Important Prop. 8 Ruling Today

[Jeff Lebowski]

For the record, I never said anything about the consensus of most Americans. And my moral argument about gay marriage is a personal one, not a legal one ... so naturally it is based on my personal beliefs. The legal argument is based on the fact that a large percentage of Americans believe gay sex is a sin ... which is a fact. It may not be a majority anymore, but it is a large minority. I don't think we should be incentivizing behavior that is morally controversial. Should we overrule laws that restrict such behavior? Yes. But I don't think the government should be encouraging it by giving tax breaks to gay people that want to get married. The purpose of the tax benefits that come from filing a joint tax return, at both the state and the federal level, are purposely designed to encourage marriage.

As for this sin argument, keep in mind that it wasn't very long ago that most American believed interracial marriage was a sin and there were quite a few states with laws against it. Furthermore, I heard on the radio this morning that young voters support gay marriage by an 80-20 margin. This ship has sailed.

This also brings up an interesting point. Can anyone point to a longstanding cultural tradition that was changed by society through legislation that ended up being conclusively wrong in hindsight? Prohibition is the only thing I can think of at the moment.

[bluegoose]

I know this will be controversial, but what I want more than anything is to be able to have a healthy marriage to a woman and have a family. I'm not going to pretend that that will be easy or simple. It may never happen in this life. I don't plan on marrying someone who doesn't know everything about me in this regard. This is what I want though, and I know people that have made it work.

This part is interesting to me. Can I ask why?

As many here know, my younger brother, who I am very close to, is gay. He was previously married and had 3 kids before he came out. His marriage was not what i would call an overly warm and healthy relationship, but it was also not overly contentious. His relationship did not start out as openly as you have said you would want in a marriage, as it took him a number of years to understand his feelings. That certainly caused a great deal of strain later on. Once he became open about it, their relationship was immediately over. She wanted nothing to do with it at that point.

That being said, by far the most important thing in his life is his children. He would do anything for them. I can understand wanting to have and raise kids.

[Goatnapper'96]

It's a thorn in the flesh, because if you give in to it ... it obstructs your ultimate salvation. I never said anything about gay people not being happy, good, productive, or normal. I guess now is as good a time as any to reveal that I, myself, am gay. I didn't want to mention it earlier because I didn't want people to think I was appealing to my own unique situation to give my position more weight. But in this instance, I will rely on that. I am gay and I am a mormon. I think I am as happy and productive as any ordinary person. I try to be good. Normal? Probably not ... but 3 out of 4 ain't bad. Do I think I could also be happy, productive, good and normal if I left the Church and found another man to marry? Probably ... except for the normal part. But it is my belief that if I were to do that, I would be obstructing my own personal salvation. That has nothing necessarily to do with my temporal happiness or my general goodness.

FTR, if you refer to Taysom Hill as "beautiful" I will track you down and tape your buns together. I would do likewise to the other person who referenced him as "beautiful," but I won't and not because she is a woman. But because she is a Poly and likely has Poly friends. Up here in Idaho, likely where Taysom shovelled shit out of dairy cow stalls or bucked hay to develop that rippled physique that has so many twitterpated, we don't use the word "beautiful" for males....unless it is a trout or an elk with a really big rack! BOWN BICHA BOWN BOWN!

I think the crux of the argument between you and the more secular mormons comes down to your belief that being gay is not an eternal characteristic. I am not sure if they entirely disagree just that they subscribe to that notion that the great thing about the enlightenment was the spreading of the belief that we should be concerned about the human condition today. All of us struggle with believing that gay people would be happier denying themselves the joys of a committed relationship we find in marriage. It boils down to faith.

For me, I have not totally worked out where I stand on the moral issue although I admit I lean in your direction. However, I believe the marriage laws discriminate and even if it will not benefit society I think we should have the right to destroy ourselves.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Sorry I can't find another source, but Justice Sotomayor asked Ted Olson (who was a Solicitor General under George W. Bush who's arguing the side trying to overtturn Prop. 8) whether under his argument the state would be able to place any restrictions on marriage, specifically laws against polygamy and incestual marriage. I'm not sure how satisfactory Olson's answer was, but basically he says that gay marriage is banned because of the individuals' status while polygamy and incestual marriage is conduct.

http://cnsnews.com/news/article/ted-...e-sex-marriage

I was reading an article in Abovethelaw about that Columbia professor who was in a sexual relationship with his adult daughter. What was amazing to me was the number of people in the comments that were willing to just say "hey, they're two consenting adults." Incest is one of those leaps I will never be able to make. I don't think incest between adult children and their parents (or siblings with each other) is particularly common enough for it to be much of a worry as it relates to lifting government bans against gay marriage -- but it does give me some pause. I just hope there's some way to have a constitutional distinction between gay marriage and crossing those other boundaries. Morally I find incest and polygamy extremely repugnant, something that I don't feel about gay marriage. But constitutionally speaking, I'm not sure how you draw the line just at gay marriage.

[Sullyute]

Let me ask you this. Do you think sexual orientation is an eternal characteristic? I do not think it is. I don't think it is a sin or a choice, but I do think it is a "thorn of the flesh" that will not exist in the resurrection. If you disagree with this, then I don't think we will ever be on the same page as each other.

UVACoug,

I have really appreciated your comments on the subject and your willingness to support your opinions and beliefs despite the opposing views on this board. Because of your disclosure in this thread, I would really be interested in a more thorough explaination of your answer to the bolded question above?

If it is not an eternal characteristic then what keeps couples together? Or are you stating that only heterosexual attraction is eternal? What other personal or human characteristics do you think are not eternal?

I don't ask this to debate you, I am honestly curious. Thanks again for adding some spice around here.

[SoCalCoug]

Gay marriage is a concept that was invented about 10-15 years ago. Marriage, by definition, has always meant the union of a man and a woman.

There were male-bonding ceremonies in medieval Europe that were virtually indistinguishable from marriages. There were twelfth-century liturgies for these ceremonies that inlcuded the citing of marriage prayers, joining of hands over the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. In 1306, Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared these unions to be unchristian, due to the sexual relations between the bonded men.

It was also a known practice in ancient Greece and Rome, as well as China.

So to say it's a new invention is just wrong.

[Indy Coug]

There were male-bonding ceremonies in medieval Europe that were virtually indistinguishable from marriages. There were twelfth-century liturgies for these ceremonies that inlcuded the citing of marriage prayers, joining of hands over the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. In 1306, Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared these unions to be unchristian, due to the sexual relations between the bonded men.

It was also a known practice in ancient Greece and Rome, as well as China.

So to say it's a new invention is just wrong.

When you say "male-bonding ceremonies", could you describe what purpose(s) this served?

[Moliere]

Marriage, by definition, has always meant the union of a man and a woman.

Except for Mormons that lived between about 1840 to the early 1900s when it was the union of a man and women or sometimes men and a woman.

[Eddie]

There were male-bonding ceremonies in medieval Europe that were virtually indistinguishable from marriages. There were twelfth-century liturgies for these ceremonies that inlcuded the citing of marriage prayers, joining of hands over the altar, and a ceremonial kiss. In 1306, Byzantine Emperor Andronicus II declared these unions to be unchristian, due to the sexual relations between the bonded men.

It was also a known practice in ancient Greece and Rome, as well as China.

So to say it's a new invention is just wrong.

Well...that sounds quite a bit different than any male bonding I've participated in. I don't recall any hand holding, prayers, ceremonies, or altars. And there certainly wasn't any kissing. Usually it included stuff like guns, ATV's, or a sporting event. Usually there was some variety of pork or beef cooked and eaten - and usually in large quantities.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

Well...that sounds quite a bit different than any male bonding I've participated in. I don't recall any hand holding, prayers, ceremonies, or altars. And there certainly wasn't any kissing. Usually it included stuff like guns, ATV's, or a sporting event. Usually there was some variety of pork or beef cooked and eaten - and usually in large quantities.

So your male bonding experiences involved pork? And in large quantities? Good to know.

[Indy Coug]

Well...that sounds quite a bit different than any male bonding I've participated in. I don't recall any hand holding, prayers, ceremonies, or altars. And there certainly wasn't any kissing. Usually it included stuff like guns, ATV's, or a sporting event. Usually there was some variety of pork or beef cooked and eaten - and usually in large quantities.

Exactly. There should been a sporting event involved in there somewhere, like nude greco-roman wresting.

[Eddie]

So your male bonding experiences involved pork? And in large quantities? Good to know.

There's this forum here called "The Diner". It has a thread called "The Pulled Pork Thread". It sounds like you've been missing out. Sorry.

[Color Me Badd Fan]

There's this forum here called "The Diner". It has a thread called "The Pulled Pork Thread". It sounds like you've been missing out. Sorry.

So your male bonding experiences also include a lot of pulled pork?

[SeattleUte]

Except for Mormons that lived between about 1840 to the early 1900s when it was the union of a man and women or sometimes men and a woman.

Let's keep polygmay out of this. Polygamy is not precedent supporting gay marriage. It is not relevant to gay marriage. One of Christianity's primary positive contributions was to eradicate polygamy among the Euro tribes. It is truly a pillar of barbarism. We see the ugly face of polygamy now in the LDS offshoot groups. It's no different now than when Brigham Young had multiple wives.

Assuming arguendo that marriage by definition has always meant the union of a man and a woman, so what? All societies had kings and state religions until 1776. This point reminds me of the South's resort to ancient history to support slavery. The last 450 years have been all about breaking free of medieval Christian norms including nomenclature. What's happening is just more of the inexorable marginalization of religion. In fact, this issue exposes religion's nonsense and hatreds.

[SCcoug]

So your male bonding experiences also include a lot of pulled pork?

Boston Butts specifically.