Brains!

This is a compiled conversation sparked by Prop 8.

DG (I'm calling him) I went to high school with. I don't remember him at all, but he friended me on facebook, and thus started this converstation.

Starts last night!
I joined the group "Repeal Proposition 8".

DG commented on my joining the group:
Ain't gonna happen...just like the people spoke when they voted Obama, they have spoken on prop 8

Me:
they said women weren't gonna get the vote for nearly a hundred years...and you know what I don't even believe in marriage, but I ain't for denying rights to anyone. Personally I would just separate the whole thing from any government relation. But that is even more unlikely to happen…

Later that morning…

DG's status changed to:
“DG is amazed at how liberal californians are, I hope you like hot places guys.”

I commented on his status:
The implication that I am going to hell because of my beliefs is really offensive on principal, meaning that you wish the worst possible fate for me because we differ in opinions is really quite offensive indeed, but I don't believe in hell so whatever. And where did you grow up? California has always been very liberal...

DG:
You don't have to believe in something for it to exist, I actually respect everyone's views, but I cant truthfully say I agree with them. I was born in LA, however it seems like the more time that goes by, the less people care about morality and principles. Oh well, I'm secure in my beliefs, but it will always amaze me how some people can live comfortable without believing in anything other than "equal rights" and "change"...more like the deterioration of the human race if you ask me.

Me:
I respect that you believe those things. If we didn't have diverse opinions there would be no need for democracy. But I would never wish the worst fate I believe in, on people who believe the opposite of me, is my point. But again we're all different, I'm just offended, and I'm allowed to be. My set of morals differ from your set, but no one should... Read More be punished or hated for their beliefs. Over time things change, and the new "norm" is accepted. Without change, we would not have all the good things we have today, bad and good change come together. Its all a matter of perspective.

DG:
I think we agree to disagree, which like you said is the foundation of this country. I don't wish anything on anyone, on the contrary, I'd rather everyone understand why it's important to believe in something and to be aware of the implications your beliefs might have on your eternal life.
Sorry if I offended you by the way, but in actuality if ... what I said offended you, then my beliefs in general offend you. Things do change over time, some for the good and some for the bad, no one can know whether having Obama as president or a constitutional ban on marriage is good or bad, we all just base our positions on our beliefs, or lack thereof. Am I correct?

Me:
I have beliefs. I have many of them. And yes they do influence my vote. And of course I don't agree with your beliefs, and perhaps in this instance they offend me. But I also understand that there a lot more to people then just their beliefs, in fact there maybe some that we we do agree on.
I apologize for saying that you "wished" this on anyone. ...I guess its not even the issue in question, its that when you're disappointed in other peoples choices or beliefs you assume we're going to burn up for it, especially when like i just said these people you don't even know are comprised of so many beliefs. It just seemed a rather intense thing to state.
I think as far as what is going to happen in the future, its really hard to say. But I believe we should see commonalities rather then differences. We should not demonize other people, or dehumanize other people. We should work together to a mutually content outcome. (LOL facebook I can't write anymore, no room after this sentence is over)

DG:
I agree with you, thanks for having an intelligent discussion with me and not just arguing to argue. =D

DG.
Interesting question for you. If someone wanted the right to marry and have intercourse with their dog...or their cousin or sister...would you be amenable to them being allowed to do so? Serious question by the way.

Me:
You can't even make that association, that kind of example is going cross-species, and not cross-gender. A big benefit of gay marriage is the taxes, which would benefit Gay person A and gay person B, therefore being mutually beneficial to both parties involved. You cannot get this same situation with cross-species since, well....dogs don't pay taxes. This first argument is based purely on logic. And I am going to answer the rest via a message, lol so I don't run out of room hehe.

DG:
You can't really make the argument that the support of gay marriage is the tax breaks or benefits, because the California Family Code provides for such benefits already through domestic partnerships. That option has always been available to gay couples, the solemnization of marriage however has never been an available option. In truth, you cant take away someones fundamental rights when they never had that right to begin with, throughout the ages marriage has been defined as being between a man and a woman. I await your message to the second part of my question, haha. =)

Me:
Okay...what about de-institutionalized marriage? Meaning taking it back to the way it was, in this case a judeo-christian stand point (I'm assuming you are christian cause of your facebook, And so I'm assuming that you are basing marriage on what the bible says, "that is it should be between a man and a woman"). There were no taxes, or rights related when that was done . What about if they took it away, or if they were like you can only marry if you are buddhist or jewish. And denied you these rights because some other religion stopping you. "you can't get married if youre not jewish". What an uproar that would cause. Gay people can be anyone...i have a couple gay friends who are deeply religious, are they invalid in their beliefs? That is why separate church and state is very important. Instead of being gay, its being a certain religion. I'm also quite annoyed whenever, (including Barack Obama) states God Bless America. Well a lot of people in America mgiht not believe in that same god. Separate Church and state, not groups of human beings from equal rights.
What if a man got a sex change, then legally he's a woman and legally she can marry a woman now. If you believe that sex changes are immoral then Prop 8 is already being broken. So why not do away with marriage connected to government, and completely avoid the issue to begin with?
The other issue is if in your religion being gay, or supporting gays, damns you to hell, and in another religion its the opposite, or in the other religion is states "any other religion who does not recognize gays" means they are going to hell, then we're all going to hell, you would go to that religions hell. But if you're religion protects you from other religions beliefs and punishments, then how do gays getting married affect you in your religion? it doesnt, they have nothing to do with you. So if everyone is affected by other religions then we're all going to some one elses hell.
In many other religions and countries and cultures, it is not taboo for siblings and 1st cousins to marry. Mostly this is based on preserving power and blood lines. I personally do not support it on the basis that it adds to genetic degradation. But if you don;t believe in evolution then thats hardly the issue? What is the issue? I also do not know enough about that topic to make an informed decision. It's very rare. SO I don't have that much to say about it, maybe if there's a prop that would violate equal rights I would be more concerned about it, but if there is such a low occurance of this then its unlikely to ever be an issue, and invalid in the gay marriage one, when there are millions of gays.
The underlying issue here, maybe homophobia. How many people who voted yes on 8 are homophobic? the commercials blatantly stated that parents should be worried that they're children are going to be taught about gays in classrooms. Which may have made most parents worried that their children would turn out being gay. But wait is it that bad? is that the fundamental issue here? If someone child turned out to be gay, what would they do, deny them rights? Gays are already here and they arent going anywhere, why would learning about them in school instead of from TV or peers be that horrible? This prop is not just a step towards inequality its a step towards challenging basic human rights. Once we start separating groups of peopel like this, its a means to separating other rights between other groups of people too.
More stuff I had to add and response to doggy issue:
Im pretty sure the states exisiting marriage law doesnt say anything about relgion. so why do people care so much suddenly when its a gay issue, its only because of instilled hate, and lack of tollerance through out the ages also. marriage is just a word, no one can own a word.
Marriage is already a messed up thing. if you think gays are messing up religion, the govenments involvment has already messed it up. People are marrying all the time or getting civil unions all the time for no other reason then the benefits. My mom came to this country only because she married some guy for a green card. they didn't have sex, they have never spoken after the divorce. Like how many people are going to marry their cat for just the rights, but have absolutely no sexual attraction to it in the first place. Hell i would marry my dog if i could get tax cuts and crap. They would never pass a prop or a law or anything that stated marriage or civil unions between humans and non-humans. It would be even more abused then "marriage between man and woman". I wouldn't support that based on the fact that people might go out and buy a dog (not get it nuetered) have puppies and put further strain on the homeless dog population lol.
I have to eat... so I'll respond when i can to whatever messages you send.
PS sorry for grammar and spelling issues, im too lazy to fix them haha.

DG:
Wow...where to start. First of really I want you to know that I'm not one of those people that says everyone is damned to hell and I inherently hate everyone because they're not me or don't think like me. I'm a grounded person, I've been a paralegal for the last 4 years and in my field of work you have to be subjective and approach everything from the same angle, unbiased and neutrally. At the end of the day though, when I go home my beliefs are still the same.
I am christian, when I was in high school I didn't attend church, never read the bible. I found my calling to Jesus Christ when me and my wife ( I know I'm young, haha) of 2 years got divorced. This isn't to say that I am new to the beliefs that I have, I always have had the positions that I hold today, I just wasn't a practicing christian and hadn't properly accepted Christ. I agree with you in a lot of the things you say, in terms of me and you having different views, and even groups of people around California or ultimately the nation having different views. This makes life interesting, the pursuit of what you believe in, being grounded in your faith, your principles and overall what you believe to be important in this life.
When I view gay marriage I see it in two different aspects, which is only fair. I look at it in relation to my beliefs, and it is just plain wrong. I look at it from a legal standpoint, and again it's just plain wrong. Let me explain both sections of analysis. The christian bible says that being homosexual, incest and beastiality among other things are sins. I can't vouch for everyone and expect them to believe what I believe, which is a reasonable conclusion because there are just too many damn people right? Going back to the bible though, our country was founded upon the christian belief, that's why our legal tender says in god we trust and why we swear on god when we take an oath not to perjure ourselves in court. The bible has been around ages longer than me and you, and many societies (including anglo saxon society) based it's laws and morality upon the bible, establishing such things as "sodomy" being illegal, in essence making homosexuality illegal. Homosexuals have never had the right to marry, on the contrary it has become less and less stigmatized in our present society; however the argument that not allowing homosexuals to marry is a change in the base foundation of what societies are founded upon: morals. That's how I see it based on my religion.
From a legal standpoint, homosexual couples have always enjoyed the same benefits as heterosexual couples as the California Family Code provides for domestic partnerships, granting the benefits of a opposite sex couple. Again, in allowing homosexual marriage you change the foundation of our laws, the definition of a properly solemnized matrimony. Mind you that only two states in our country recognize gay marriage, and the majority of states have a similar constitutional ban on gay marriage. When you look at the prospect of allowing gay marriage, it begins to open up the possibility of legalized incest, beastiality and all other sorts of repugnant practices. You would be surprised how many people out there practice incest and beastiality, and once you blur the definition of marriage anything is possible.
If you actually read all of this, I congratulate you and thank you for having a conversation with me on the topic, I'm glad you initially got offended by my status, otherwise we wouldn't have gotten out some fine points for both sides of the argument. =)
By the way, I'm not sure how interested you are in the law...but here's a link to the Petition for Writ of Mandamus that was filed in the supreme court in an attempt to stay prop 8 and rule it void.
http://news.lp.findlaw.com/hdocs/docs/election2008/20081105-prop8-petition.pdf

Me:
Nice job generalizing your arguments. I like how you dodged all my direct questions lol. You kind of just restated all of your arguments more eloquently, and added a few new ones (which I will address here shortly hehe).
This is where my argument about change comes in. We cannot base our present societies needs and demands on what the context was in 1787 when the constitution was adopted. They wrote it with the intent of it being allowed to change. They based the country on equal rights for all. The world is a much bigger place now, now we have to accommidate for all the new and wonderful things that we have in our world. If we all sat around and accepted the way things were back in the day, then there would be slaves, or separate water fountains still, child labor, etc...everything that has been changed, has come with the knowledge that some one was being treated unfairly and thus it needed to be judged, and changed. We cannot sit around static in our beliefs. Beliefs change.
As for the religion argument. I have a lot to say about religion and the validity of taking the bible too literally. Mostly to do with this whole 'context of the times' idea, but also a lot to do with the logic or argument. There is no way either of us can win or even move forward on any topic if we differ in our beliefs when it comes to religion. Niether of us are right or wrong. Hence the reason again it should be separated. WHen i was in jury duty for that DUI case, I was incredibly uncomfortable with all "god" references. I never say the pledge of allegiance, and I'm uncomfortable with the constitution stating relgion anywhere except that everyone has the freedom to practice whatever they want. That is where my very liberal beliefs come in. But I also liek to consider myself a practical liberal. Its not practical to waste time and money removing "god" from all the docutments and laws and rights...we've got other pressing issues. I'm still allowed to think about it though lol.
Beliefs change: for a long time I was completely anti-military, but (and even though I went to an extremely liberal pacifist university) my beliefs changed in those four years. But I knew that I had picked up an even stronger belief along the way. Which is openmindedness and tollerance. I can't walk in anoyne else shoes or tell them how to live, all I can do is work to live with them. Never shutting anyone down with their opinions. That is why I can have this conversation with you, and not just get screaming mad.

DG:
Sorry for not answering your questions, let's touch on the two that I saw in your post.
1. What if the state said you cannot get married based on religion? Well, the state isn't doing that, instead of a man and a women who are christian, we are talking about the same gender. The state cannot rightfully deny you the right to practice your religion, but it can provide laws that enforce public policy and overall social morality...such as prohibitory laws such as drug usage, possession and even prostitution, those acts aren't wrong within themselves, but the state can make laws against something to enforce the public policy and overall morals.
2. Why should the state have any say in marriage? Just like anything else that allows for benefits provided to us by the state, or the nation, the states should be allowed to regulate and control it. Every state contains an inherent police power to provide for the welfare of it's residents, this is inclusive to the solemnization, regulation and defenition of marriage.
I can't imagine being opposed to war, considering me and you enjoy our lives and freedom now only because of World War II veterans. If everything was fine and dandy, there wouldn't be war; realistically though, there are bad people out there with bad intentions...a peremptory strike always a beats a retaliatory strike...that is if you CAN retaliate, in the situation of a WMD or nuke, good luck to ya right? I'm glad you got past that phase of anti-war sentiment though, good for you.
Again, i'm glad me and you can converse intelligently on important issues, that actually makes me happy.

Me:
LoI just watched the latest south park episode about the election, pretty funny spoof on both sides.
I'm pro-using force only when its the last possible action, and with a clear and present plan to get in and out safely. Of course the government tends to always use force first. Bush failed at both those things. But whatever. now we have to focus on bringing the troops home and securing Iraq so that it doesn't tear itself apart when we do leave.
But anyways I think the argument is over lol. Meaning we've both stated all we could possibly state from either stand point. And there is no middle ground either of us has been able to agree upon lol.
We shall see what happens in the state and the world etc! and maybe at a later date open up the discussion again.
Thanks to you too for intelligent conversation. NOw wouldn't it be amazing if everyone could sit around like this and talk?
Till the next time!