I think what you’re doing is great. The arguments are very good.
My issue is just that I don’t think the people who would vote Yes on 8 are the sort of people who would be receptive to logical arguments. Bigotry is beyond logic.
I’m guessing the best way to approach this issue, from the standpoint of these gut-instinct voters, is to find some way to appeal to them emotionally. They need to understand that we’re talking about basic freedoms here. This is a civil rights issue, and it’s a fucking embarrassment and travesty that it’s even considered in the realm of politics.
Also, since I’m ignorant on the difference between rights afforded by domestic partnership vs. marriage, would someone mind elaborating? Prima facie the two don’t seem to have a very large distinction outside of religion.
OK. Point taken but are there many same sex couples who aren’t gay? I always thought the point of marriage was for two people who love each other and want to share their lives could sanctify that decision before the community. Are you really advocating “Same sex non-gay marriage” in which two people are just entering a business relationship? Or is it (just between us) a linguistic tactic to keep the rubes from getting all freaked out over the use of the term “gay”? Because while I support “gay marriage” because it sanctifies a loving relationship, I am not so sure about same sex non-gay marriage…
Thinking about it a little more I guess I don’t really give a shit who marries whom…not really my business and I certainly don’t want it written into my states constitution.
I was going to write this last night but got distracted…
Unfortunately, I agree with Olives here. There’s a part in Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance where they talk about a person trying to argue logically with a person who is only thinking with emotions. It’s not that the emotional person is unable to process logic (though maybe they are), it’s that they are on an entirely different plane of thought. Logic doesn’t even register in their minds.
Ugh. I’m pro gay marriage. Those “gay marriage is ruining marriage” people drive me nuts. Sigh.
No doubt. My take on the “gut-level” angle is the basket in which the “No on Prop 8” group has put their eggs. Here’s a few of my favorites: Mac vs. PC homage and Moms.
I only saw a gap in those cases where a person wants to make an educated decision, but the soundbytes in the competing “for” and “against” ads are claiming contradictory things. A person is left to wonder “who’s lying and who’s telling the truth?” with nowhere else to turn — except a whole lot of intensive research. And that’s the void I hoped my work could help fill. I did the research for them, as honestly as I could with cites and links so that people didn’t have to take my word for it… they could read for themselves.
Moreover, I know that a person’s mind can change with logical argument. I’ve had my mind changed a few times thanks to the smart people who’ve had to back their arguments up in the face of heated rhetoric here at the Dope. One of the mind-changing topics I experienced was closely related to this very issue: Gay marriage vs civil partnership - does the name really matter? (you can even see where I held one viewpoint, and it was the arguments of others — in this case, BrightNShiny more so than Der Trihs — that compelled me to give it some more thought.
The latest poll shows it failing 50%-47%. Nothing in this election pisses me off more than Prop. 8.
Yesterday morning I went to one of my favorite Mexican hole-in-the-wall places for a chorizo burrito. They had Yes on 8 bumper stickers by the register. I turned around and walked out. I will be giving them a minimum of a one year boycott.
There are at least 10 churches within a half mile of our house. You can see the parishioners leaving church on Sundays carrying their “Yes on 8” signs out. If it were teenagers pulling a prank, they’d have stolen all 3 of our signs, but they didn’t. They targeted the “No on 8” sign and left the Obama sign and one for a local candidate.
Sanctified means “to declare holy.” California law is only specifying that the secular, state laws treat homosexuals the same as straights. It specifies that religious groups are NOT conscripted to do anything that goes against their religious beliefs.
They’re not going into business with one-another, so that would be a no.
Are you saying here that homosexuals can’t love one-another or that agnostics and atheists (who by extension reject the notion of “sanctification”) should not be allowed to marry as well?
[/QUOTE]
They are admittedly at this point, relatively minor. As I mention in my document, there are nine existing inconsistencies:
They seem minor to me, but my girlfriend made the point that the stipulations around the dissolution of the “partnership” make them more susceptible to some nasty child custody situations.
For me, it seems like a waste of government resources to dedicate two separate methods to accomplish what is intended to be the same thing; as well as a big “fuck you” to the LGBT community who have the audacity to expect to be treated as a human being like the rest of us.
I guess I was using sanctify in the secular respect. ie the 4th definition in Webster’s :
to entitle to reverence or respect.
A contract which is what marriage is is certainly a business relationship. If it does not involve notions of love and sexual relations then you are left with merely a business arrangement to share debts and consolidate resources.
No and no. As an atheist I do not reject the term at least when used in a secular sense like I did…
Well we agree on most of the other stuff as well I think we are just not communicating effectively.
Awesome job, my friend. The vote on this proposition makes me more nervous than the election vote, sadly. I don’t think McCain getting elected would do anywhere near the kind of damage to the people I care about as Prop 8 winning would.
I am so glad I’m going to be working the polls on Tuesday so I can’t sit in front of a TV or the internet all day fretting over what’s happening. I can’t thank you enough for doing what you can to educate people.
Ah, but haven’t you seen those wrenching TV spots with the pensive waif looking right at YOU and asking semi-rhetorically if you’ve really thought about what gay marriage means to HER?
Pandering and desperation: they smell about the same.
Is it really bad of me that I saw that commercial and my first thought was, “I hope that little girl figures out that she’s gay when she gets older. Then she’ll know what gay marriage means to her!”?
What if two straight guys decide to get married for the insurance benefits, maybe a tax break or the other things that come along with marriage? Opposite sex couples have ‘business arrangement’ marriages all the time. The marriage of convenience is not exactly an unknown concept so I don’t a good argument against letting same sex couples do it as well.
Opposite-sex couples have been known to get married for reasons other than love, too. Marrying someone to get citizenship in a particular country is one common motive for this. Marriage fraud is a crime. Presumably, if there were a significant problem with people entering into fake same-sex marriages to set up a business together (or whatever), we could write laws against that. We might ask the suspected fraudulent same-sex spouses questions similar to those asked of suspected fraudulent opposite-sex spouses. That’s a problem that could be dealt with without outlawing all same-sex marriages, just like we deal with fraudulent opposite-sex marriages without outlawing all opposite-sex marriages.
I thought I made it pretty clear that I have no problem with same sex marriage or gay marriage I just thought that quibbling about what to call it was more of a tactic, one that I don’t necesarily oppose, to get around “low information voters”. Lets face it, this is about the right of people to marry who they choose and I am all in favor of that. Hell I don’t see what is wrong with letting three or more people get married. I do however think it should be much harder to get divorced…
