Changing Animator1's mind...

At work there are discussion forums that amount to debates on any and all subjects between almost 2000 animators working in 3 seperate studios. I view it as a great source of information, differing views, therapy, and rant space. here's a snippet from yesterday...

Zen2 wrote:

extremism is definitely a problem for both sides of an argument. clearly some kind of middle ground needs to be met in a democratic society. or at least a clear majority on one of the two sides. but that will almost always leave out extremists on both sides no matter what the outcome is.

as for who gets into the media and who is extreme? maybe I am. I believe that people who think gay marriage shouldn't be allowed is fanatic extremism. it's fundamentally religion based and its an infringement on equality. especially in a country founded on equal rights, and the separation of church and state. it's like we are collectively throwing away our own principles.

Almost 50% of this country thinks that gay marriage should be illegal. that's EXTREME.

Animator1 wrote:

well, I'm glad someone brought this up. I was getting tired of all the one-sided name calling.

At the risk of starting a flame war maybe I can explain that side of the arguement. Proposition 8 is to define 'marriage' between a man and a woman. It is not an anti-gay issue, but they are involved because they choose to be so. It is defending a word that is sacred to us and is being twisted into something it is not. Let me put it this way, what if 'gay' meant relations with animals or relatives? Pretty absurd and even offensive, right? For someone who is married, the word "marriage" is sacred. Those that really love their family would find the word "family" sacred. I'm sure that you can think of some other words that have strong meaning to you. Marriage defined as between man and woman has been since the dawn of time, through out all cultures in all lands. Marriage was created by married people (if that doesn't sound too weird) and it disconcerning to have someone else try to redefine it to serve them.
Believe me, there would be a lot less hub-bub if they had respected the meaning of the word "marriage" (tolerance for others beliefs) and chosen a unique word or gone with the traditional "domestic partnership" phrase. /California/ Family /Protection Act/ of 2001 entitling them to the same state law benefits as married couples. If they want more rights they can continue to go thru the legal process to recieve them. I respect the feelings of all on this issue.

But that's not all. As a political issue, this will change many other things that will and have infrige on other peoples rights. First of all, this gov't decision to allow gay marriage was against the will of the people. The state successfully voted on this issue on Prop 22 year 2000 . It was the popular choice and the will of the people of California. That decicion was overturned by four activist judges in San Fransisco. This simply restores the meaning of marriage thru the will of the people.
This has and will continue to destroy the freedom of religion and other rights too. In fact, this forces conflict with religion. This has already happened. A Swedish priest chose not to marry a gay couple in his church in Mass. as it was against the religions tenants. He was jailed for this. A doctor declined a lesbian couple for invetrofertilization and invited them to go elsewhere. Instead of going elsewhere the lesbian couple took it to court and forced him against his values to do it anyways. A Catholic adoption agency was forced to close down by the state because they have a religious mandate to adopt to heterosexual couples. Boy Scouts of America fought a tough legal battle years ago to keep it's scout leaders heterosexual (for obvious reasons) and won. It will be overturned. I could cite many other examples from the past but you get the picture.

There is no hatred, bigotry, or ignorance here. Just a desire to preserve what we have always felt was sacred. One does not need to be a religious right-wing nut-job to feel this way. Whether you agree with it or not, please be tolerant of it.

My Hero wrote:

You seem like a reasonable guy and let's hope we can all keep this from being a flame war. It is worth talking about.

This, which I think is the basis of your argument, is simply not true. There have been plenty of cultures where men could be married to several women, and there are large parts of the world today where that is legal. (Islam still generally allows as many as four wives.) Marriage between people of the same sex also has history, and wasn't declared illegal in the Roman Empire until the Christian era. It is currently legal is six countries. (In any case, I'm not sure that historical arguments have all that much weight. Slavery also was permitted in most societies for most of history, and until the last couple of hundred years Jews were not legally citizens in many countries.)

Personally, I think the sensible way to cut this Gordian knot is to remove marriage from civil codes. People should be able to form civil partnerships, which would have all of the legal rights and responsibilities currently assigned to marriage. "Marriage" should not be a legal concept, but a social and religious one. So, if a Christian church wants to only allow marriage between one man and one woman, that is their right, while if another wants to allow it between two men or two women, that is also their right. But the legal parts would be civil partnership.

However, the word "marriage" is too deeply embedded in our society and the ideology of this issue for that separation to happen, at least any time soon. Given that, the problem with outlawing same sex marriage is that marriage is the key legal part of how families are formed. We are born into families (in general).In general, we grow up, move away from our parents, pair up, and form new families (with children or not). Thus humanity precedes, generation by generation. The laws that take force when two people marry are the laws that our society uses to support this generational formation of families. These run from tax codes that allow couples to treat two incomes as one, inheritance rules, rules dealing with the dissolution of such a relationship, and so on. When you marry someone, you switch your next of kin from being your parent to being your partner.

So, yeah, it would be nice if the loaded word "marriage" could be removed from this and all laws shifted to some kind of domestic partnership. A movement among the same-sex marriage opponents to do that would, in my mind, be understandable and moral. The current effort, though, comes down to being an attempt to keep same-sex couples from forming families, or at least to put them in an underclass category where their families don't have the same legal protections and responsibilities that heterosexual families have. This to me is immoral, as well as being unfair.

Zen2 wrote:

ok Animator1. i will tolerate what amounts to your lack of tolerance. we do live in a free country after all. but really, using the word "sacred" in legal discussion is a breach of the whole point of this country as defined by our founders. and the fact that what other people do in their homes has anything to do with what you do in yours is just NOT A FACT.

by all means, hold marriage sacred. love thy wife and all that. but don't go out and vote against somebody else's ability to feel economically safe, and "sacred", equal, and in love, the same way you do. that borders on fascist, and like i said before, fanatical extremism with clear roots in religion.

i can see the future here, since it does repeat itself. gay marriage will be legal everywhere in a bunch of years. and there will be documentaries about the long road to equal rights for gays. it will show speeches made by people opposed to it and people will say, as they do when watching racist speeches of the 60's, "look at those shameful ignorant people! they're so scared."

this is the time to do the right thing, while you still have the chance. history is not going to view you well if you don't.

Animator1 wrote:

Gotta admit that's a pretty good arguement. Let me know when you run for office.
But until that day the problem lies with the separaton of church and state. I believe I mentioned the problem of the priest thrown in prison because he wouldn't marry lesbians against the tennants of his faith. Or the doctor being forced to perform procedures against his moral will...
The very definition itself changes the laws regarding this. That's another reason why I fight for civil unions and marriage to be 2 separate things.

Serously, people, I mentioned this was not an anti-gay thing for me (although it's obvious they are involved). It protects traditional marriage. I've told you prop 8 views, I've told you the Scouts views, I've given definitions and clarity, I've stated the will of the people as it was voted on. I've stated how i would support civil unions as well as marriage. Never have I implied God smiting anyone (quite the opposite re my earlier comment on Katrina) or that gays should be locked up. I have gay friends, and while we don't always agree on the issues that doesn't make me hate them as people. Please don't imply otherwise.

Zen2 wrote:

it's very much an anti-gay thing. narrowing the definition of marriage to being between a man and a woman is DIRECTLY aimed at blocking gay marriage. and as for your gay friends, i don't see the difference between you actively denying them the right to marriage, and you not approving in a very direct sense, of their lifestyle.

if you are implying that prop 8 is defending marriage against wider definitions and couplings like the aforementioned bestiality, and pedofilia, then you're offering up a red herring. pedophilia is a crime because it victimizes children. bestiality is...well, super far out of the realm of possible threats to marriage and anybody who thinks that gay marriage might lead to animal marriage really needs to take a step back and splash some cold water on their faces.

mentioning all these other threats to marriage is a talking point of the christian right, and it really is disgusting to think that one will lead to the others. and highly insulting to my intelligence and sense of common decency.

i am surprised that a priest would get thrown in jail for not performing a marriage in his church. i would need to see the article on that one. seems like if a church doesn't believe in issuing a church document or right then it can choose not to do so. a doctor is different.

they are licensed by the state, and they can't make moral judgements about their patients bodies. if a dr doesn't believe in abortions then he shouldn't be a ob-gyn. the same thing goes for pharmacists. lest we let religion and morality dictate to people what kind of care they get. imagine that if all the drs and pharmacists in alabama decide whats moral, then they effectively overpower the state. that can't be allowed.

Animator1 wrote:

Of course not. I didn't mean 'sacred' as a 'religious-only' way as i know a few atheists/agnostic who have strong feelings of the institution of marriage and have used the same language.
I don't believe I've mentioned faith in this discussion other than using particular examples. ex separation of church and state, God didn't smite NO. And, yes, I cited a lot as many religions are involved with (but not exclusive to) one side of the arguement as gays are to the other (but not exclusive to.)
The terms of definition where implied towards unions of genders, not race, religion or otherwise.
And whoever thru out the "red herring" bit implying I was saying bestiality and homosexuality were the same thing.... NOT appreciated. That's what I meant by "implying otherwise"

Zen2 wrote:

my last post must have come out wrong. i didn't mean that you were implying that they are the same (homosexuality and bestiality), or that one leads to another in the same individuals.

i've just heard the argument before that we are "protecting" marriage from the other possible couplings by limiting it to one man and one woman, that is what you said in the beginning and you did list the other offending types of couplage'. its a good way to argue AROUND the issue of gay marriage. "it's not that i have anything against gay marriage, i just want to protect marriage from all the other crazy stuff" Rick Santorum of Penn loved that argument.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rick_Santorum

so if you let same sex marriage in the door, then the definition gets loosened and the perverts of the world get to march in as well. not that you were saying homosexuals might do the other things themselves. but that the point of prop 8 is to make sure those real pervs don't get into the club. which seems logical, until we step back and look at what is actually happening. gay marriage is getting shot down. the rest are still violent victimizing crimes regardless of the definition of marriage.

So the rights and protections are NOT the same.

somebody pointed out that Domestic Partnerships don't have the same rights as marriage. i think it was in situations where they couldn't care for themselves and the partner couldn't make any decisions about medical care.

thats a very scary right to have to live without. do you see how unfair that is?

Animator1 wrote:

Seriously, I understand your concern about it. And I understand your need to fight for that. Throw it out on the next proposition and see what happens. You don't need to answer this publically but would the distiction between marriage and civil union be more palatable if this was added? I don't know to what degree but I do know some people are more sympathetic to this way of thinking.

Zen2 wrote:

being that I am hell bent on wanting equal rights for all people who want to live and love one person for the rest of their lives. i would say that having the two definitions have the same exact rights is necessary. why they would need different names is less important...and actually seems somewhat moot.

I personally don't need to DNR someone, and actually I am a heterosexual, so my fight is more along the lines of making this country live up to it's name. the whole argument makes us look pretty bad, and kind of backwards. I mean really, Canada?! whats that all a-boot?

My Hero wrote:

Were I able to wave my hand and change things, I'd make what the state does civil unions, which would involve all the legal rights and responsibilities, and make marriage purely a matter of religion and convention. That wouldn't satisfy the Prop 8 people, though--they want to reserve the word "marriage" for a man and a woman, and they want the state in enforce that. But, unless we're going to make this a theocracy, I think that aim is rather offensive.

Marriage has an ancient history, as mentioned, as the basis of family. When I went from living with a woman to marrying her, the difference was in the community and the broader family. We were part of the family tree, part of the family structure. Marriage gives you a certain position as a member of the community. (I''m not saying that unmarried people don't or shouldn't have status as part of society, too, but marriage is traditionally at the center of that structure.)

I cannot think of a single legitimate reason why gay people should not have full access to that position as pillars of society. The idea that the way your sexual desires are directed should determine whether you can form a family in as full a sense as anyone else is frankly nonsense. The fact that some churches think that right should be limited to people who like to have sex in a particular way is irrelevant. They have that right within their own churches. Beyond that, it is nothing less than bigotry.

I know that I'm drawing a harsher line about this than I did in my earlier message, and there's a reason for that--my patience about this has run out and I'm feeling upset. Some of you may have heard about the now-infamous case of the first grade class who went to throw rose petals on the City Hall steps to celebrate their teacher's wedding. That class was from my daughter's school, and the little girl quoted in the article is the sister of one of my daughter's best friends. Her parents are also friends of ours, people we know from the school and from our synagogue. As mentioned in the article, that girl's parents, two women, are planning to get married within the next two weeks, before that right may be taken away from them. This case has become a causes belle for the Yes on 8 crowd, and is all over the right-wing blogosphere, stated as the realization of their worst fears, though really also as the fulfillment of their expectations. I talked a few minutes ago to one of the girl's mothers, who is rather distraught, about how our children would navigate the media storm that apparently has descended on our school, and how people who oppose Prop 8 are angry that the school allowed this to happen, because it gives ammunition to the Yes on 8 crowd.

When I read the article about this wedding and the class's attendance on the front page of the Chronicle a couple of days ago, it never occurred to me it would be a problem. I felt a flush of happiness at feeling close to such a sweet thing, and when the article mentioned that some controversy was already appearing I felt a flush of pride at the comment from our principal (also a member of our synagogue, fwiw), who defended the children's attendance. The idea that somehow every moment children spend in first grade is so filled with academics that they cannot afford to share in the joy of their teacher's wedding at City Hall (only a few blocks from school) is absurd. The idea that the Yes on 8 crowd is using this as a poster issue is disgusting.

Peter, whether or not we would wish it otherwise, marriage is the name of the game. Even if there was such a thing as a civil union that was exactly legally equivalent (and there is no such thing right now), to deny the term "marriage" based on anything other than the joining of two people into a family is simply wrong. I wish you would reconsider your position. In traditional European societies marriage was a business relationship between two families, having more to do with the passing down of property than with love. Now, marriage is the way society recognizes a love relationship that is meant to last for a lifetime and join two people together. Can we in good conscience, with true morality, and yes, even with the love that God has granted us, can we seriously say that marriage should be limited to those who have the right set of organs between their legs? What business is that of ours, and how can any of us be so arrogant as to say that two adults who love each other should not be able to share the state of marriage, the state which our long tradition has placed at the center of family and society?

In a world where Britney Spears can can married in a drunken stupor in Las Vegas and divorced days later, where 50% of marriages end in divorce, where the pregnant 17 year old daughter of the Republican VP candidate is going to be forced into marriage with her unwilling boyfriend and the Republican Presidential candidate is married to the woman he picked up in a bar while married to his first wife, the idea that marriage is some sort of special and sacred institution that cannot be extended to gay people is simply unsupportable.