Prop 8 overturned

[judge death]

Well, I assume you were talking about me, judge death, and all I can say is that I do regard anyone opposing gay marriage as a homophobe. I just can't see them any other way.

There is not one single reason to oppose gay marriage other than homophobia, whether it;s open or latent.

I'm undecided on the issue, actually, but as devil's advocate I can think of a nonhomophobic reason to oppose gay marriage.

The argument goes like this: certain legal benefits accrue to marriage in order to encourage people to form stable unions for rearing children.  Heterosexual unions are far more likely to engage in child-rearing duties than homosexual marriages (though some heterosexual unions are childless and some homosexual couples raise children).  If gay marriages are recognized, society will spend resources in the form of benefits to homosexual couples without gaining the same social benefits they get from recognizing heterosexual marriages. 

The only difference between a heterosexual and a homosexual marriage is the reproductive potential; but that is a key difference that can't be whitewashed.

Of course, this argument suggests that we could reorganize the legal structure by tying benefits to the presence of children in the household rather than to marital status per se.  The problem with that is we don't want to extend the same benefits to people who irresponsibly have children outside of a committed relationship, so we still need some legal status to recognize, and marriage has been around for thousands of years.

The fact is, I'm not 100% sure in principle that the state should be in the business of recognizing heterosexual marriages, as marriage is mostly a religious institution.  As a practical matter marriage is so widespread that it is useful to recognize it to streamline many common legal transactions (for purposes of inheritance, for example).   

It does seem to me that the alternative of marriage for heterosexuals and civil unions which accomplish most of the same thing for homosexuals is inoffensive, even though it smacks uncomfortably  of "separate but equal" treatment.       

Fair point. As a counter I politely offer the fact that there are many abandoned and neglected children in the world who could be adopted by a gay couple if homophobic groups didn't struggle to make such adoptions illegal by claiming gays molest children as a justification to ban gay adoption and/or preventing gay marriage.

[Jim H]

California is one of the most liberal states in the union, but when Prop 8 was put up for a vote, a sizable majority of California's citizens accepted it.

It was about 52% for, 48% against - with around 2.5% of the total vote invalidated/blank.  That small of a majority could be swayed in a second vote a few years down the line with proper support/voter mobilization.  That means, I would guess, that it's basically dead even or as close to it as you're likely to come.

For what that is worth, in either direction.

[JaseSF]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_Canada

Same sex marriage seemed to go through with little opposition here in Canada.

[judge death]

Speaking of the public's vote and respecting it, it seems than ehren a tiny majority votes for something republican want, like banning gay marriage, their attitude is "THE PUBLIC HAS SPOKEN! THAT'S THE END OF IT! WE WON , YOU LOST!"

When a majority of Americans vote for Helathcare reform by electing president Obama, the republican response is "THE AMERICAN PUBLIC DOESN'T WANT SOCIALIZED MEDICINE! OBSTRUCT! FILIBUSTERER!  RISE UP AND REVOLT! GRAB YOUR GUNS! STOP HEALTHCARE REFORM! REPEAL HEALTHCARE REFORM!>

Is it any wonder I hate them so much?

[indianasmith]

At the time the bill passed, public opinion was running almost 60/40 against it.

[judge death]

At the time the bill passed, public opinion was running almost 60/40 against it.

At the time Obama was elected the voters were in favor of it.

Also, I tend to be suspicious of some of those polls.

"Do you favor government takeover of the healthcare system, healthcare rationing, death panels and pulling the plug on grandma?"

Furthermore, the bill that the public was against was the one the republicans let get thru, after basically everything was removed that might have done some good.

[Jim H]

At the time the bill passed, public opinion was running almost 60/40 against it.

Not a knock on you Indy, but I find it fascinating that 6 out of 10 people voting for something in the USA is considered to be bordering on a landslide.  It really shows you how evenly divided most issues are here.

[indianasmith]

JD - I aplogize for getting your name wrong.  I notice that your political opinions seem to be very colored by emotion.  "You hate them so much" because they opposed a socialized medicine bill that was deeply flawed?  Think about the logic here.  If the other side wins an election, are you saying that the opposition must automatically cease to oppose altogether and adopt the other party's way of thinking?  Did you do that when Bush was in office?  Did you support tax cuts, the war on terror, social security privatization?  I bet not!

There is rampant hypocrisy and posturing on both sides of the American political spectrum.  That is the nature of the sideshow that is called democracy.  But good people can have radically opposed ideas as to what is good for the country and remain good people.  You and I differ radically on this issue, but I don't hate you.  Rein in the political bigotry a bit.

One other thing . . . and I will ask this question of Pennywise, who brought it up.  You claim that Christ taught 'acceptance and tolerance."  Where is that exactly?  Can you show me one instance of Jesus of Nazareth tolerating unrepentant sin?  He offered love to everyone he met, but he also called on them to turn their backs on wickedness.  Even the famous woman taken in the act of adultery - after saying "Let he who is without sin cast the first stone," he waited till her accusers left and then told her to "Go and sin no more."  People attribute many ideas and quotes to Christ that there is no historical support for.  Not trying to hijack or redirect this thread, just commenting here.

I am obviously in a minority here.  I still think changing the fundamental nature of the oldest social contract in the world is a bad idea, especially when it is done by one man against the will of the people.  I have been properly (or improperly) chastised for having this opinion.  Best wishes to all, and unless someone addresses a specific question or comment to me, I'm pretty much done here.


Seen any good movies lately?

[Allhallowsday]

...
One other thing . . . and I will ask this question of Pennywise, who brought it up.  You claim that Christ taught 'acceptance and tolerance."  Where is that exactly?  Can you show me one instance of Jesus of Nazareth tolerating unrepentant sin?  ...

It is reasonable to construe from Christ's teaching "acceptance and tolerance".  Jesus understood human nature well enough to warn his apostles: "I send you as sheep among wolves" and don't forget his wisdom to all: "Judge not, that ye be not judged" 

[indianasmith]

That last quote is frequently taken out of context . . . it certainly doesn't mean that we are to never exercise any moral judgement of any sort.  After all, he also said we should be "As shrewd as serpents and as innocent as lambs!"


But, if the greatest commandment of all is love - that we love God first and foremost, and our neighbor as ourselves - is tolerance loving?

If someone I love is addicted to drugs, should I tolerate their drug abuse?
If my family member is wrestling with depression, should I merely tolerate their depression?
Or should I do all that I can to help them overcome that which oppresses and hurts them?

Tolerance is all too often a watchword for moral indifference.

[Rev. Powell]

...
One other thing . . . and I will ask this question of Pennywise, who brought it up.  You claim that Christ taught 'acceptance and tolerance."  Where is that exactly?  Can you show me one instance of Jesus of Nazareth tolerating unrepentant sin?  ...

It is reasonable to construe from Christ's teaching "acceptance and tolerance".  Jesus understood human nature well enough to warn his apostles: "I send you as sheep among wolves" and don't forget his wisdom to all: "Judge not, that ye be not judged" 

Matt 10:16: "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."

But later, by verse 33-37: "...whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.  
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.
And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me."

Though I admit that passage is famously controversial and almost out of character for Jesus.

[Allhallowsday]

That last quote is frequently taken out of context . . . it certainly doesn't mean that we are to never exercise any moral judgement of any sort.  After all, he also said we should be "As shrewd as serpents and as innocent as lambs!"
But, if the greatest commandment of all is love - that we love God first and foremost, and our neighbor as ourselves - is tolerance loving?
If someone I love is addicted to drugs, should I tolerate their drug abuse?
If my family member is wrestling with depression, should I merely tolerate their depression?
Or should I do all that I can to help them overcome that which oppresses and hurts them?
Tolerance is all too often a watchword for moral indifference.

You know full well the tolerance of which I speak.  I know the full warning, including "...wise as serpents, innocent as lambs."  This addition does not change the import of His message, or the point I made. 

...One other thing . . . and I will ask this question of Pennywise, who brought it up.  You claim that Christ taught 'acceptance and tolerance."  Where is that exactly?  Can you show me one instance of Jesus of Nazareth tolerating unrepentant sin?  ...

It is reasonable to construe from Christ's teaching "acceptance and tolerance".  Jesus understood human nature well enough to warn his apostles: "I send you as sheep among wolves" and don't forget his wisdom to all: "Judge not, that ye be not judged" 

Matt 10:16: "Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves."
But later, by verse 33-37: "...whosoever shall deny me before men, him will I also deny before my Father which is in heaven.  
Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not to send peace, but a sword.
For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in law.  And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.  He that loveth father or mother more than me is not worthy of me: and he that loveth son or daughter more than me is not worthy of me." 
Though I admit that passage is famously controversial and almost out of character for Jesus.

It is also important to consider the "context" of Jesus' time on Earth.  Jesus expostulated that faith demands total acquiescence to the Word. He also anticipated that resistance to conversion would be severe.  The idea of the "sword" was one biblical justification for the Crusades, but I think most Christian denominations would now reject that rationale. 

[indianasmith]

It's a pretty strained interpretation for anyone to think that Christ ever meant His followers to take up the sword in anything but self defense!  But then again, Christians are pretty famous for straining Biblical truth.  As far as I am concerned, sticking as close as possible to the most plain and obvious meaning of the words is the best way to go.

This has been a most interesting thread, even if it has wandered a bit from the original topic.

[judge death]

It's a pretty strained interpretation for anyone to think that Christ ever meant His followers to take up the sword in anything but self defense!  But then again, Christians are pretty famous for straining Biblical truth.  As far as I am concerned, sticking as close as possible to the most plain and obvious meaning of the words is the best way to go.

This has been a most interesting thread, even if it has wandered a bit from the original topic.

Which words, exactly? Unless you read aramaic you're reading a trasnlation, and translations usually get "flavored" by the personal experiences and judgements of the translators.

Then you'd need to know what version of the bible to follow. A lot was left out of it by the council of nicea because it didn't fit their idea of what the bible should be and say, or it didn't fit constantine's desires.

Then of course there's the king james version of the bible, or some other version....

[Allhallowsday]

It's a pretty strained interpretation for anyone to think that Christ ever meant His followers to take up the sword in anything but self defense...! 

And even that is debatable; self defense seems the least of it.  I believe the "sword" Jesus spoke of was the conflict that would occur, the imposition of authority, the tearing apart of families, the suffering and persecution that his followers did indeed experience, all in the name of faith.