Adi, thanks for the nice reply. I'll try not to go through your post line by line, but I think you've said some things I can clearly agree with, and others - not so much, so I will try to highlight certain via the "quote box." I'll try not to overdo the quotes, and not to ramble, as you all know I am wont to do, so again certain things points may stand more fleshing out, if needed.

In certain contexts, sure. We agree on that. And I wont be so smallminded as to pretend I dont understand what you mean. I completely understand you and I think you are right, but I DO want to also point out that "discrimination" in and of itself, is not necessarily a bad thing. Hear me out on this.

For example:
Discrimination
1 a: the act of discriminating b: the process by which two stimuli differing in some aspect are responded to differently
2: the quality or power of finely distinguishing
3 a: the act, practice, or an instance of discriminating categorically rather than individually b: prejudiced or prejudicial outlook, action, or treatment <racial discrimination>
synonyms see discernment

We all pretty much know the 3b definition of discriminating - but the part of the word I'm focused on is the 2 definition: "to make a difference between one thing as opposed to the other." This is why a connoisseur can be a person of discriminating tastes: they have the ability to discern a difference, and have a preference for one thing over another.

Side Note About "Preference"
A humorous thought occurred to me while I was writing this: the whole rhetoric surrounding homosexuality is that there is a differing ""preference" - that one should not think less of them because they have "discriminating" tastes - that they have a right to have a preference. This is really neither here nor there with regard to this discussion, but I think it bears on the fact that in a broad sense EVERYONE discriminates, because everyone chooses one thing as opposed to another. So discrimination in and of itself is not a bad thing, it is - as you have so clearly pointed out - considered bad when one person's preference is directly hurting another, and for reasons that are considered by the majority of society as unjustified.

So yes. We understand one another about discrimination.

The Philosophical Bit: Is Discrimination Good or Bad?
I only mean to say, however, that the context in which discrimination is viewed (read: whether it is deemed good or bad), is shaped by society as a whole. And from my admittedly young vantage point, I believe that the jury is still out on what society thinks about gay marriage. The debate still rages on, and on both sides (What is good? What is bad? What is moral? What is amoral? Is there a God? Who even cares? Why does it matter?). So without getting into what one believes (and unfortunately, religion does have a large part to play in this) to say simplisticly that "its discrimination and its wrong" is to presuppose that the person you are talking to sees the world as black and white, or from the same side of the debate and you see it.

They dont. I can clearly see that it is discrimination, but I discriminate every morning about which creamer I will have in my coffee. The question is not about whether discrimination exists, its about whether the discrimination is wrong, or unjustified - and in this case opponents of gay marriage clearly understand that they are discriminating, and do not care, because it does not fit into their personal "WRONG" category. It may never fit into the "wrong" category for opponents of gay marriage - but it might be forced into hiding by the law depending on how voting goes.

Until the gay marriage question is decided by American society with finality, for them the entire stage of the debate is informed on each side by their Belief. Each side will do everything they can to advance and defend that belief in every way: politically, socially, etc. It is because both sides have the opportunity to create (or preserve, in some instances) a world that they understand and in which they can happily exist. Thus the colossal "Morality Dukefest" begins over Cali Prop 8 and such like.

Those are merely my thoughts, and the context in which I view the debate, which is a caveat to all that it does not mean that this is "the way it is" for everyone, but I do think it may be for a large cross-section of religious people. Anyway, I hope if nothing else it provides some insight or understanding into why you hit a brick wall or get a blank look with the "you're discriminating!" argument: it is because you are putting the cart before the horse. We already know we are discriminating; now you need to prove to us why its wrong.

Religion is the Piper That Must Be Paid
And unfortunately, you cannot prove to religious people that it is wrong, if they believe as a part of their religious belief, unless you first prove to them that their Belief is flawed, and either needs to be reassessed and corrected, or altogether repudiated and thrown away. I wont even digress, because religious debate is another beast altogether, and all religions are different, and believe different things for different reasons. The point I make here is that unless the LGBT lobby becomes so vast and mighty and religion ceases to exist in the Earth - they will not be able to win the day against their religious counterparts by the very dull and simplistic argument that "Religion (or simply insert here: "you people are ") is stupid!"

That is the point at which many people just flip the "OFF" switch, or simply say "Hold that thought!" while they walk away and just never come back.

Point #1: Religion Must Be Won With Respect
My point on a very basic scale is that the debate with the "moral opposition to gay marriage" (i.e. fundies of any religion), is not one that will be won with a hammer of opposing rage, but with the decided wisdom understanding first, then persuasion.

Point #2: Moral Degragation is Expected
Realistically? Most people of any christian type religion already anticipate the loss of that battle, either now or in the future, because they already are convinced of an steady, known, unstoppable and predicted moral decline of the world. Any opposition to gay marriage, or TV violence, or whatever is an act of conscience - and is seen as a necessary thing for one to do one's part to delay for however much longer the general societal malaise. However, the decline is seen as inevitable, and every victory is realistically viewed as temporary, and appreciated momentarily.

Point #3: The Sanctity of Marriage
I won't linger long on this point because I thinks it so clearly obvious to anyone who really looks at it, but its worth its own heading because it could be an entire discussion in and of itself. People who believe in the "sanctity of marriage" and think that gay marriage will contribute to its demise are a lot like the people who believe TV Violence contributes to the moral decay of society. By saying that I mean to say that the argument is not as simplistic as "I wanna mind someone else's personal sexual business." It is more an umbrella philosophical argument about the decline of the institution of marriage as a whole, and the destruction of the family as the backbone of society - hence the destruction of society as we know it.

You dont have to agree with this argument, however if you dont understand this argument, specifically since the word POLYGAMY is in the title of this thread - its really not worth getting into. If you do not comprehend that we think polygamy is a BAD THING, and that we (apparently correctly) believe that this whole Gay Marriage lobby will eventually slippery slope itself into a Polygamy/Bigamy/No Marriage Necessary, potentially pederasty-and-pedophilic-is-ok argument, I wont waste my breath on the subject.

If the final word is that you really dont care about marriage anyway - why destroy it? I honestly believe that the LBGT lobby could more successfully lobby for a version of marriage that contains every right, privilege and protection of marriage - and obtain it. Why not do that? Then in 5 years show back up with the happy family figures and successful homes and family lives and call Congress and state legislatures out. The problem is that there is an entire contingent out there who really believe and successfully argue with facts and figures that the homosexual relationship is often (I do not say "always") itself of a transient nature.

Your Quotations of Law at Me
I'm not really sure what these points are meant to accomplish, because as I stated in my first post and in a detailed explanation above, we - and by "we" I mean American Society, are writing the decisions of our country in the Court of Public Opinion. I hope that you understand that I understand the inner workings of the Legislative, Executive and Court powers, and that I also understand (and assume that everyone in this conversation understands) that American Public Opinion shapes the policy of every branch of government.

A Supreme Court decision, as you may know, is merely an interpretation of the law. They may interpret it in whatever way they want, and if Legislators think they got it wrong, they simply write another, clearer law that leaves the Court no wiggle room. Hence the whole "Legislating From the Bench" debate between Congress and the Court.

Its a back and forth, and that back and forth is determined ultimately by Legislation: the Court rules, Congress lets it stand, or gets mad and goes back to write another law with fewer margins. Congress gets mad enough they amend the Constitution of the US to force the court to do it their way and create new "precedent." (Hence the whole hulabaloo over McCain.)

If its not the Supreme Court on a federal level, its the same thing on a State Level all over again.

Bottom line? At present I do not plan on discussing the arcane points of SC holdings or dicta, because I'm not getting paid, and while care, I dont care that much. I am only making the philosophical point that Public Opinion is the court of concern and currently the greatest stage of the debate, and it shapes legal policy: it is why the Anti- Gay Marriage proposition won the day in California.



I appreciate your restraint as well Thursday, and I hope I can answer your questions, because I think they have merit.

I agree, depending on context. Generally, no one should be discrimintated against, period. When it comes to "religious things," I do think it is fair that individuals who have certain belief systems should have those beliefs respected, and there has to be a way in which the law can manage to respect both.

For example: a parent may not want their child to attend a Sex Ed class where homosexuality is taught as a normal thing. Why instead of making a big deal about it, cant they just let the parent pull the child from that class, and everyone go about their business?

People who have religious reasons for abstaining from certain things should be able to do so without retribution.

I also maintain that as long as religious institutions are not actively harming people, they should not have their arms twisted to do things that clearly contravene their doctrine in some weird twisted "force them to be tolerant" practice by the State. So far, the State has alway used a carrot to force tolerance (i.e. "Do it and we'll give you federal money") as opposed to a stick - at least when it comes to free speech issues like "thought."

For the reasons I expressed above about Belief - yes. People believe a lot of things for religious reasons, and I dont agree with them, because I dont agree with their religion. I understand that they do, though, and THAT is the point I was trying to make. At that level, you have less a problem with the person, and more a problem with their chosen life's philosophy. Until you can persuasively break the logic of that philosophy (or they for reasons of their own stop believing it) you cannot break the belief of that person, and they will not change.

But if we divorce religion/belief from this discussion for a moment, then no. Of course not. But as a black woman, I think harboring some unsung hope for a Utopian society where everyone likes and agrees with everyone else is an incredibly naive vantage point.

I was born Black, will be when I die, and have never regretted it. However, for me, racism exists, will exist and will never go away, because there are people whose Belief system allows them to justify it to themselves. For some, that Belief is unbreakable - others are willing to hear and consider argument for/against, and constantly re-evaluate based on that. Whatever the case, one has to learn to deal with dislike and opposition.

Forever, I mean.


Well, I hope you know that I didnt say these things to be insulting - by no means. And, I agree with you that it IS pretty widely accepted that it is not a choice. My point (and even Adi was able to agree in some context above), was that whether or not homosexuality is a BORN WITH thing or a CHOICE is debatable.

If I remember correctly, it is highly accepted as a theory, but it is also known everywhere that it is not proven fact.

So apparently, it is a "belief" on both sides, and one that is ripe for discussion and interpretation. I only proffered it as an explanation to the bewilderment over the passage of Anti-Gay Marriage laws. Clearly in spite of the fact that the "CHOICE" theory is "widely accepted," there is still a broad segment of american society (and not just blacks and mexicans) that hold the opposing view. And so no - the book isnt closed on the subject. The debate is still open, and the jury is still out.

__________________
something witty goes here......