclaimed to be liberals, and four that are proclaimed to be conservatives. It's forecast that Justice Anthony Kennedy would be the deciding vote in this case. From his record, and libertarian values, I think he is much more likely to be a proponent of gay marriage.

With that being said, I am a proponent of gay marriage. I have not heard one sound/valid argument against gay marriage. They are all flawed.

 

[Dakotah]

Because perpetuating the cycle of hatred does nothing positive?

Intolerance is not hatred. It is the refusal to accept a concept, ideal, or action. For example, I do not have to tolerate the actions of a murderer, or a rapist. Similarly, I do not have to tolerate an individual who seeks to harm another by infringing on their rights. To do so would be to accept the harm that those actions would cause. Since I cannot accept harm being inflicted on another, I cannot tolerate it. Advocates against same-sex marriages inflict a very real harm upon a class of citizens. What rational minded person could tolerate that harm?

We who are supporters of same-sex marriage do not wish to silence, or bully into silence, those who object to same-sex couples getting married. On the contrary, we wish for them to speak out. Often. For when they do, they illustrate quite effectively just how desperate and prejudiced they are.

Granted, you could say that it was just assumed you didn't mean all of them, but I've learned the hard way that at PC, you leave nothing up to assumption.

I stand by my statement. I labeled vocal objectors to same-sex marriage prejudiced, which is to say that they have or show a dislike or distrust that is derived from prejudice. A bigot on the other hand is one who is strongly partial to one's own group, religion, race, or politics and is intolerant of those who differ. There is a great deal of difference between disliking someone or distrusting someone because of your beliefs and someone who is intolerant to those who are different. You can dislike someone or distrust someone because of your beliefs, but that does not automatically mean you are intolerant of them.

An easily changed belief is one not worth having.

Agreed ... if the belief in question was based on a fallacy.

People's beliefs change all the time, no matter how strongly that belief may have been held, mostly because they are given new information which contradicts the original belief.

People having lapses of judgment and slipping up, I can understand.

But if someone tells me they are a Catholic, I will take it as a given that they do not knowingly contradict any of the beliefs of the Church. If you call yourself X, then you are either X, or you are wrong.

Is it a lapse of judgement for them to disagree with a particular position held by the Church, or is it rather a conscious moral decision on their part to disagree with that position? Does every Catholic have to agree with every position that the Church takes, no matter how irrational, or how prejudicial it may seem? There are not very many people in this world who blindly follow their leaders in all things. People are individuals, and they must make decisions for themselves based on what they view to be right and wrong. Blind adherence to doctrine does not a good Catholic make. A good Catholic is one who questions and in so doing discovers answers to guide them in their lives. 96% of Catholics disagree with the Catholic church's position on contraception. Are those 96% therefore not Catholics in your mind?

A good amount of gay marriage advocates love to twist the Bible and try to trap Christians.

I contend Christians are more adept at twisting the words in the bible than any other group. To date, there are over a hundred different versions of the bible, each with their own unique translation of the words originally written. Of those hundred, which one is the correct one?

Gay rights advocates don't need to twist the words of the bible. Christians do a fine enough job as it is.

In fact, many of the "bigoted, anti-Gay" passages were from Leviticus. I am not a Levitical priest, so the passage pretty much don't apply to me. People need to cut out the "If it's in the Bible, then Catholics will defend it to the death!" mindset. New Testament? Yes. Old Testament? A lot more complicated. As you said, a lot more than black and white.

In my experience, it matters not which version of the bible is used, whether it be Old Testament or New Testament, both are used to condemn gays and lesbians, and all the verses that are used are taken out of context and used in the manner not intended. You cannot pluck a paragraph from a chapter in a book and from that paragraph determine the message contained within that chapter. Taking the paragraph out of context alters its meaning, and in so doing ignores the message the chapter is trying to convey.

Yes, they should. If they preach one thing by claiming to be Catholic, and then practice the opposite, then they are, by definition, hypocrites.

Those who indicate their disagreement with the church on a particular position, and live their lives accordingly, are not hypocrites. A hypocrite in this instance would be a person who believes differently than the church, but publicly declares their agreement with the church's position.

Just like you're doing right now. If you suddenly started despising all homosexuals, you would be a hypocrite, right?

No, because if I believed in my disagreement with homosexuality and vocalized that disagreement, despite being gay myself, I would not be a hypocrite. There are a lot of people in this world who hate themselves for being who they are. This does not make them hypocrites, it makes them people suffering from depression.

I could throw out a dozen slurs that would prove you wrong.

You could do that, but it wouldn't prove me wrong. If an action taken by a person is accurately described, is the description wrong simply because it might cause offense? I could call you clumsy because you tripped over a coffee table. Or I could call you silly if you start acting out in an outrageous fashion. For every action we take there is a description that can be attributed to that action. If, on the other hand, a label is given to an individual without any basis in fact, then the label becomes an insult, and that should be avoided always.

That's human nature. The point is, do you follow through with it? Also, everyone is entitled to their sensibilities and ideas, so long as they openly claim to be what they are, and not what they aren't.

Prejudice is a learned trait. It's not human nature.

I would actually say that I'd much rather not have school propagandizing my child one way or the other, actually. However, when people say "Stop indoctrinating my child!", they usually mean, "Stop teaching kids things I don't like, and start teaching kids things I do, for the sake of 'balance' and 'fairness!'"

Is it propagandizing to teach children about the realities of the world they're growing up in? Fact: there are people who are attracted to others of the opposite sex. Fact: There are people who are attracted to others of the same sex. Fact: There are people who are attracted to others of both sexes. Whether a child learns these facts when they are younger or discover them later on in life makes no difference. Only, by learning about the realities of the society they live in when they are in school, they are given an opportunity to better able to interact with those in the society appropriately. By denying them this, it hinders their ability to interact properly. This is often where we see people uncomfortable in their reactions with those of a different faith, or ethnic background, or sexual orientation. They are uncertain because they were never given the opportunity to learn about those groups.

Secondly, when it comes to parents' rights to determine what their children should and shouldn't learn in schools, I agree, but only to a degree. If a decision by a parent to deny a child the opportunity to learn about something that will greatly affect their lives (sexual education), then the government must mandate those subjects be taught in order for the students to graduate. It is mandatory here than all children from grade 5 up begin sex ed, so that they may be better informed later on in their lives about the consequences of engaging in sexual activity. They learn about how babies develop and grow and eventually are born. They learn about their bodies, and how it functions, and they learn about STDs and other complications that could affect their health as a result of sexual activity. It's mandatory because parents are the least capable of disseminating that information properly and completely. More often than not, parents are totally embarrassed about the whole subject and often use the excuse "my child isn't old enough to know about this stuff." And then they wonder why there is such a high percentage of teenage pregnancies.

If there is something a child needs to learn so that they can better make informed decisions, then it is incumbent on all of us to make sure there are no barriers put in place to prevent them from learning. There are many things we each disagree with that occurs in society today, but hiding our children from it won't make it go away. It'll only make it that much harder for them to integrate effectively.

Schools are a place of education. Real Life is where people learn to think for themselves.

Schools are a place where children learn how to learn. What they learn is entirely dependent on the information given to them, both inside the school, and outside.

The main point I disagree with you on is that I don't think that the mere possession of an opposing viewpoint does not make someone a bigot, even if they voice it. The mere fact that somebody tells you that they disagree with you does not make them prejudiced, it means they disagree with you.

Again, it is not my position that all those who disagree with same-sex relationships are bigots. They're not. A bigot is a person who is intolerant of a difference. There are a lot of people who disagree with same sex relationships, but I do not call them bigots. They're simply people who have a different belief. A bigot, to me, is a person who doesn't just hold a certain belief, but acts to impose those beliefs on others against a class of people. It's the action that determines a bigot, not the belief.

I'll let you in on a little secret though. All of us are prejudiced in some way. We learned our prejudices from our parents, from our teachers, from our church leaders, from our friends. The best of us, however, recognize those prejudices, and work to overcome them, or to at least refrain from acting out on them. That means we don't judge others, we don't tell them their way of living, if it harms no one, is wrong. We live and let live.

It is difficult enough living our own lives. Why should we want to complicate things by trying to run the lives of others as well?

You have stated that you dislike the rhetoric and arguments used against homosexual marriage, and that's A-OK. You're entitled to that opinion. But to make sweeping statements about people simply because they disagree with you is not.

Again, I try my very best to avoid generalizations of all kinds (I am human, so sometimes I do not always succeed). That means I recognize that all who disagree with a certain point of view that differs from my own are deserving of a particular label. I try instead to base my reactions on the actions taken by others. I react when I feel slighted. I call people out for their prejudices when they articulate a particularly offensive statement, or when they take a certain action that would likely result in harm being inflicted on another (emotional, psychological mostly).

Gruh. Sorry if this comes across as overzealous. Do I need to tone it down? I'm trying not to get too into it, but...

Nope. I'm actually enjoying this conversation. Having an honest, rational debate with someone is actually quite refreshing. You and I definitely approach things differently, and our beliefs so obviously differ, but that's what makes life so interesting, doesn't it? If everything was the same, it'd be like watching a golf match on TV... guaranteed to put me to sleep within minutes.

 

[Calipornia]

This doesn't matter to me the slightest. I can be happy even if I'm not married.

Also, what the.. never mind.

 

[Gamzee]

Like with the black civil rights movement, this is just a small step in the battle for equality.

 

[Livewire]

Also, not to mention since this happened, we had a few other states legalize Gay Marriage. New Jersey did, but Gov. Chris Christie (R) vetoed it. No surprises there, unfortunately.

 

[twocows]

@Toujors: Saying that someone should not execercise their right to defend their opinion in court because they refuse to believe what you belief and instead stick to their own beliefs is about as tolerant as literally attempting to bully them into silence. Oh wait--That's exactly what it is!

But they are bigoted. I don't think Toujours is saying they shouldn't be allowed to voice their opinions, but that doesn't change the fact that they really are bigots.

Their basic argument is that "the definition of marriage is a union between a man and a woman." Their whole argument centers around semantics. Who cares what the word means? If you're causing this much suffering over the definition of a word, change the stupid definition.

Alternatively, I think the "civil union" stuff from about a decade ago was a step in the right direction, but it was insufficient. If we referred to the legal status of joining to be a "civil union" in ALL cases and separated it from the religious status of "marriage," that might be sufficient. In this case, "marriage" would hold no legal significance and have no legal restrictions; it would be left up to the individual religious institutions to decide whether to grant the status. I don't know if it would solve all the problems (probably not), but I can't think of anything immediately wrong.