The Road Beyond Proposition 8 - Compromise or Capitulation?

[Sir Loin]

We're not going to settle this debate Unrein. Now if you can show me where in the CotUS it states homosexual marriage is a right...

No we are not. However, I think both Unrien and you would do well to take into account a few matters of reality regarding this debate.

Which brings to us to an often heard cry here at DP and even the subject of a poll. “Why is it a threat to your marriage if the government gives similar recognition to the marriage of two guys or two women in gay relationships?”

Gay marriage proponents allege that it’s good for society to abandon long-standing gender roles, and that same-sex couples perform a public service by blurring/erasing these old distinctions. That argument flies in the face of the overwhelming consensus that men and women are unarguably different. Regardless of efforts to blur the distinctions, marriage is about the union between a man and woman. The argument that it most be changed because homosexuals have the “right” to the experience of the union between male and female is ridiculous. Those who lazily dole out stereotypes and label people opposed to changing the institution of marriage as “boggots” are not serving the homosexual community any service at all. Other than illustrating ignorance and intolerance, while simultaneously posing as being about the opposite. That folks, is the very definition of hypocrisy.

The debate over the gay marriage dispute isn’t as so many try to frame it, about the validity of homosexual attraction. It is about the importance of gender differences. Certainly in the past radicals posited that no significant differences existed between males and females. Except scientific investigation and real world experience have proven that the gap between male and female is wide and immutable. In 2008 we understand the vast contrasts in physiology, psychology and brain structure that separates the sexes.

Despite your choice to pretend that this issue is only about the rejection of the homosexual lifestyle, it is about differences in gender and the union between those two genders. Which is in fact responsible for life and is essential to the future of this nation and any other. Fact of the matter is that the homosexual or GLBT community recognizes the overwhelming significance of gender differences. Homosexual activists state quite openly that gay people have no choice at all in selecting the gender of their significant others. Opposite sex love is as unthinkable for gay people as same sex love is unthinkable for straight people. Transgendered people insist that gender differences are all important! So much so that they’re willing to undergo painful and elaborate surgical/hormonal procedures to reassign their gender identity. If men and women are “interchangeable” then the notion that this sort of surgery for the sake of achieving one’s “true” sexual identity makes no sense at all.

It’s dishonest to say that marrying a man is the equivalent to marrying a woman. It does not mean that a male/male relationship is evil or wrong or doomed. It does mean that it’s inarguably different in its very essence and purpose (minus synthetic modern solutions) from a male/female relationship or from a female/-female relationship. Male/female relationships involve a fusion of opposites in an elemental way that same sex associations can’t replicate. You may chose to believe that this binding of the two genders is no better – or perhaps worse – than a connection between two people of the same sex. But no honest observer can maintain that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are indistinguishable or interchangeable. The argument that homosexuals are born with the “right” to have the same kind of “marriage” that heterosexuals do, a union between two sexes, is laughable on the face of things. It is why the arguments of posters like Unrein carry no weight; he presents nothing but an infantile understanding of the nature and history of marriage, which is by definition outside the ability of same sex couples to experience.

The argument of gay marriage advocates that “we don’t want to change the institution of marriage, we want to expand the institution of marriage” is deceitful lie on its face. Of course the expansion of matrimony to include same sex couples involves a huge alteration in the long-standing definition of marriage. It requires the abandonment of the time honored notion that bringing male-and-female together achieves special power not just because of the reproductive potential but because of the combination of two vastly different genders! A love between people of the same gender may be beautiful, sentimental, even noble, but it’s not the same thing as the union of male-and female. The basis of the natural family has always arisen from the idea of a “Marriage of Opposites” which can be traced back to the beginnings of time. Certainly every society has included gay people but no civilization ever sanctioned gay marriages. Redefining matrimony as “an expression of love” rather than a public and profoundly consequential social contract damages the understanding of the institution for all elements of society and fundamentally alters the nature of marriage.

But by all means do argue otherwise………………………………

 

[rsixing]

No we are not. However, I think both Unrien and you would do well to take into account a few matters of reality regarding this debate.

Which brings to us to an often heard cry here at DP and even the subject of a poll. “Why is it a threat to your marriage if the government gives similar recognition to the marriage of two guys or two women in gay relationships?”

Gay marriage proponents allege that it’s good for society to abandon long-standing gender roles, and that same-sex couples perform a public service by blurring/erasing these old distinctions. That argument flies in the face of the overwhelming consensus that men and women are unarguably different. Regardless of efforts to blur the distinctions, marriage is about the union between a man and woman. The argument that it most be changed because homosexuals have the “right” to the experience of the union between male and female is ridiculous. Those who lazily dole out stereotypes and label people opposed to changing the institution of marriage as “boggots” are not serving the homosexual community any service at all. Other than illustrating ignorance and intolerance, while simultaneously posing as being about the opposite. That folks, is the very definition of hypocrisy.

The debate over the gay marriage dispute isn’t as so many try to frame it, about the validity of homosexual attraction. It is about the importance of gender differences. Certainly in the past radicals posited that no significant differences existed between males and females. Except scientific investigation and real world experience have proven that the gap between male and female is wide and immutable. In 2008 we understand the vast contrasts in physiology, psychology and brain structure that separates the sexes.

Despite your choice to pretend that this issue is only about the rejection of the homosexual lifestyle, it is about differences in gender and the union between those two genders. Which is in fact responsible for life and is essential to the future of this nation and any other. Fact of the matter is that the homosexual or GLBT community recognizes the overwhelming significance of gender differences. Homosexual activists state quite openly that gay people have no choice at all in selecting the gender of their significant others. Opposite sex love is as unthinkable for gay people as same sex love is unthinkable for straight people. Transgendered people insist that gender differences are all important! So much so that they’re willing to undergo painful and elaborate surgical/hormonal procedures to reassign their gender identity. If men and women are “interchangeable” then the notion that this sort of surgery for the sake of achieving one’s “true” sexual identity makes no sense at all.

It’s dishonest to say that marrying a man is the equivalent to marrying a woman. It does not mean that a male/male relationship is evil or wrong or doomed. It does mean that it’s inarguably different in its very essence and purpose (minus synthetic modern solutions) from a male/female relationship or from a female/-female relationship. Male/female relationships involve a fusion of opposites in an elemental way that same sex associations can’t replicate. You may chose to believe that this binding of the two genders is no better – or perhaps worse – than a connection between two people of the same sex. But no honest observer can maintain that homosexual and heterosexual relationships are indistinguishable or interchangeable. The argument that homosexuals are born with the “right” to have the same kind of “marriage” that heterosexuals do, a union between two sexes, is laughable on the face of things. It is why the arguments of posters like Unrein carry no weight; he presents nothing but an infantile understanding of the nature and history of marriage, which is by definition outside the ability of same sex couples to experience.

The argument of gay marriage advocates that “we don’t want to change the institution of marriage, we want to expand the institution of marriage” is deceitful lie on its face. Of course the expansion of matrimony to include same sex couples involves a huge alteration in the long-standing definition of marriage. It requires the abandonment of the time honored notion that bringing male-and-female together achieves special power not just because of the reproductive potential but because of the combination of two vastly different genders! A love between people of the same gender may be beautiful, sentimental, even noble, but it’s not the same thing as the union of male-and female. The basis of the natural family has always arisen from the idea of a “Marriage of Opposites” which can be traced back to the beginnings of time. Certainly every society has included gay people but no civilization ever sanctioned gay marriages. Redefining matrimony as “an expression of love” rather than a public and profoundly consequential social contract damages the understanding of the institution for all elements of society and fundamentally alters the nature of marriage.

But by all means do argue otherwise………………………………

Quickly and not a very deep response to your well worded and phrased post...

First, concerning your attempt to caste my argument as "pretend" it seems you may have a disconnect with general society. It seems the majority of society has shown, through their vote, the issue is about the rejection of the homosexual lifestyle for IF the homosexual lifestyle WERE accepted there would be no need to pursue homosexual marriage and this discussion would be moot. IMO that is because it only takes society to scratch the surface of an issue to determine a position, pro or con.

Second, IMO the majority of society could care less about 'consequential social contract damages' and the other pithy and large brained markers you have delineated in your treatise. Not that your points aren't valid, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is society FINDS the homosexual lifestyle immoral, outside the norm, and THAT judgment will dictate societies reaction to a small segment of society trying to legislate their way to legitimacy.

 

[conquer]

While Republican standard bearer John McCain garnered only thirty-seven (37) percent of the vote in California, a constitutional amendment to ban gay weddings and define marriage as a union between a man and a woman passed fifty-two (52) percent to forty-seven (47) percent.

With Proposition 8 carrying the day in the home of such stalwart Liberal political icons as Maxine Waters, Barbara Boxer and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, the stage is set for an extended fight between gay rights activists and defenders of traditional family values in the Golden State.

While opponents of the constitutional amendment vow to carry on the battle to legalize same-sex marriage in both the courts and the voting booth, they are heartened by the fact that sixty-one (61) percent of voters supported a similar measure in 2000. The resulting nine (9) percent shift over the past eight years suggests time and evolving views on social mores and traditions are on their side.

This belief is reinforced when one considers current views on interracial relationships and marriage.

Once considered an abhorrent social taboo, interracial relationships and marriages are now commonplace across the nation. Social mores that once aggressively condemned black and white unions and supported public ostracization of interracial couples have evolved to the point where they fail to illicit even a second glance from the vast majority of Americans.

Furthermore, the previous taboo status of homosexuality that kept generations of gays and lesbians “in the closet” has likewise lost ground in the ongoing culture wars in America.

Openly gay and lesbian celebrities such as Elton John, Ellen DeGeneres and Rosie O’Donnell are now warmly embraced throughout the heartland as well as in the Meccas of gay American culture, New York and San Francisco.

Though one might safely assume that time and changing social norms will eventually resolve the matter to the liking of the gay community and their supporters, I would suggest that both sides consider a compromise that recognizes the desire for expanded civil and legal rights in the gay community while respecting time-honored and traditional views of marriage.

The separation of church and state is the point from which a compromise should be launched.

Gay activists protest that the ban on same-sex marriage is an enforcement of religious dogma via governmental power.

Meanwhile, defenders of traditional marriage insist that gay marriage would undermine the foundation of society and would equate societal endorsement of an alternative lifestyle that is both sinful and destructive in the opinion of many among their ranks.

The compromise lies in the removal of state involvement in the religious institution of marriage and the wedding sacrament.

In place of issuing marriage licenses, the state would issue certificates of civil union. Certificates would then be signed and validated in conjunction with an appearance or ceremony before a judge or any executive branch elected official. Like the former marriage license, they would then be recorded with the appropriate local authority.

Meanwhile, churches would then be empowered to issue marriage certificates to whoever they wished. They would also be free to decline to marry anyone at their discretion without fear of legal recrimination. Accordingly, a court would not be able to compel a church to marry a couple it had originally turned away nor would it risk loosing its tax-exempt status for following the dictates of its religious doctrine.

Should couples married in a church service wish to formally record their union, they would be able to do so with the local registrar authority at their discretion.

The heart of the compromise is the extension of legal and civil rights to an excluded segment of society while honoring a religious institution that is sacrosanct to another.

As one infamous Los Angelino so famously asked, can’t we all just get along, faithful readers? Stay tuned for further updates as events warrant and we see if civil unions guarantees the maintenance of civil society.

All the message given by gays can be turned down by a small change in the communication media, like deleting the fictious idea that homosexuality is a "gene thing" and educating people that homophilia (homosexuality) is just a negative sexual behaviour like incest, zoophilia, necrophilia, sodomism, etc.

With this a good education mentioned above, the people will turn down every attempt of homosexuals to gay marriage forever.

 

[Sir Loin]

Quickly and not a very deep response to your well worded and phrased post...

First, concerning your attempt to caste my argument as "pretend" it seems you may have a disconnect with general society. It seems the majority of society has shown, through their vote, the issue is about the rejection of the homosexual lifestyle for IF the homosexual lifestyle WERE accepted there would be no need to pursue homosexual marriage and this discussion would be moot. IMO that is because it only takes society to scratch the surface of an issue to determine a position, pro or con.

Second, IMO the majority of society could care less about 'consequential social contract damages' and the other pithy and large brained markers you have delineated in your treatise. Not that your points aren't valid, I'm not saying that. What I'm saying is society FINDS the homosexual lifestyle immoral, outside the norm, and THAT judgment will dictate societies reaction to a small segment of society trying to legislate their way to legitimacy.

First, I didn’t even know what your argument was. So it would be just about impossible to cast it as pretend. I did mention that I thought there were a few matters of reality (points of validity?) that you and Unrien should take into account. If I went after anyone in my post (and I did) it was not you, which I thought was rather obvious.

I would not waste much of your time prognosticating to me what the “majority of society has shown” via their “vote” or anything else you are going to gleam via jedi powers. But sure, being in favor of legalizing homosexual unions but also for protecting "marriage" as between a man and woman is rejecting the homosexual lifestyle. Whatever you say.

Second, sorry my post triggered your big brain markers. Perhaps I should go for something less brainy and that would appeal to you more? Because the whole complain about an educated adult vocabulary and articulation slant is not what I call a real effective or intelligent tactic. Clearly you disagree so strut on with your bad self. :twisted:

 

[Sir Loin]

All the message given by gays can be turned down by a small change in the communication media, like deleting the fictious idea that homosexuality is a "gene thing" and educating people that homophilia (homosexuality) is just a negative sexual behaviour like incest, zoophilia, necrophilia, sodomism, etc.

With this a good education mentioned above, the people will turn down every attempt of homosexuals to gay marriage forever.

Now this cretin is an bonafide example of the rejection of homosexual lifestyle and existence. :doh

 

[rsixing]

First, I didn’t even know what your argument was. So it would be just about impossible to cast it as pretend.

Then maybe it was a poor reaction on my part when you claimed "Despite your choice to pretend that this issue is only about the rejection of the homosexual lifestyle..." as this seemed to indicate you have an perception of the debate that unrein and I were involved in.

I did mention that I thought there were a few matters of reality (points of validity?) that you and Unrien should take into account. If I went after anyone in my post (and I did) it was not you, which I

thought was rather obvious.

My bad. I didn't realize it was solely directed at someone else (Unrein) since you 'quoted' something I wrote as your header.

I would not waste much of your time prognosticating to me what the “majority of society has shown” via their “vote” or anything else you are going to gleam via jedi powers. But sure, being in favor of legalizing homosexual unions but also for protecting "marriage" as between a man and woman is rejecting the homosexual lifestyle. Whatever you say.

I know it's difficult to embrace the simplicity of this issue when you've successfully made it so complex but hey, I'm not offended by anything you have written and it surprises me you are so defensive to my comments.

Second, sorry my post triggered your big brain markers. Perhaps I should go for something less brainy and that would appeal to you more? Because the whole complain about an educated adult vocabulary and articulation slant is not what I call a real effective or intelligent tactic. Clearly you disagree so strut on with your bad self. :twisted:

d00d, wouldn't you admit the depth of your post would not be understood by the majority reading level of society? Why do you think newspapers write their reports at around the 8th grade level? Comprehension my man. Comprehension. Probably something I could improve on too.

And as an aside I don't think there was anything I disagreed with in your posit. It was well written and well thought out. No bout adout it.

 

[Sir Loin]

Then maybe it was a poor reaction on my part when you claimed "Despite your choice to pretend that this issue is only about the rejection of the homosexual lifestyle..." as this seemed to indicate you have an perception of the debate that unrein and I ere involved in.

My bad. I didn't realize it was solely directed at someone else (Unrein) since you 'quoted' something I wrote as your header.

I know it's difficult to embrace the simplicity of this issue when you've successfully made it so complex but hey, I'm not offended by anything you have written and it surprises me you are so defensive to my comments.

I rejected your claim or if you prefer your attempt, to frame the issue as rejection of the homosexual lifestyle. Which has nothing to do with my position on the matter. Nor for that matter anyone else I know who feels the same way; including homosexuals. Also it is a complex issue…………………….

d00d, wouldn't you admit the depth of your post would not be understood by the majority reading level of society?

No IMO that statement is as absurd as it is silly.

Why do you think newspapers write their reports at around the 8th grade level? Comprehension my man. Comprehension. Probably something I could improve on too.

Chuckle.

And as an aside I don't think there was anything I disagreed with in your posit. It was well written and well thought out. No bout adout it.

Thanks.

 

[rsixing]

I rejected your claim or if you prefer your attempt, to frame the issue as rejection of the homosexual lifestyle. Which has nothing to do with my position on the matter. Nor for that matter anyone else I know who feels the same way; including homosexuals. Also it is a complex issue…………………….

And certainly your right to do so and I support your right to disagree with me, or whomever you chose.

:2wave:

No IMO that statement is as absurd as it is silly.

Well I did fall back on old statistics, from when I was in college, and perhaps it's changed, upward or downward I suppose given the current 'no student left behind' education system, but reading comprehension level for society at large is not college level and I would think their ability to comprehend your level of writing is marginal at best. Still, damn fine writing there SL.

 

[Sir Loin]

Well I did fall back on old statistics, from when I was in college, and perhaps it's changed, upward or downward I suppose given the current 'no student left behind' education system, but reading comprehension level for society at large is not college level and I would think their ability to comprehend your level of writing is marginal at best. Still, damn fine writing there SL.

Frankly sir I seriously question the validity of any set of statistics that resulted in your stated axiom. Much less as it relates to modern American society. It flies in the face of the preponderance of evidence, once again, as relates to the reality of this matter. Why are so many in favor of gay marriage so eager to label and stereotype? It is surely most telling "IMO".

Hang you and your seemingly elitist attitude which is predicated upon PeteEUisms. But hey, drag out “them college charts” of yours. Trust me, the rest of us knuckle dragging buffoons who only occasionally manage to convulsively extrude something relevant to the actual topic are dying to be disabused of our foolishness. You know we are so obviously distracted with our rejection of the "homos" because we are knuckle dragging boggots! Much like the “average American” which by definition is the bulk of this website’s constituents, eh? Did that escape you?

Have you been to the economics forum?

Meanwhile this website is replete with insincere authors and general posers like Unrien; who from the paddock goes for the old you are -insert stereotypical ad hom here-because you don't agrre with me. So frankly sir and all comers, if you are going to bother to lift your foil...........follow through with your thrust. Or I'll pinion you with "it". Ewww, was I being defensive?:lol:

Otherwise I consume mass quantities of onion/garlic/broccoli/meat/the noble bean and void my bowels in your general direction.

 

[rsixing]

Frankly sir I seriously question the validity of any set of statistics that resulted in your stated axiom. Much less as it relates to modern American society. It flies in the face of the preponderance of evidence, once again, as relates to the reality of this matter.

And again, and perhaps this is repetitive or regurgitating past ideology concerning your right to agree or disagree with any 'axiom' presented to you, it's "certainly your right to do so and I support your right to disagree with me, or whomever you chose.".

Why are so many in favor of gay marriage so eager to label and stereotype? It is surely most telling "IMO".

Well that's an interesting supposition. Certainly it could be the preponderance of human nature to try and 'poison the well', as it were, with whomever one is debating and, sometimes, this type of puerile tactic is effective.

In this instance, though, and "IMO", it's because the use of negative labels and stereotypes like "homophobe", "hatemonger", etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum, has served the homosexual agenda well and has proved the pen is mightier then the sword.

Hang you and your seemingly elitist attitude which is predicated upon PeteEUisms. But hey, drag out “them college charts” of yours.

Wow...now there's a stereotypical typecast. Unfortunately your charge of my elitism or similarity to another poster is purely coincidental and not a matter of fact.

:2wave:

Trust me, the rest of us knuckle dragging buffoons who only occasionally manage to convulsively extrude something relevant to the actual topic are dying to be disabused of our foolishness. You know we are so obviously distracted with our rejection of the "homos" because we are knuckle dragging boggots! Much like the “average American” which by definition is the bulk of this website’s constituents, eh? Did that escape you?

Ah...self effacing comments. I love it.

My claim was not inclusive of DP participants and certainly you have an acceptable knowledge of your audience here. Still the why of why homosexual marriage is not acceptable to the public at large is not a deep river but is based on religious morality. I would believe were you to ask the common man on the street why they are against homosexual marriage their most common response would be "because homosexuality is immoral".

Of course I am in no way dismissing the discussion would then progress to the deeper, more intrinsic philosophical questions and reasons for being against homosexual marriage, as your treatise described, but when the rubber meets the road it's about the rejection of the homosexual lifestyle.

As a matter of confession and clarity I must confess this is IMO and not dependent upon a broad survey of common men on the streets.

Have you been to the economics forum?

Why would I tread where angels fear to go?

Meanwhile this website is replete with insincere authors and general posers like Unrien; who from the paddock goes for the old you are -insert stereotypical ad hom here-because you don't agrre with me. So frankly sir and all comers, if you are going to bother to lift your foil...........follow through with your thrust. Or I'll pinion you with "it". Ewww, was I being defensive?:lol:

I have been likened to this description by some here because I would in no way respond to their disparaging comments attacking me rather then the argument. In your case I made an exception.

But in all seriousness, touché.

Otherwise I consume mass quantities of onion/garlic/broccoli/meat/the noble bean and void my bowels in your general direction.

lol...reminds me of "The Princess Bride".

 

[Sir Loin]

And again, and perhaps this is repetitive or regurgitating past ideology concerning your right to agree or disagree with any 'axiom' presented to you, it's "certainly your right to do so and I support your right to disagree with me, or whomever you chose.".



Well that's an interesting supposition. Certainly it could be the preponderance of human nature to try and 'poison the well', as it were, with whomever one is debating and, sometimes, this type of puerile tactic is effective.

In this instance, though, and "IMO", it's because the use of negative labels and stereotypes like "homophobe", "hatemonger", etc. etc. etc. ad infinitum, has served the homosexual agenda well and has proved the pen is mightier then the sword.



Wow...now there's a stereotypical typecast. Unfortunately your charge of my elitism or similarity to another poster is purely coincidental and not a matter of fact.

:2wave:



Ah...self effacing comments. I love it.

My claim was not inclusive of DP participants and certainly you have an acceptable knowledge of your audience here. Still the why of why homosexual marriage is not acceptable to the public at large is not a deep river but is based on religious morality. I would believe were you to ask the common man on the street why they are against homosexual marriage their most common response would be "because homosexuality is immoral".

Of course I am in no way dismissing the discussion would then progress to the deeper, more intrinsic philosophical questions and reasons for being against homosexual marriage, as your treatise described, but when the rubber meets the road it's about the rejection of the homosexual lifestyle.

As a matter of confession and clarity I must confess this is IMO and not dependent upon a broad survey of common men on the streets.



Why would I tread where angels fear to go?



I have been likened to this description by some here because I would in no way respond to their disparaging comments attacking me rather then the argument. In your case I made an exception.

But in all seriousness, touché.



lol...reminds me of "The Princess Bride".

I do enjoy deftly executed moulinets.

 

[rsixing]

I do enjoy deftly executed moulinets.

Lol...and in this case your penned moulinet is superior to...say...the mountain ax.

YouTube - moulinets with mountain axe