Newest Posts
Forums » TALK Politics »
Proposition 8 in California
dieseldog
robamichael
@derekkraan
Now we're getting somewhere! I have to see you are playing quite a respectable devil's advocate. Let's see if I can compromise and retort...
In summation of my last post I made a call for civil-unions to be utilized no matter what the outcome of this current controversy. I do believe that marriage originates from religious roots and it is only reasonable to create a more neutral term for the legal binding of two citizens. In saying this, I believe I can counter your first and last points.
On the first point I would say that I believe this is where the current problem originates. Marriage was never a problem before because America was immensely christian and not exactly tolerant to what we now find most reasonably acceptable. The truth is that the term has been used as a quick fix to the real problem. Marriage being a religious term should never have been used in our laws if we meant to promote freedom of religion. The fact that this was not foreseen is not a huge problem in my eyes. Hindsight is of course 20/20.
However, I do not believe this constitutes reasoning that we should eradicate the term marriage in legal terms. Instead, we should make the move to creating the newer term for our people to use when they join. After all, I think the gay community may even find this move more to their liking. Having people of other groups joining your fight for equal rights. One community can fight for all rights included in same-sex unions and another can fight for freedom of religion.
In my opinion, your third point is a bit off base. The segregation matters were actually a case of separate and unequal. This meaning that people should remain separate because they are NOT equal. Where as current social standards allow different races and cultures to keep their traditions without persecution, but remain equally treated in society. This is how I would define separate but equal. We may just disagree on whether this is relevant.
I actually find your second point the most difficult to manage. It is a great point and from here I believe the issue may become wishy-washy. All I can say is that I am proud of some of our nation's traditions, for example Christmas being a national holiday. I can only suggest that we keep the term Marriage in respect to our founding ways and try to move on not by eradicating the tradition, but improving our options through the addition of fully equipped civil-unions. This may not quell those more radical churches from requesting their ceremonies be classified legally as "marriage," but I think it would be most sophisticated of us to try to move away from the legal term "marriage" by adding a more sensible option.
Besides, I hope Christmas is never gotten rid of just because other religions think it is not "fair." Jesus, real or not, was the figure that spread the philosophy that our constitution and government was founded on. I don't find it at all inappropriate to celebrate the birth (whatever day it might actually be) of such an important man for America's values. Hopefully we continue to handle it the way we have. Allow all religions to operate without interruption, but keep our traditions intact.
By the way derekkraan, I really value your intelligent and civil responses. Thanks (so far : P) for the discussion.
Now we're getting somewhere! I have to see you are playing quite a respectable devil's advocate. Let's see if I can compromise and retort...
In summation of my last post I made a call for civil-unions to be utilized no matter what the outcome of this current controversy. I do believe that marriage originates from religious roots and it is only reasonable to create a more neutral term for the legal binding of two citizens. In saying this, I believe I can counter your first and last points.
On the first point I would say that I believe this is where the current problem originates. Marriage was never a problem before because America was immensely christian and not exactly tolerant to what we now find most reasonably acceptable. The truth is that the term has been used as a quick fix to the real problem. Marriage being a religious term should never have been used in our laws if we meant to promote freedom of religion. The fact that this was not foreseen is not a huge problem in my eyes. Hindsight is of course 20/20.
However, I do not believe this constitutes reasoning that we should eradicate the term marriage in legal terms. Instead, we should make the move to creating the newer term for our people to use when they join. After all, I think the gay community may even find this move more to their liking. Having people of other groups joining your fight for equal rights. One community can fight for all rights included in same-sex unions and another can fight for freedom of religion.
In my opinion, your third point is a bit off base. The segregation matters were actually a case of separate and unequal. This meaning that people should remain separate because they are NOT equal. Where as current social standards allow different races and cultures to keep their traditions without persecution, but remain equally treated in society. This is how I would define separate but equal. We may just disagree on whether this is relevant.
I actually find your second point the most difficult to manage. It is a great point and from here I believe the issue may become wishy-washy. All I can say is that I am proud of some of our nation's traditions, for example Christmas being a national holiday. I can only suggest that we keep the term Marriage in respect to our founding ways and try to move on not by eradicating the tradition, but improving our options through the addition of fully equipped civil-unions. This may not quell those more radical churches from requesting their ceremonies be classified legally as "marriage," but I think it would be most sophisticated of us to try to move away from the legal term "marriage" by adding a more sensible option.
Besides, I hope Christmas is never gotten rid of just because other religions think it is not "fair." Jesus, real or not, was the figure that spread the philosophy that our constitution and government was founded on. I don't find it at all inappropriate to celebrate the birth (whatever day it might actually be) of such an important man for America's values. Hopefully we continue to handle it the way we have. Allow all religions to operate without interruption, but keep our traditions intact.
By the way derekkraan, I really value your intelligent and civil responses. Thanks (so far : P) for the discussion.
notablenotices![[Power User]](http://www.hubdub.com/images/icon_superuser.gif "This user is a super user"){kind=icon}
The Price of Prop 8
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/bg2328.cfm
Abstract: Supporters of Proposition 8 in California have been subjected to harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry. Arguments for same-sex marriage are based fundamentally on the idea that limiting marriage to the union of husband and wife is a form of bigotry, irrational prejudice, and even hatred against homosexual persons. As this ideology seeps into the culture more generally, individuals and institutions that support marriage as the union of husband and wife risk paying a price for that belief in many legal, social, economic, and cultural contexts.
[More at the link...]
http://www.heritage.org/Research/Family/bg2328.cfm
Abstract: Supporters of Proposition 8 in California have been subjected to harassment, intimidation, vandalism, racial scapegoating, blacklisting, loss of employment, economic hardships, angry protests, violence, at least one death threat, and gross expressions of anti-religious bigotry. Arguments for same-sex marriage are based fundamentally on the idea that limiting marriage to the union of husband and wife is a form of bigotry, irrational prejudice, and even hatred against homosexual persons. As this ideology seeps into the culture more generally, individuals and institutions that support marriage as the union of husband and wife risk paying a price for that belief in many legal, social, economic, and cultural contexts.
[More at the link...]
hfl13
My proposal as a european: all the extemists of both sides should move to their favorite state. Afterwards they almost never have to suffer other opinions again. ;-)
in This will be American health system Soon
in This will be American health system Soon
in Fun with A.C.R.O.N.Y.M.S!
in Fun with A.C.R.O.N.Y.M.S!
in Fun with A.C.R.O.N.Y.M.S!
in Fun with A.C.R.O.N.Y.M.S!
in Fun with A.C.R.O.N.Y.M.S!
in This will be American health system Soon
in This will be American health system Soon
in This will be American health system Soon