It's About Equality Not About Love

damn that is a long comment LOL!

I would hope that people who oppose Same-Sex Marriage don't look at it and make it seem as though they're bad people.  I'm simply asking what arguments are out there.  I mean, I understand the bible, but for whatever reason there's not a lot more out there.  Someone said it would lead to beastiality.  That's not the media manipulating it... that's actually what some radio host said... on his show.  Not every issue has an equal amount of facts and support on both sides.  That doesn't necessarily make the side with less obsolete... but as I said before, we're not simply talking about feelings and what one believes, we're talking about the rights of a group of people.  There are a great deal of people who still think it's apalling that we let people marry outside their race, but since we've allowed it I haven't seen the sky falling. 

I understand that The Bible isn't the only reason.  For example, for some it boils down to a moral standpoint.  This idea that the ideal family has a mother and a father.  It's the way we've often viewed a family.  On the other hand I view it as an equality issue because I do see it as being about one's rights.  Married people do have benefits that unmarried couples don't (I have to look into common law before that).  I just realized that I mentioned Domestic Partnership but didn't actually go into it.  I'm actually for Domestic Partnerships so long as it grants the same rights and privilages as married couples.  As I said, to me the issue is about rights more so than about love in and of itself.  Yes, you marry someone you love, but I think it's unrealistic to think that people don't enjoy the legal benefits of marriage as well.  So sure, I'm for Domestic Partnerships if it grants those same rights.  I guess what I'm saying is that I DO support Gay Marriage, but from a legal standpoint.  As far as legal definitions go... we do change them.  Because as langauage grows... it changes.  Definitions have changed all through history.  We just recently changed the Legal Definition of what a Hate Crime is to include Gays and Lesbians.  

Mandating change isn't the slippery slope argument, though.  Not if you want to go by the idea of what I meant by "Slippery Slope."  The Sliperry Slope Argument states that doing one thing will lead to more progressively worse things.  The reason the "Slippery Slope" argument is illogical is because we don't actually KNOW worse things will happen.  I'm not stating that worse things will happen or that it will lead to a Slippery Slope.  In short, mandating change doesn't necessarily mean bad things will come from it either.  As I said, I'm still waiting to hear what bad things have happened in these states because of allowing same-sex marriage and I haven't heard anything.  In short, I don't mind that people are against it (the idea of beating up someone for being against Gay Marriage is absolutely terrible) but in the long run I keep hearing about how doing so is going to ultimately lead to the destruction of the nation (an argument that gets used for... everything).  

I do agree that laws don't often change feelings.  But even so, I still think that whether or not say... two men decide to get married has very little to do with how I feel about said men getting married.  I still face discrimination, but I do believe that perhaps the legal benefits of a same-sex couple would be more likely to be recognized if they could get married... or if they could get into Domestic Partnerships or something like that.

Sorry for the lengthy reply.

I would guarantee the slippery slope. If it becomes the norm...you heard it here first. I don't know about the beastiality issue...but I can say that there will be other ripple effects and challenges. At the very least there would be bigamy challenges and very likely there would be assaults on the church. I watched a church get seized after it lost its non-profit status for telling parishioners that they did not have to pay taxes. Separation of church and state would not protect the non-profit status of a church if it is assailed on an equal rights foundation. I will give one unrelated but decent example. The Salvation Army was sued in New York for firing a spanish woman who couldn't speak english. It was a discrimination based complaint, even though she was fired because she couldn't communicate. They paid for her english lessons and she chose not to attend. They tried hard, but ended up letting her go. Although they did not lose their NP status, they did lose the lawsuit. I bring it up because it is a discrimination issue. In the USA English is the official language...so how is it discrimination to fire a person who can't speak it? It is the language in which business is supposed to be conducted. It is a demonstration of the slippery slope of definitions changing.

Oh, going back to Domestic Partnership in Cali; as far as I know it does give them all the benefits which would come from marriage. There's already domestic partnerships here, I've processed enough paperwork for new hires to know that. I guess the reason why I said the media is biased is because in my observations, the other side is only covered either in the A.M. news or the P.M. news for a limited amount of time while the one side gets full media coverage with interviews and everything. (I know they're probably motivated by ratings). I guess what I'm really trying to say that maybe instead of arguing, both sides need to listen to what the other says. Maybe they need to make amendments to the proposed law to approve same-sex marriage itself (I haven't read it) whether to enhance or disenhance. (I dunno) And I agree society won't collapse just because this was approved. The judge in the new prop 8 trial may allow the trial to be shot/televised. Now, the opposing side is concerned that people who would testify would be intimidated. That sometimes is the state of mind here in Cali, the opposing side are the ones who are afraid. It's curious how things get turned around here. The opponents of the law even wanted lists of names as to who financed Prop 8. Is this harassment? This action drives more people to reject it. Anger breeds more anger. Me, I have to look more into it before I finally cast my vote. As I've said, I am still undecided now because I feel that I don't have all the info but I do want everyone to be equal. I just want to make sure what it is I am voting for. I never voted (at all) on the last one. I heard something about an election again for 2011.

However, I also think that this should be more than a statewide affair. It should be national. I read on the paper that a gay woman couldn't petition for her spouse (married here), and while the state respects/recognizes the marriage, the Immigration bureau doesn't, so one of them got deported. Now that makes me angry! It isn't right for a couple to be kept apart because of a technicality.


This discussion is terrific.

Except the definition of "Slippery Slope" hasn't changed so far as anyone knows (language changing is often a gradual thing, not a snap, when I talked about how the definition of a Hate Crime was changed, that's because they literally went into the book and changed it--legally; when I talk about language changing, however, most times it's a bit more gradual), and the definition of the "Slippery Slope Argument" hasn't changed either, but the Slipper Slope argument often doesn't work because there's no way of saying things will happen.  When I say Slipper Slope Argument, it's important to understand that it usually ends with it being the downfall of something.  I don't think that say... a Church getting sued for discrimination is really a slippery slope.  Again, though, I can't see into the future, which is why I'm not assuming too much on that part.  Just because something can happen doesn't usually ultimately mean it will.

I can understand how people might jump to the conclusion that allowing gay marriage would allow other things to happen, but there's nothing that says you must let those other things happen.  I'm trying to figure out how the idea of Gay Marriage and Bestiality are the same thing.  They're not the same thing.  I don't think we're that disorderly that we'd allow ANYTHING to happen just because we allowed ONE thing to happen.  

Like I said, I'm still waiting to hear all the horror stories of what happened to the other states which allow Gay Marriage.  I'm not proposing things would be perfect.  I can't imagine anyone who would be that silly.  I just think this idea that allowing Gay Marriage is going to somehow really damage the nation is just strange.  We said the same thing when we wanted to integrate schools... we say those same things any time major change happens.  They made similar slippery slope arguments when they talked about even such things as letting Women or African Americans vote too... nothing catastrophic happened when we allowed those things.  Within the states that have allowed gay marriage... how has it been, you know, really damaging?  People reported their lives were unaffected and unchanged by Gay Marriage passing in their state.  If you look at other nations abroad--legalizing Gay Marriage didn't lead to any terrible happenings.  I'm not dismissing your idea that a Church might be sued or something like that, I just don't think it's as likely.  And if Gay Marriage were to become legal who is to say a Church would all out refuse?  They might not.  I know in my idea I said a Church COULD but I never said they WILL.  Churches might go along with it as well.  You never know.  In the event that they don't wed a couple because of that... there's no guarantee they're going to get sued.  We live in a nation where its inhabitants are always itching to sue someone (frivelous lawsuits happen all the time--doesn't make it right, but they do).  There's just no guarantee that churches will be sued.  And if one or two are sued over this, that's hardly enough to damage the entire nation as so many seem to think it will.

My question is, with the places that allow Same-Sex marriage what has happened that has really damaged these places?  I'm not talking individuals, mind you.  What I mean is in say... Massachusetts, which has allowed Same-Sex marriage since 2004... how has it damaged the state in and of itself?  And are those damages happening because Same-Sex marriage was allowed? 

My point is not about lawsuits...although that is a very real issue that will definitely arise at some point as the issue gains ground. I would not compare this issue to the others you mention because it is not about changing the law, it is about changing the definition of marriage. If you allow a civil union without changing definitions, then everyone wins. It is more about the effect that changing the definition will have a definite impact on the church. You can mark this date down on your calendar and say I called it. As the issue expands a churh will certainly be sued for refusing to perform the ceremony. The lawsuit will not be about monetary settlements, it will be about destroying the right of the church to have their own belief system apart from the "law." The church will likely lose non-profit status, which is enough to kill the church in and of itself...even without a monetary settlement, which islikely to ensue as well. The problem with this issue is that it is devisive. I personally don't see what is wrong with the happy medium...civil union...which allows for the legal rights without putting the church in a position to have to defend itself further down the road. And the argument that you can't tell the fututre doesn't work with me...I will guarantee it. Just the lawsuits could kill churches even if they lose. I am not a church-goer...although you might think so from my defense of the church...but this issue will lead to an encroachment on the church. We have flipped the entire concept of separation to prevent believers from expressing their own beliefs and are right back to the situation that the settlers were in when they fled England. The state is dictating the method of worship. The idea of separation wasn't meant to coddle people or prevent worship, it was intended to free people to worship how they wanted. It was to keep the government from establishing a national church with a set of rules that everyone has to play by. I don't like the government to keep eroding those rights away, which is why I oppose the change in definition regardless of my own status.

Everyone else seems to think this will lead to terrible disastrous things in the future.  I just want to know what in the world people are basing that off of considering the places that actually do allow gay marriage haven't suffered drastically BECAUSE of Gay Marriage--not even their churches.  I'm not suggesting that a church couldn't be sued or something, only that it won't be this huge downfall.  I might be misunderstanding you, but it just seems like you're saying, "This will lead to the downfall of the church through lawsuits."  I really don't think that'll happen.

I never said there was anything wrong with Civil Unions or Domestic Partnerships either.  As I keep stating: the reason I am for Marriage is because of the legal benefits bestowed with marriage.  You seem to think I'm totally not for this happy medium.  I am: AS LONG AS THE LEGAL BENEFITS ARE THERE!  But that doesn't mean I suddenly say, "Naw, I'm not for gay marriage."  But in some states Gays and Lesbians can't even do that.  I can be for Gay Marriage and settle for The Civil Unions thing.  If that were to happen (and even many people aren't for Civil Unions, either) then I'd be totally fine.  Don't think I won't settle.

I personally haven't flipped the concept of worship around.  I'm for separation of church and state, I'm not for totally denying worship or anything like that, but I'm also not in support of banning something or making it illegal off the basis of ones religion... because what may be religiously acceptable for one group of people may not be religiously acceptable for another... that's why we have choice.  You're allowed to drink alcohol if you choose, but you're allowed to refuse to do so off of your own Faith... what would cross the line is if you walked into a bar and told others they couldn't do it because of your Faith.  The separation of church and state, in my mind, means that one is allowed to worship and organize their religion but doesn't give them the power to enforce their religion.  We're supposed to go to Church and Worship on our own volition, not be forced into it.  You have quite a few people in the Government who are of the idea that everyone in this country should be Christian.  I don't really think I'm trying to prevent worship.  I actually don't know that many who want to prevent worship.  I do, however, know people who believe it isn't anyone's business to tell them how to worship either.

As I've said previously, I believe that religion and whatnot is your business that's a more private matter.  But we're talking a public thing.  It just seems like you're saying a lot of bad things will happen (specifically to the church) by allowing gay marriage, and I'm arguing that it probably won't be so bad at all.  I could be wrong.  I can only base the idea that not a whole lot of bad will happen off the fact that it hasn't been this disaster in the states which allow it.  That's my only point.  There are some (not all) opponents who seem to think (and not even based of religious beliefs) that allowing gay marriage will lead to a lot of destruction.  It's been the argument for all sorts of things in the past.  Now I'm simply asking that if Gay Marriage were allowed... what would be the negative national impact?  My point is... what if it really isn't all that horrible that a lot of people keep making it out to be?  The five states which allow Same-Sex marriage haven't seen any negative effects as a direct result of allowing Same-Sex marriage.  In short, I don't even think that it would kill chruches through Lawsuits anymore than I believe it'll kill the nation.  Although that's definitely a good point to make.

I am, on the other hand, open to Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships.  I never said I wasn't.  But that doesn't mean I can't be in support of this either.  Like I said, to me it's the rights bestowed upon by marriage that's important.  That's what my angle on this whole thing is.  This is why I do support Civil Unions and Domestic Partnerships.  I'm not sure if I made it clear that I do.  But I don't want people to misunderstand why I support Gay Marriage.  I don't particularly care about the "Love" argument, but I do care about the part that ensures equal rights.  As in, gay couples being able to have the same benefits as straight couples.  What they DO with those rights is no business of mine or anyone else's, but they should at least have access to those rights.  Marriage would do that.  Of course so would Civil Unions... which even heterosexual couples do (though they still call it marriage) when they don't want to get married in the church.  I'm in support of that.  Again, though, even that seems to be a point of contention with certain opponents.  It's certainly a happy medium, but even with said happy medium there's still going to be some sort of divide among people.  In the end, unfortunately, there really are certain groups of people who really just think that Gays and Lesbians shouldn't have any rights.  Period.  Can't deny they're out there either.

I would not base the liklihood of future actions on laws that are active in only five states. Lawsuits in those states would kill any chance of same-sex marriage from ever passing in neighboring states if that course of action were pursued. It is when it is national law that the envelope will be pushed. I also don't view this issue as a public matter...it still remains a private matter. That is my biggest issue. I have family members and friends who believe what they believe on this issue and I am fine with that...as long as they don't FORCE me to accept their beliefs. I accept THEM. What aggravates me are the activists who cram it down my throat. Because I don't agree with some of their goals and should not be judged by anyone (they do, trust me). If they were less ignorant in their approach, acceptance might be more widespread. But some (it may be a relatively small percentage) go for the shock effect and I am 100 percent against that. I don't walk around wearing my heterosexuality on my sleeve and I really don't care to know what other heterosexuals think or do in the privacy of their homes. I am not saying that all churches will be challenged...some will even allow same sex marriage. But changing the definition of marriage to include same sex changes the game. If a church performs marriage are they going to be required to perform same sex marriage if they do traditional marriages as well? If they refuse, they will be labeled as bigots, homophobes and discriminators. The results will likely be catastrophic in terms of legal standing...I honestly fully believe that without pause. Every other issue goes that direction as my previous posts point out examples of. Civil Union? Yes. Marriage? No. That belongs to the church and heterosexuals (by church definition). Does that make me a bigot? Absolutely not. I do not judge people on their beliefs. But don't force me to change mine...and redefining the definition of marriage is forcing me to change my beliefs. All the other issues of women's voting rights, etc are window dressing. It is not the same issue. Framing the debate in that format calls the opposition bigots.

Looking at those five states is a point of reference.  I'm not using it as an entire representation, only to say that it shows the POSSIBILITY that we'll be fine.  It isn't meant to represent everything.  Like I said, I'm not looking for perfection.  A lot of the arguments against it are based on things that haven't happened within the confines of this issue.  This is why it's harder for me to accept that a lot of terrible things will happen because nothing terrible has happened in the places which allow it.  Five states, sure, but what about the fact that it's allowed all over Europe too?  And once again, nothing bad happened as a result of making Same-Sex Marriage Legal.  Again, my question still stands: What would be the negative national impact of allowing Same-Sex Marriage? 

If you REALLY want to go back through the definition of marriage, though... it has already undergone changes.  People used to describe marriage as passion (some still do... for example a Writer might be married to his craft of writing).  It wasn't even until 1996 that we decided we had to make it a legal definition to define it as being between a man and a woman with the Defense of Marriage Act.  So even our current legal definition isn't even that old.  Like I said, people who lack faith or have no faith at all are allowed to be wed--even through the church.  So does the word really belong to the church when we've used it so casually outside of the church?  I'm not just talking about you and me, here, I'm talking about as a nation.  We use it to mean passion... Marriage even has a BUSINESS definition and connotation (when two businesses merge they are said to be married). 

I'm not forcing you to change your beliefs, I'm simply asking what all these terrible things are that will happen and what if they don't?  I understand and respect your definition of marriage, but you're not the one in the control over whether or not that legal definition changes anymore than I am.  I'm not asking you to change your beliefs, only asking if it's at all possible for two different beliefs to coincide even when they do not agree?  I mean, let's say that on a National Level Gay Marriage actually does become legal.  Is that going to change your own personal belief?  I don't know about you, but it wouldn't change my belief of what marriage is.  There are laws I don't like and things which happen that I don't believe in, but it doesn't change that belief.  I'm still able to hold on to my beliefs.  I can't change your beliefs.  Only you can.

Again, my argument and question is what are these, as you say, "catstrophic" things that will be so detrimental to the nation?  Even from a legal standpoint.  I thought your argument from the church standpoint was really something to think about and I'm actually really curious about that one.  But on a National Level what are these legal catastrophes?