ETC: Everyday Thoughts Collected - Latest Comments in Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8

Re: Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8

Randy — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 22:11:50 -0000

I have it set NOT to do this and it is still doing it... I am not pleased :)

Re: Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8

Randy — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 22:06:13 -0000

yes

Re: Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8

Mensley — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 20:42:25 -0000

Are we there yet?

Re: Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8

RThomasETC — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 13:11:50 -0000

I have it set NOT to do this and it is still doing it... I am not pleased :)

Re: Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8

RThomasETC — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 13:06:13 -0000

yes

Re: Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8

Mensley — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 11:42:25 -0000

Are we there yet?

Re: Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8

Palin = Straight Talk, Biden = — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 10:59:19 -0000

[...] The ONLY way that Biden could make those statements and be consistent is if he views marriage like Palin and I do … as a benefit and not a civil right. Marriage is a civilly (legally) defined benefit and not a civil right in our view. [...]

Re: Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8

Ellie — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 03:46:17 -0000

No, the one word wide column would be so totally cool!

Re: Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8

Randy — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 01:10:18 -0000

ummm... start a new comment thread :)

Re: Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8

Mensley — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 01:02:12 -0000

Could you explain how you've described exactly what marriage is and how I've "stripped it down"?

Also, I'd like to know how you differentiate "sexual orientation" and "sexual persuasion" and why my take on them makes you sad.

Re: Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8

Brady — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 00:48:43 -0000

Mike...my justification is completely different. You try to strip the justification down ro what it isn't...mine describes exactly what marriage is and should be to all people.

Regardless, I'm actually more saddened by your sexual persuasion argument. Sexual orietnation is the not the same as a "sexual persuasion." I'm honestly sad that you think it is, or at the very least think it's ok to blindly mix the two.

Re: Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8

Mensley — Fri, 03 Oct 2008 00:07:12 -0000

You really didn't give a different justification for gay marriage than I did. But even if it was different, how could someone of another sexual persuasion not make the same argument? How could you say your definition of love justifies changing marriage and theirs doesn't? It would be hypocritical of you.

And yes, I believe gay marriage is wrong all on its own, whether it leads to those other things or not. We could argue on and on about the why's but I'm sure you we can each keep thinking up answers for each other. The bottom line is, the standard is set by Scripture--not me. For Heaven's sake, if it was about my personal preference we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Re: Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8

Brady — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 23:45:25 -0000

Mike- back then the "definitiion of marriage" WAS only between people of the same race or the same religion. It also used to be a contract that was not based in love. Just because we see marriage differently now doesn't mean that it wasn't defined that way back then or that it was just some sort of small caveat or transcendance. It was the way marriage was defined by the populace. Wrongly, but defined nonetheless.

As for your justification of gay marriage...that's YOUR justification of gay marriage...a straw man if you will. It's an easy justification to knock down with a "sky is falling" type of argument.

The only problem is that's not my justification or the justification of most pro-gay marriage folks I know. My justification is that all people ought to be able to marry the person we love, just like straight people do. Not just anyone, not everyone, not the eight people we love, just the person we love. Adding on all of those extra cases is just a way to scare the populace.

If your problems are about all of the other possibilities that arise, you should take the issue up there, not with gay marriage. If gay marriage is wrong, then it's wrong on it's face...it can't simply be wrong because of what might happen next in some realm of fear. We would have never made any social progress if we let the "sky is falling" scare stop us, because it's always been out there.

The problem with the slippery slope argument is it really has no beginning or end. If we outlaw gay marriage because of what may happen next, then we should have outlawed interracial marriage for the same reason, because the definition of marriage in law in most states (if that's not definition, I don't know what is) was two people of the same race. We didn't let the slippery slope argument stop us then because the people finally knew what was right, and we should not let it stop us now.

Re: Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8

Mensley — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 22:23:11 -0000

The definition of marriage has not been changed before. True, interracial marriages were once frowned upon, and women have been regarded as "less than" men in pretty much all cultures to some degree. But these were more transcendent issues of prejudice that, while they affected marriage deeply, did not change what it is at its root.

The justification for gay marriage is that we ought to be allowed to marry according to our personal desires, regardless of sex, and if that offends others' standards of morality or propriety, so what?

But then if the gay community may challenge (and repeal) those standards which exclude the desires they find most natural, how can they impose their own set of standards upon others with different desires?

Re: Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8

Brady — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 19:56:22 -0000

Hi Mike. I guess my problem with this is that marriage can still have definitey boundaries even if gay people are allowed to marry. I'm not sure why the logical conclusion is if we allow marriage for gays we have to abolish all marriage rules. We haven't done it any of the other times we've changed the "definition of marriage."

As for marriage being a benefit and not a right...there are a lot of things in life that are "benefits" but still fall under the issue of equality and then under the common term of rights. Let's take driving for example...it's a privelege. However, it would be unconstitutional for us to deny the privelege to drive to gays, or Christians, or women, or any other legal adult. Using the internet would be similar. We don't have the right to either of these, but we do have the right to equality and freedom from discrimination, so essentially we do have the right to drive or use the internet. Just because something is a benefit or a privelege doesn't mean we can restrict it to certain groups of people.

Re: Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8

BTCarolus — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 18:46:17 -0000

No, the one word wide column would be so totally cool!

Re: Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8

RThomasETC — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:10:18 -0000

ummm... start a new comment thread :)

Re: Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8

Mensley — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 16:02:12 -0000

Re: Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8

Brady — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:48:43 -0000

Re: Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8

Mensley — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 15:07:12 -0000

You really didn't give a different justification for gay marriage than I did. But even if it was different, how could someone of another sexual persuasion not make the same argument? How could you say your definition of love justifies changing marriage and theirs doesn't? It would be hypocritical of you.

And yes, I believe gay marriage is wrong all on its own, whether it leads to those other things or not. We could argue on and on about the why's but I'm sure we can each keep thinking up answers for each other. The bottom line is, the standard is set by Scripture--not me. For Heaven's sake, if it was about my personal preference we wouldn't be having this discussion.

Re: Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8

Brady — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 14:45:25 -0000

Re: Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8

Mensley — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 13:23:11 -0000

Re: Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8

Brady — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 10:56:22 -0000

Re: Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8

Mensley — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 01:47:54 -0000

Well, you referred to marriage as a "human right," which I assumed meant all people. Children are people, not property. But I will concede on the binding consent argument in that case.

Gay adults can give consent, but again, following your logic to its ultimate end, so can polygamists, "swingers", etc. Marriage must have definite boundaries, or it doesn't exist.

And yes, I believe every person (including me) needs God to help them know and do what is right. If that sickens you, so be it.

Re: Google “Officially” Against California’s Prop 8

you know — Thu, 02 Oct 2008 01:12:53 -0000

No, it's a pretty poor point. When did I say "anyone" and "everyone," or anything like it? Children are the property of their parents and can't give legal, binding consent. ergo, they can't wed. Gay adults CAN give consent, and belong only to themselves.

And Michael, your attitude, which by the way paints your blog, is exactly what gives Christians a bad name. As if every non christian who doesn't need God to hand over morality is just some heathen in need of a baptism. It's pretty sickening,

And I really wonder why, Mike, you haven't done a blog on Palin's interview with Couic. Hmmm...