Prop. 8 passed.

[*zeo]

Okay, I think we're coming to some level of consensus. Of course there remains ideologies that we may never agree on but at least we can say we looked at our reasonings fairly.

"You can't possibly argue that protecting one's current traditions doesn't constitute as being biased or abusive to someone different or gay."

I disagree on the grounds that I don't believe it is biased to protect a tradition that doesn't deal with who you are claiming it biases against. Unlike race, gays have choices. Race and biological gender are not choices we make but the facts of our existence.

I understand if you disagree with this reasoning. Social bias is a concern, I just think the pro's won't fulfill their promise and the cons out weigh the pros even if they succeed in my opinion, which I'm doubtful of since I don't believe redefining marriage will really effect the reasons why people may be biased against gays or not. Since the tradition is not for the exclusion of others but rather the celebration and respect of life.

"actually man clubs have been targeted for being biased against other social groups. Same goes for both a women's club and men's club. Many times both have been sued against and even been made the subject of movies for social movements."

I think that line of reasoning is excluding that those targeted for bias had monopolies on the institutions they represented. Like letting women into the military. Unlike social clubs for like minded people, or other criteria. You can only claim bias if the ability for you to partake in a given activity is prohibited for reasons outside of whether you are qualified to partake in those activities.

"What business does a christian have in joining a Mosque if he doesn't convert or vice-versa. There's a reason why they are treated as second class citizens in some countries. Look at Afghanistan, they sentenced a man to execution for converting to Christianity 11 years ago... If not a second rate citizen... then a dead one. I also don't see the point in this comparison."

First of all I object to using extreme examples to justify a point. 11 years ago Afghanistan was controlled by the Taliban, an Islamic extremist based government with total intolerance for anything non-islamic. In America we have freedom of religion, so the argument of treating someone as second class citizen on the bases of religion is invalid. Similarly we have no law that dictates how people can have sex (barring abuse such as on children), previous sodomy laws have been removed. So the argument that they are second class citizens simply for being different is an attack on individuality and I think ignores the values of modern American society.

"Same as above. If you don't convert you have no reason to join a church."

Exactly, which is why you can't call it discrimination. Same-sex couples don't want to convert to a heterosexual lifestyle.

What is being asked is equivalent to asking a Islamic institution to change itself to be both Islamic and Christian, so Christians can then join as well. The point being in order to consider this reasoning valid you must ignore the differences between the two groups and look at them as being exactly the same when they are not exactly the same.

"This is confusing, this offers no logical point at all. Babies are too young to make choices in the same level as an adult"

It goes to the point of showing the difference between choice and ability. Babies don't have a choice in their abilities. The logic and comparison being there are things heterosexual couples can do that gay couples can't and that represents a difference in ability that is no fault of either, which I put forth as one reason why they shouldn't be directly compared anymore than a woman should be considered as exactly the same as a man and vice versa.

"But marriage wasn't about responsibility either. If anything it was about practicability to survive and gain human needs like emotional support."

How is this different from responsibility? Survival requires responsibility like the work load and the management of resources. Even human emotional support involves responsibility in the effort given to provide that support, otherwise one becomes an emotional parasite if balance is not maintained.

I understand you may not agree with that assessment but consider, what are the reasons for laws if not responsibility?

"But my point wasn't that they represent our current culture, no it was to point out that there have been changes over time that removed gay marriage, and it may very well be reversed into allowing gay marriage in this turn of the century."

I think whether it could change is a point already made by the very fact we are discussing it and have seen it change in more than one place, but the comparisons to old cultures were not made in the light that things could change but as justification for those changes. It's the justification part that I object to because no one has put those justifications in perspective and thus they can't be judged as valid to the present discussion.

Like saying our ancestors had practiced cannibalism at some point in history, in debating the validity of cannibalism in modern society. This simple statement belies the concerns our society has to the practice and doesn't put into perspective whether the example being given was from a society that really accepted the practice or just tolerated it.

"look up Baal, now there was a god who was worshiped by the most advanced iron makers in the world, but required having children burned alive inside a statue..."

Um, I think that proves my point more than it does yours. (Thanks for bringing up child sacrifice in such a horrendous image )

"The persecution and murder of gays was due to the change of power and infulence held by christians. At this point, Rome wasn't Rome anymore, it was a new anti-pagen, anti-gay, anti-polygamy empire based off the single minded beliefs of early christians. It doesn't count as an example of roman intolerance to gays, if anything it just shows more anti-catholic/orthodox (before the two churches split) policies."

I think you're missing the import that the reverse is also true, the tolerance of same sex unions in Rome was also just as much based on the pagan Religions. For example a man would marry his dog to dispel a curse or other ailment. The only law we know existed only was to protect the rights of individuals against rape. This does not tell us how sexual relations were judged but we do have words like "little greek" which are derogatory towards the practice of same sex. In large part all we really know is that consensual sex was not regulated.

"Neither was it written that minorities nor women should be excluded, but it still happened at one point. You are right though in saying that it won't deny them the rights... but it can lead to that situation if they close off other venues too. Like I mentioned before, I would prefer marriage being defined as only a man and woman union, but I can tolerate it not being defined like that too."

This much we agree with, I do not want to close off other venues too. But I do not believe redefining marriage will make a difference on whether people ever get discriminated against.

People get married all the time and still have to face discrimination. So making it the same issue only serves to mis-characterize marriage in my opinion at the expense of what it has traditionally represented and to me doing that will only further weaken marriage.

Perhaps I'm wrong in that belief but it is my primary concern that in the rush for social reform we will destroy a tradition that has historically benefited everyone involved.

Other than that don't worry, I'm fully prepared to shut myself up now