Linked by Thom Holwerda on Sat 25th Oct 2008 19:26 UTC, submitted by SK8T
In the News In a rather unusual move, both Google and Apple have publicly backed the fight against "Proposition 8", both by words as well as by donation. Proposition 8 is an initiative measure in the state of California that would ban same-sex marriages in California by amending the Constitution of the state to include that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California". Both companies gave out their reasoning for supporting the fight against 'Prop 8'.
Thread beginning with comment 335029
To view parent comment, click here.
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
RE: Applause
by null_pointer_us on Sat 25th Oct 2008 23:38 UTC in reply to "Applause"
null_pointer_us
Member since:
2005-08-19

Proposition 8 is an initiative measure in the state of California that would ban same-sex marriages in California by amending the Constitution of the state to include that "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California".


How ridiculously unnecessary!

The law meant something specific when it was created and accepted. Democratic forms of governments have orderly processes which allow the populace to change the meaning of the laws. The problem here is that, instead of actually building public support to change the laws through due process, the left got some judges to pretend that the law meant something else, and now Californians in favor of the law's meaning actually have to create a proposition to make sure the laws granting marital status actually apply as they did before the judges started pretending otherwise.

Why pretend that the law means something other than what was agreed when it was created and accepted by due process? You on the left do have a legitimate means of changing the law at your disposal, instead of just convincing a few people in one court.

I can do nothing but applaud these moves by Google and Apple. As someone who holds unconditional equality in the highest possible regard, the equality of all men is of the utmost importance. Whether you are black, white, or polka dot; whether you like boys, girls, or both; whether you believe in God, Allah, or the Cosmic Goat - we are all equal, and it is not the task of the state to tell people that they are not.


What about daughters who have sex with their mothers? Shouldn't they be equal? What about siblings who sleep together? A man who is in love with a minor? The idea that *any* two people in love means the relationship should be treated as a good thing is just completely ridiculous.

Why pretend that society can't have boundaries on what is and is not marriage? Why give homosexuality special treatment, compared to incest, polygamy, bestiality, and other sexual perversions? What's the difference between them, if you take your personal beliefs entirely out of the equation?

Nor the state, not the church define marriage - the people who marry do. I am proud that we in The Netherlands realised that as one of the first countries. We got the ball rolling, I hope Californians will give it another push.


You are right about the state and religion not being able to define marriage. But you are wrong about marriage being the unconditional amalgam of whatever any two people in love want it to be. Talk to someone involved in polygamy or incest and see if you *really* believe, as you claimed, that any two people in love ought to be able to alter society's definition of marriage. The whole idea is ridiculous, unless you only consider love you *already* defined legitimate as being the only kinds of relationships you'll accept as determining what you believe marriage is. That's just circular logic.

Thing is -- and I'm saying this because it needs to be said -- no one can change the definition of marriage. It is what it is: the union of the sexes, one man and one woman. Not two men plus a goat, or three women, or two inanimate objects. Fact is, what you would call "heterosexual" marriage is actually just what society established as a necessary construct for dealing with the natural progression, in male + female relationships, of romance -> sex -> pregnancy. Forcing society as a whole to accept an inherently irrational idea like homosexual "marriage" will only work for so long, until it's simply discarded by future generations.

You can try to sell me on the nonsense that homosexual individuals are born that way -- as if this is somehow an equality issue instead of merely being about society's establishing certain boundaries around sex and sexuality -- but it won't work. Fact is, in terms of who's capable of experiencing pleasure with whom, everyone's bisexual; the difference in individuals' sexual preferences is psychological: their past experiences, their beliefs, how they've chosen to respond, what they're willing to accept, etc.

The thing is, marriage and this homosexual "marriage" concept you're requiring everyone to accept are not the same thing, nor are they even on the same level, and forcing everyone who, like me, isn't willing to pretend that they are equal just creates more tension.

People can start the name-calling, the allusions to Hitler, or whatever, now if they really want to get back at me. But the fact is that just a short time ago homosexuality was considered just as bad as incest or bestiality, and I'd appreciate being able to talk to someone who is willing to discuss, on a rational level, why these concepts are different or similar.


From the article:

While we respect the strongly held beliefs that people have on both sides of this argument, we see this fundamentally as an issue of equality.


There's been no proof that people are born with a certain sexual orientation, and I've seen all I need to see to the contrary (e.g. high profile "gay" people changing sexual orientation to "straight" or "bi" and being happy about it), so the premise here is incorrect. It's not a case of being born differently (and therefore locked into a particular lifestyle if one is to be happy); homosexuality, by contrast, is a case of what choices society as a whole will accept.

We hope that California voters will vote no on Proposition 8 - we should not eliminate anyone's fundamental rights, whatever their sexuality, to marry the person they love.


The mission statement is false on its face. The homosexual rights activists are not seeking existing rights for themselves; they are seeking to have judges grant (1) new rights (2) for everyone. Specifically, prior to the judicial usurpation, the law (2) allowed no one (1) to marry anyone of the same sex. Anyone want to try to deny that hetero Hollywood celebrities won't use same-sex marriage as a publicity stunt? Anyone want to claim that the state allowed incestuous marriages? It's a case of new rights for everyone, not just people who identify as homosexual or bisexual at the time when they obtain "marriage" licenses.

Edited 2008-10-25 23:43 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Applause
by HappyGod on Sun 26th Oct 2008 00:08 in reply to "RE: Applause"
HappyGod Member since:
2005-10-19

Yours was a very long post so I'll only address a couple of the points you raised.

Firstly, nobody is claiming that sexuality is black or white. It exists in gradients, like right or left handedness. So just because you have seen people change sides doesn't prove anything.

Secondly every law we have protects a victim. You asked why things like paedophilia and beastiality are different. They are different because in both cases there is a victim who cannot protect themselves. With incest the victims are the children who are born with birth defects as a result of these relationships. There are no such victims in homosexual relationships.

Bottom line is, if you cannot frame an argument against a given law without resorting to religion, then it's fine.

Edited 2008-10-26 00:16 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Applause
by null_pointer_us on Sun 26th Oct 2008 03:29 in reply to "RE[2]: Applause"
null_pointer_us Member since:
2005-08-19

Firstly, nobody is claiming that sexuality is black or white. It exists in gradients, like right or left handedness. So just because you have seen people change sides doesn't prove anything.


Seeing people switch from homosexual lifestyles to other lifestyles debunks the false claim that homosexuals are locked into one particular lifestyle (if they want to be happy). See, this is where the left cries discrimination, and that's why they feel justified in calling anyone who believes otherwise a bigot of some kind (sometimes many kinds of bigots all at once).

Secondly every law we have protects a victim.


Where would you place drug laws? (Right now, I'm just talking about the part of drug laws that addresses adults, not kids.) Public indecency laws? I don't accept the premise that laws need to protect a victim. Incest would be just as illegal between consenting adult siblings who could conceivably elect to use in vitro w/ anonymous donor as it would be with underage family members, and it'd be just as wrong. Oh, and it does happen.

You asked why things like paedophilia and beastiality are different. They are different because in both cases there is a victim who cannot protect themselves. With incest the victims are the children who are born with birth defects as a result of these relationships. There are no such victims in homosexual relationships.


The victims in homosexual relationships would not be immediately apparent, especially if you believe that homosexuality is an equally healthy and valid choice. Pretend for the moment that you disagree with the second part. Then, the victims would be: (a) homosexual individuals, who are taught that they have to adjust their lifestyles (and all the costs thereof) and fight "discrimination" for whatever happiness they can find; (b) children, who are taught that this is an equally valid choice early in life (when it is much easier to change one's sexual orientation); (c) friends and family members, who are forced to accept this and/or all the associated flack; (d) businesses, which get regularly shaken down (under the faulty premise that unless they "donate" money to homosexual activists, they are somehow anti-gay); (e) society in general, which has to spend enormous amounts of time, money, and energy debating, researching, investigating, debunking, repealing, leering/baiting, name-calling, apologizing, etc. over something for which society has no real need; (f) people who disagree with a lot of the false claims and are thus often villified; (g) spouses who find that their other spouses use a variety of excuses and rationalizations related to homosexuality to get off the hook (e.g. it's not really cheating; I really love my spouse; my spouse owes me his/her support as I'm cheating).

I've spent some time over the last few years looking at various publicly available topics on homosexual Internet communications including sexual fantasies, dating advice, health concerns, relationship discussions, etc. to see what's what and have come to the conclusion that homosexuality doesn't have a purpose. I.e., there is really nothing of unique value, nor could it exist on its own. It's merely a large set of copies, distortions, and fantasies of things that exist naturally in heterosexual relationships. Why equate homosexuality with heterosexuality? I could understand homosexuality being regarded by some as a valid subset of heterosexuality -- because it is a subset in purely pragmatic terms: love and pleasure but inherently no reproduction -- but equating it would be wrong. And I don't want to see any responses about how we're somehow morally obligated to ignore these facts.

Bottom line is, if you cannot frame an argument against a given law without resorting to religion, then it's fine.


I don't understand what religion has to do with any of this.

Edited 2008-10-26 03:32 UTC

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[3]: Applause
by LucasJ on Sun 26th Oct 2008 12:24 in reply to "RE[2]: Applause"
LucasJ Member since:
2007-12-27

There are no such victims in homosexual relationships.


Don't children have a right to be raised by a mother and a father?

Yes, I know that unfortunately parents divorce or children are raised by a single parent, but for society and the government to recognise the union between a husband and wife -- mother and father -- as equal to that between same-sex couples, doesn't this entail that two mothers or two fathers are also recognised as the family ideal, the best circumstance in which children can brought up in?

Of course, same-sex couples can't naturally produce children, yet being granted the status of "marriage" must surely mean equal adoption rights and access fertility treatments. How can "married" same-sex couples be discriminated against if technology advances should enable the creation of children genetically derived from two fathers/mothers?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Applause
by DrillSgt on Sun 26th Oct 2008 04:04 in reply to "RE: Applause"
DrillSgt Member since:
2005-12-02

"Thing is -- and I'm saying this because it needs to be said -- no one can change the definition of marriage. It is what it is: the union of the sexes, one man and one woman."

That is how it is defined by the worlds oldest cult, known as Christianity. I respect your beliefs. However you do not have the right to force your beliefs on others, especially not those of the courts of law, where religion should not, but sometimes sadly does, have a say. Christianity also supports and has supported the slaughter of innocents, proven by the Spanish Inquisition among many other incidents throughout history. What if others define it differently? They are automatically wrong because it goes against your beliefs? The US is and was founded on a principle of freedom of religion, and tolerance. Lets not keep repeating the mistakes of our forefathers. If you are a US citizen, read our constitution. Understand it and what was meant. That is our biggest problem, is people trying to "interpret" it, rather than read and understand it. The thing is in the english language, so should not be that hard for an english speaker. Forget your religion, read the constitution, and understand the rights that ALL people should have.

Reply Parent Score: 0

RE[3]: Applause
by dagw on Sun 26th Oct 2008 11:44 in reply to "RE[2]: Applause"
dagw Member since:
2005-07-06

That is how it is defined by the worlds oldest cult, known as Christianity.

Last time I checked Judaism, Hinduism and Buddhism could trace their roots further back than Christianity. If you you're going to launch attacks on a religion try to get your basic facts right, otherwise you just come across looking quite silly.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Applause
by Thom_Holwerda on Sun 26th Oct 2008 05:30 in reply to "RE: Applause"
Thom_Holwerda Member since:
2005-06-29

What about daughters who have sex with their mothers? Shouldn't they be equal? What about siblings who sleep together? A man who is in love with a minor? The idea that *any* two people in love means the relationship should be treated as a good thing is just completely ridiculous.


Not any two people. Two (or more) consenting adults can do whatever they hell they want in the bedroom, I really don't care. It's none of my business.

And equating homosexuality with paedophilia... I thought the world was past that nonsense by now? I guess I'm just a little too used to being Dutch, and I forgot how backwards most parts of the world still are.

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Applause
by null_pointer_us on Sun 26th Oct 2008 18:49 in reply to "RE[2]: Applause"
null_pointer_us Member since:
2005-08-19

"What about daughters who have sex with their mothers? Shouldn't they be equal? What about siblings who sleep together? A man who is in love with a minor? The idea that *any* two people in love means the relationship should be treated as a good thing is just completely ridiculous.


Not any two people. Two (or more) consenting adults can do whatever they hell they want in the bedroom, I really don't care. It's none of my business.
"

So if you had a sister and a brother, both consenting adults, and if they came to you and told they were in love and wanted to be married and have kids via in vitro with an anonymous sperm donor, you'd be OK with that? Or what if it was your father and your adult sister? That's just sick. Being in love doesn't, by itself, make it right. So, assuming you don't support these two examples, how would you modify your claim about love between consenting adults being the only standard?

And equating homosexuality with paedophilia... I thought the world was past that nonsense by now? I guess I'm just a little too used to being Dutch, and I forgot how backwards most parts of the world still are.


I'll give you the same response as I gave StephenBeDoper:

Are you pretending that I equated homosexuality with incest, bestiality, pedophilia, etc.? That would be absurd. What I said is that society used the same reasons for not allowing all four of those things, and suddenly the left has eliminate those reasons in defense of homosexuality, so I asked what reasons we're to use to continue to ban the latter three things. It's a valid question. HappyGod attempted to answer it, instead of just making up something offensive about me. What answers would you come up with?

Reply Parent Score: 1

RE[2]: Applause
by StephenBeDoper on Sun 26th Oct 2008 18:07 in reply to "RE: Applause"
StephenBeDoper Member since:
2005-07-06

What about daughters who have sex with their mothers? Shouldn't they be equal? What about siblings who sleep together? A man who is in love with a minor? The idea that *any* two people in love means the relationship should be treated as a good thing is just completely ridiculous.


Wow, that is one odious tin of red herrings you've opened up, with a nice dash of the slippery-slope fallacy to garnish.

Why give homosexuality special treatment, compared to incest, polygamy, bestiality, and other sexual perversions? What's the difference between them, if you take your personal beliefs entirely out of the equation?


Ah, a page from the Rick Santorum playbook.

So you equate homosexuality with bestiality? I'm guessing you don't extend that to the figurative abuse of red herrings?

But you are wrong about marriage being the unconditional amalgam of whatever any two people in love want it to be.


Glad to hear you've made it official. Guess you had better contact and share your discovery with all of those ignorant lexicographers who seem to think that marriage also means "an intimate or close union," or "a blending or matching of different elements or components."

Reply Parent Score: 2

RE[3]: Applause
by null_pointer_us on Sun 26th Oct 2008 19:05 in reply to "RE[2]: Applause"
null_pointer_us Member since:
2005-08-19

"What about daughters who have sex with their mothers? Shouldn't they be equal? What about siblings who sleep together? A man who is in love with a minor? The idea that *any* two people in love means the relationship should be treated as a good thing is just completely ridiculous.


Wow, that is one odious tin of red herrings you've opened up, with a nice dash of the slippery-slope fallacy to garnish.
"

(See the responses for all the other times people pretended that I equated homosexuality with other types of sexual perversions.)

"Why give homosexuality special treatment, compared to incest, polygamy, bestiality, and other sexual perversions? What's the difference between them, if you take your personal beliefs entirely out of the equation?


Ah, a page from the Rick Santorum playbook.

So you equate homosexuality with bestiality? I'm guessing you don't extend that to the figurative abuse of red herrings?
"

Why are you pretending that I equated homosexuality with bestiality? They're only alike (not equivalent) -- in the same way that two people can have male DNA without being the same person -- in that they are both sexual perversions by definition. That's what sexual perversion means. Look the words up, and at least try to understand what I'm saying, if you intend to respond to me.

"But you are wrong about marriage being the unconditional amalgam of whatever any two people in love want it to be.


Glad to hear you've made it official. Guess you had better contact and share your discovery with all of those ignorant lexicographers who seem to think that marriage also means "an intimate or close union," or "a blending or matching of different elements or components."
"

*sigh*

Well, you can pretend my words mean whatever you want them to mean, if that helps you make fun of me. The reality is that dictionary entries using literary constructs such as imagery (for example usage, "a marriage of bricks and mortar") are irrelevant. What's being discussed is whether it's right or wrong to equate homosexual "marriage" with marriage. I don't see you attempting to write any rational responses to what I've written. You seem content to just jump around and pick fights with me.

Reply Parent Score: 1