Lark- fair enough. I also appreciate your willingness to put forth your opinion and reasoning behind it.
The public square should always be open for people to put forth reasoned arguments so that voters can be informed of different views on a particular subject...Ideally voters should make educated choices at the poll instead of rash emotional decisions.
I don't want people to vote for or against Ref I based on your or my argument...instead I want them to sit down with an open mind on this Ref. and all other Amends and Refs and force themselves to "think" through all the different aspects of the argument. I think a voter who is attempting to reason an argument will do a better job at serving the population as a whole.
Marriage is not about religion or even solely about love...sure, love is an underlying theme, but it is not a requirement. The marriage license doesn't have a question that says "Are you madly in love and will stay that way forever?" In fact, no proof of passion and commitment is required to get married. Far from it...if love were a requirement then I would say a lot of marriages are in default of the license...as evident by the divorce rate. Now, don't get me wrong...I do believe love should ideally be very present in every marriage; however, love is not the sole reason for it as seen by society. You see, marriage is not about a list of adjectives:it is about something else.
Marriage has been recognized by most all cultures...in some cultures most marriages are arranged...in some it is a contract between a man and a woman's family. But in every case those cultures have discovered that there is something special about the union of a man and woman:why is that? Probably because the culture realizes that they were procreated from just that union. The very cultures that were produced by man and woman have discovered that this union is worthy enough to protect (and get certain entitlements) so that the culture will continue to exist.
Now, if this Ref. is saying that there is something special about "loving and committed" people and we want to treat them special then so be it:but then why is it not inclusive of all "loving and committed" people. What if two opposite sex siblings who are "loving and committed", but not attracted to each other, decide to live together for whatever reason:maybe they are doing something noble like raising an orphan...but for whatever reason they have decided that marriage is not for them. Should we give them the same benefits as "marriage" or do they get a different set of benefits? And then once again we will be stuck attempting to define the list of attributes of who to include/exclude.
Lark, you made my point exactly. You said "two people in a committed, loving, monogamous:" should have the same rights as you. What about two same-sex people in a loving, monogamous relationship...notice that I left off the "committed" adjective...shouldn't they also be granted the same rights as you? If not, then aren't they being discriminated against...and shouldn't we be insulted because they are left out. This Ref implies that if they are not "committed" then they don't deserve any thing special. You see, by having a subjective list of adjectives then we are including/excluding people...which according to you is going to "limit the freedoms" of those individuals that get excluded.
This Ref. is trying to equate a given list of attributes to the notion of marriage people seem to get special treatment. It sounds like you are saying that if these people meet all the same requirements as you in your marriage then they should get the same rights as you. This has to be the most subjective thing I can think of. Who gets to make such a list of adjectives to determine who gets in and who is left off?
You are mistaking "freedom" with entitlements. Everyone is free to love who they want:they can even live with who they want to a certain extent. It is the legal union of a man and woman that brings about certain entitlements (tax benefits, etc.) Politicians excel at creating entitlements for specific groups...our tax code is full of entitlements.
That is the problem with Ref I - it is trying to set aside benefits for a certain group of people that meet very specific requirements. This is not about rights or freedom:it is about entitlements (i.e. special treatment) for a certain group.
This viewpoint is a feeble attempt to ask for special privileges for a certain segment of people based on their sexual preference.
You say about Admend 43, "It promotes discrimination based on sexual orientation". Well, if you vote for Ref I then one can just as easily use that same reasoning for saying, "It (Ref. I) promotes special treatment based on sexual orientation."
Marriage is a union between man and woman that is approved and accepted by society. This Ref. is asking to give same-sex couples all the same "benefits" that currently go to a married man and woman....but instead of calling it marriage they give it another name. What the proponents are asking for is that society should accept and approve this relationship (i.e. behavior) between a same-sex couple so that they can get these "benefits".
Why just stop at same-sex couples:lets ask voters to approve "benefits" for three people in a relationship:if two are good then three has to be even better eh!
The individuals in a same-sex couple have all the same rights and restrictions that I have. I, as an adult male, have the right to love anyone I want; however, I don't have the right to marry any person I love. And marriage is what society has deemed worthy of getting certain benefits. There are restrictions as to what society approves....I don't have the right to marry my pet dog, I don't have the right to marry my sister or daughter, I don't have the right to marry a woman under a certain age...in fact, I don't have the right to marry just any woman...for starters the woman must not be currently married. These restrictions apply equally to everyone. Marriage, and the benefits/restrictions that go with it, has been set aside and approved by society because this society was procreated by the implied construct in marriage that says it is between a man and woman.
Ref I just begs us to push the limits of "special privileges" for same-sex couples and also for any special group who can make it sound like they are being discriminated against.
I have friends involved in same-sex relationships; however, as much as I may care for their well being I don't believe society should embrace that particular type of relationship as to the point that it deserves any special treatment.
Our View: Yes on Ref. I; no on 43
Lark- fair enough. I also appreciate your willingness to put forth your opinion and reasoning behind it.
The public square should always be open for people to put forth reasoned arguments so that voters can be informed of different views on a particular subject...Ideally voters should make educated choices at the poll instead of rash emotional decisions.
I don't want people to vote for or against Ref I based on your or my argument...instead I want them to sit down with an open mind on this Ref. and all other Amends and Refs and force themselves to "think" through all the different aspects of the argument. I think a voter who is attempting to reason an argument will do a better job at serving the population as a whole.
October 20, 2006 at 10:18 a.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Our View: Yes on Ref. I; no on 43
Marriage is not about religion or even solely about love...sure, love is an underlying theme, but it is not a requirement. The marriage license doesn't have a question that says "Are you madly in love and will stay that way forever?" In fact, no proof of passion and commitment is required to get married. Far from it...if love were a requirement then I would say a lot of marriages are in default of the license...as evident by the divorce rate. Now, don't get me wrong...I do believe love should ideally be very present in every marriage; however, love is not the sole reason for it as seen by society. You see, marriage is not about a list of adjectives:it is about something else.
Marriage has been recognized by most all cultures...in some cultures most marriages are arranged...in some it is a contract between a man and a woman's family. But in every case those cultures have discovered that there is something special about the union of a man and woman:why is that? Probably because the culture realizes that they were procreated from just that union. The very cultures that were produced by man and woman have discovered that this union is worthy enough to protect (and get certain entitlements) so that the culture will continue to exist.
Now, if this Ref. is saying that there is something special about "loving and committed" people and we want to treat them special then so be it:but then why is it not inclusive of all "loving and committed" people. What if two opposite sex siblings who are "loving and committed", but not attracted to each other, decide to live together for whatever reason:maybe they are doing something noble like raising an orphan...but for whatever reason they have decided that marriage is not for them. Should we give them the same benefits as "marriage" or do they get a different set of benefits? And then once again we will be stuck attempting to define the list of attributes of who to include/exclude.
October 19, 2006 at 10:23 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Our View: Yes on Ref. I; no on 43
Lark, you made my point exactly. You said "two people in a committed, loving, monogamous:" should have the same rights as you. What about two same-sex people in a loving, monogamous relationship...notice that I left off the "committed" adjective...shouldn't they also be granted the same rights as you? If not, then aren't they being discriminated against...and shouldn't we be insulted because they are left out. This Ref implies that if they are not "committed" then they don't deserve any thing special. You see, by having a subjective list of adjectives then we are including/excluding people...which according to you is going to "limit the freedoms" of those individuals that get excluded.
This Ref. is trying to equate a given list of attributes to the notion of marriage people seem to get special treatment. It sounds like you are saying that if these people meet all the same requirements as you in your marriage then they should get the same rights as you. This has to be the most subjective thing I can think of. Who gets to make such a list of adjectives to determine who gets in and who is left off?
You are mistaking "freedom" with entitlements. Everyone is free to love who they want:they can even live with who they want to a certain extent. It is the legal union of a man and woman that brings about certain entitlements (tax benefits, etc.) Politicians excel at creating entitlements for specific groups...our tax code is full of entitlements.
That is the problem with Ref I - it is trying to set aside benefits for a certain group of people that meet very specific requirements. This is not about rights or freedom:it is about entitlements (i.e. special treatment) for a certain group.
October 19, 2006 at 10:22 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )
Our View: Yes on Ref. I; no on 43
This viewpoint is a feeble attempt to ask for special privileges for a certain segment of people based on their sexual preference.
You say about Admend 43, "It promotes discrimination based on sexual orientation". Well, if you vote for Ref I then one can just as easily use that same reasoning for saying, "It (Ref. I) promotes special treatment based on sexual orientation."
Marriage is a union between man and woman that is approved and accepted by society. This Ref. is asking to give same-sex couples all the same "benefits" that currently go to a married man and woman....but instead of calling it marriage they give it another name. What the proponents are asking for is that society should accept and approve this relationship (i.e. behavior) between a same-sex couple so that they can get these "benefits".
Why just stop at same-sex couples:lets ask voters to approve "benefits" for three people in a relationship:if two are good then three has to be even better eh!
The individuals in a same-sex couple have all the same rights and restrictions that I have. I, as an adult male, have the right to love anyone I want; however, I don't have the right to marry any person I love. And marriage is what society has deemed worthy of getting certain benefits. There are restrictions as to what society approves....I don't have the right to marry my pet dog, I don't have the right to marry my sister or daughter, I don't have the right to marry a woman under a certain age...in fact, I don't have the right to marry just any woman...for starters the woman must not be currently married. These restrictions apply equally to everyone. Marriage, and the benefits/restrictions that go with it, has been set aside and approved by society because this society was procreated by the implied construct in marriage that says it is between a man and woman.
Ref I just begs us to push the limits of "special privileges" for same-sex couples and also for any special group who can make it sound like they are being discriminated against.
I have friends involved in same-sex relationships; however, as much as I may care for their well being I don't believe society should embrace that particular type of relationship as to the point that it deserves any special treatment.
October 17, 2006 at 9:52 p.m. ( permalink | suggest removal )