Wow Gays got slammed(Not literally)

[g++]

So gay marriage in cali banned, florida banned, arizona banned. Arkansas banned adoption by unmarried couples in a catch 22 work around to keep gays from adopting. What do you guys think? Same day we elect the first black president we passed a whole lot of laws specifically targetted at stopping a minority from doing what they want.

[ElanthianSiren]

Disgusting.

[Ignot]

One step at a time.

[Paradii]

those bans must have been a tough one to swallow.

[ViridianAsp]

I think it's wrong to deny people rights, I was sad to see this passed. I may be conservative but even I voted no on this.

like I said in a previous thread, I may have mixed feelings on same-sex marriages but I won't deny anyone their rights to it.

[Some Rogue]

Gays aren't people.

[Tolwynn]

I don't think anyone is going to be overly surprised by the decisions in Arizona or Florida. Seeing that handed down in the liberal bastion of California was not something I would have expected, though.

[ElanthianSiren]

Hasn't cali tried to pass these laws repeatedly though each time getting closer and closer?

I know prop 4 has come up a bunch of times in recent years in one form or another. I can't believe the justification this year "WE R STOP CHILD PREDITAURS WHO MAKE GIRLS GO HAVE ABORTIONS!"

....... Just say you're anti abortion already and be unabashed about it. None of this, "Think of the children!!!!!!111one" crap.

Don't know a ton about the history of prop 8, but it seems reasonable that it was the same kind of thing.

[Ravenstorm]

It took 30 million dollars from the Mormon Church to get it passed. Separation of church and state? What's that?

[BriarFox]

Those passages are revolting.

[ElanthianSiren]

How hard would it be to change?

[AnticorRifling]

Can't have your cake and eat it too. You ask everyone to get out and vote and they do, when it doesn't go your way it's disgusting.

[Tsa`ah]

How hard would it be to change?

It's an amendment to the state's constitution. It would take another ballot measure, or it would take a SCOTUS ruling (I assume).

There will be a massive stall before the amendment takes effect, and it can't be retroactively enforced.

Which means if you're gay, living in Cali, and want to shack up ... do it soon ... and maybe often.

[ElanthianSiren]

I don't vote in california obviously. It's not the legislative process that's disgusting to me; it's the fact that people are so unwilling to understand that two people who love each other desire a sacred union. It simply feels wrong to me to say, "Nope, same sex, can't marry" in the same way it'd feel wrong to say, "Nope, hispanic and chinese, can't marry."

Ergo, it has little to do with getting out the vote, more to do with the fact that people can be so narrowminded.

[ViridianAsp]

Hasn't cali tried to pass these laws repeatedly though each time getting closer and closer?

I know prop 4 has come up a bunch of times in recent years in one form or another. I can't believe the justification this year "WE R STOP CHILD PREDITAURS WHO MAKE GIRLS GO HAVE ABORTIONS!"

....... Just say you're anti abortion already and be unabashed about it. None of this, "Think of the children!!!!!!111one" crap.

Don't know a ton about the history of prop 8, but it seems reasonable that it was the same kind of thing.

Actually it was to have underage girls who want an abortion their parents would have to be notified. I honestly don't think this is a bad thing, unless the girl was a victim of incest, rape, ect. if she was, I feel she should have to claim it have it taken to the authorities and have them deal with the family member.

I can't say this is bad at all, being that a girl is underage, parents should know.

[Tsa`ah]

Can't have your cake and eat it too. You ask everyone to get out and vote and they do, when it doesn't go your way it's disgusting.

The measure was highly misleading.

Voting "no" meant you did not want to terminate the rights of gays to marry. Yes meant you did ... simple enough but the language wasn't there and then you have lots of "out of state" and "big church" money coming in to exploit the misunderstood language ... and spread a good deal of misinformation. :exhales:

[ElanthianSiren]

Actually it was to have underage girls who want an abortion their parents would have to be notified. I honestly don't think this is a bad thing, unless the girl was a victim of incest, rape, ect. if she was, I feel she should have to claim it have it taken to the authorities and have them deal with the family member.

I can't say this is bad at all, being that a girl is underage, parents should know.

Hence my "think of the children" bit; we'll have to agree to disagree. IMO I see it as another attempted chip at abortion rights with ballots that have come up in 2004, 2006, and now 2008 trying to limit them. It'd be funny if in 2010, they put a ballot in California that limited abortion initiatives to every 8 years.

Here's how I reasoned the stance I have:
IMO there are probably a whole lot more girls having sex that come from abusive families or some messed up home situation than there are child predators impregnating girls and then paying for them to have abortions. It's not for the greater good then to try to enforce this as it was presented in campaign.

/end serious post

[Parkbandit]

It took 30 million dollars from the Mormon Church to get it passed. Separation of church and state? What's that?

So you agree that it took 600 million to get Obama elected as well?

[ViridianAsp]

Here's how I reasoned the stance I have:
IMO there are probably a whole lot more girls having sex that come from abusive families or some messed up home situation than there are child predators impregnating girls and then paying for them to have abortions. It's not for the greater good then to try to enforce this as it was presented in campaign.

/end serious post


I'm sorry, but if girls are going to be irresponsible and have unprotected sex, they should have to deal with the consequences. Or if it is a predator the girls can come clean, I know for a fact that if a child notifies someone (medical, government) of possible abuse that might ensue, the state is VERY good to come in and remove the child from the situation.

I don't think it is a bad thing or an infringement on abortion rights.

[Tsa`ah]

So you agree that it took 600 million to get Obama elected as well?


I'm not going to be polite to that ... it was completely fucking retarded and had zilch to do with fact you were responding to.

[Some Rogue]

So you agree that it took 600 million to get Obama elected as well?

Heh, reminds me of something I heard on the radio this morning.

He spent 600 million for a job that pays 400k a year? And we wonder why the economy is fucked up...

[Stretch]

So you agree that it took 600 million to get Obama elected as well?

He had to have spent way more than that.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I'm sorry, but if girls are going to be irresponsible and have unprotected sex, they should have to deal with the consequences. Or if it is a predator the girls can come clean, I know for a fact that if a child notifies someone (medical, government) of possible abuse that might ensue, the state is VERY good to come in and remove the child from the situation.

I don't think it is a bad thing or an infringement on abortion rights.

Not all unwanted pregnancy is a result of unprotected sex.

[g++]

Not all unwanted pregnancy is a result of unprotected sex.

I was just thinking of jesus too.

[Tsa`ah]

Some times it's Jesus.

[CrystalTears]

Not all unwanted pregnancy is a result of unprotected sex.
And not all unwanted pregnancies are because Billy Bob screwed his 10-year old niece.

[Tsa`ah]

I was just thinking of jesus too.

I hate you

[ViridianAsp]

Not all unwanted pregnancy is a result of unprotected sex.

For underage girls? Doesn't really matter, if your 14,15,16 you in my opinion aren't mature enough to have sex, you shouldn't even be thinking about it. Safe or not.

If a girl is raped, being irresponsible, ect. I think that parents should be notified, the police should be notified, if the child feels her parents might not be understanding or abusive CPS should step in, why don't you read my posts first before you tell me about how it isn't about being unprotected or irresponsible. I'm talking about girls underage not over 18.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

I was just thinking of jesus too.

Heh, birth control is not perfect. There is a margin of error where you can use BC perfectly and still get pregnant.

That's not to say it's the most common reason why unwanted pregnancy occurs, simply that "they were irresponsible if they got pregnant!" isn't the case the entire time.

[g++]

Heh, birth control is not perfect. There is a margin of error where you can use BC perfectly and still get pregnant.

That's not to say it's the most common reason why unwanted pregnancy occurs, simply that "they were irresponsible if they got pregnant!" isn't the case the entire time.

Are you telling me that pulling out is not 100% effective. If not why is it so fun? How did we end up talking about abortion....

[TheWitch]

No matter how "careless" the mother may or may not have been...

"Paying the consequences" as pertains to carrying a child is punative to the mother and the child, and really benefits no one. A baby should not equal consequences.

14/15/16 year olds shouldn't be having sex, probably not.

FACT: They are, and that's not likely to change.

[ElanthianSiren]

My fault.

There were two very controversial props in California this year: Prop 4 (underage abortion) and prop 8 (gay marriage).

Sections of prop 4 have been recycled pretty much every election season for a few years with different wording and targetting different groups in an attempt to limit abortion.

I was wondering if it had been the same with prop 8 and used prop 4 to illustrate my curiosity. Unfortunately, we got talking about prop 4 instead of prop 8.

[ViridianAsp]

Heh, birth control is not perfect. There is a margin of error where you can use BC perfectly and still get pregnant.

That's not to say it's the most common reason why unwanted pregnancy occurs, simply that "they were irresponsible if they got pregnant!" isn't the case the entire time.

Also, if a girl is getting pregnant and having to get an abortion, don't you think if you were a mom you would want to know so you CAN put the child on birth control?

I know if my daughter was, I'd want to know so that I can prevent it from happening in the future. I think most parents would.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

For underage girls? Doesn't really matter, if your 14,15,16 you in my opinion aren't mature enough to have sex, you shouldn't even be thinking about it. Safe or not.

If a girl is raped, I think that parents should be notified, the police should be notified, if the child feels her parents might not be understanding or abusive CPS should step in, why don't you read my posts first before you tell me about how it isn't about being unprotected or irresponsible. I'm talking about girls underage not over 18.

I read your post just fine.

Girls under the age of 18 have access to BC, in California I think the age is 16. I'm talking about all unwanted pregnancies, not just ones in adults over the age of 18. Just because you're under 18 and got pregnant, it's not necessarily because you didn't use protection (or were raped). Regardless of whether or not you agree with them having sex in the first place, that is the reality and good luck trying to legislate "No sex before you're 18!"

The issue itself is tricky to me because of the fact that a majority of rapes go un-reported. That being said, I think it's a personal choice if a person is raped on whether or not to tell someone or report it. Should they get pregnant from it, they lose that choice. Because they're a minor I understand though they don't get the full set of rights, which is where the dilemma comes in for me. I'm just not so sure the good outweighs the bad on this one, though I can understand the line of reasoning.

[ViridianAsp]

No matter how "careless" the mother may or may not have been...

"Paying the consequences" as pertains to carrying a child is punative to the mother and the child, and really benefits no one. A baby should not equal consequences.

14/15/16 year olds shouldn't be having sex, probably not.

FACT: They are, and that's not likely to change.

The parents should be notified. No doubt in my mind about that, no it won't but I still think notification would give underage girls more protection. I'm not even talking about girls not having abortions.

If my 14 year old were knocked up, I'd make her have a damn abortion then take her ass to the doctor and put her on the shot, pill whatever so that it didn't happen again.


Edited to add: If you have a child, you the parent are responsible for it till the age of 18, sometimes even after that. Which means that you should be notified as you are legally responsible for them. I am a parent, not of a girl but of a boy, if my son came to me and told me he got a girl pregnant you'd better believe I'd be over at that girl's house knocking on her parents door and telling them about it, then asking them what they thought was the best alternative to this situation. If the girl kept it, my son would pay child support for the rest of his mother fucking life to support it, I believe in the consequences of all actions, every single one. If they *think* are old enough to have sex, they are old enough to take all that goes with it.

I don't think letting kids get off scott free from being irresponsible, having unprotected or protected sex without their parents knowing is right. ESPECIALLY if they are underage.

[g++]

I read your post just fine.

Girls under the age of 18 have access to BC, in California I think the age is 16. I'm talking about all unwanted pregnancies, not just ones in adults over the age of 18. Just because you're under 18 and got pregnant, it's not necessarily because you didn't use protection (or were raped). Regardless of whether or not you agree with them having sex in the first place, that is the reality and good luck trying to legislate "No sex before you're 18!"

The issue itself is tricky to me because of the fact that a majority of rapes go un-reported. That being said, I think it's a personal choice if a person is raped on whether or not to tell someone or report it. Should they get pregnant from it, they lose that choice. Because they're a minor I understand though they don't get the full set of rights, which is where the dilemma comes in for me. I'm just not so sure the good outweighs the bad on this one, though I can understand the line of reasoning.


Giving pregnant teens more help if they have been raped is a super way to get a lot of false rape claims. Are you scared as hell? Well help you one catch, must report a rape.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Also, if a girl is getting pregnant and having to get an abortion, don't you think if you were a mom you would want to know so you CAN put the child on birth control?

I know if my daughter was, I'd want to know so that I can prevent it from happening in the future. I think most parents would.

I think it'll be my responsibility as a mother to make sure my daughters feel comfortable coming to me about sex and birth control. I know I felt very comfortable going to my step-mother about it and her model of communication is one I'll likely apply. If it takes my daughter getting pregnant for me to think "Oh shit I need to help her get birth control and teach her about protected sex" then I'll consider that my failure as a parent, not a failure of a system. IMO the government shouldn't be doing the job of the parents.

[ViridianAsp]

I think it'll be my responsibility as a mother to make sure my daughters feel comfortable coming to me about sex and birth control. I know I felt very comfortable going to my step-mother about it and her model of communication is one I'll likely apply. If it takes my daughter getting pregnant for me to think "Oh shit I need to help her get birth control and teach her about protected sex" then I'll consider that my failure as a parent, not a failure of a system. IMO the government shouldn't be doing the job of the parents.



Honestly, even sometimes with open communication this still happens. I think the government should be notifying the parents of underage girls that they are going in for a serious procedure, after all abortion is a serious thing. Regardless of if the parents are supportive or not.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Honestly, even sometimes with open communication this still happens. I think the government should be notifying the parents of underage girls that they are going in for a serious procedure, after all abortion is a serious thing. Regardless of if the parents are supportive or not.

I definitely understand your point, I just don't think I agree with it. So, there's not much point in me continuing the discussion further than saying that.

[Parkbandit]

Republicans may not have the Presidency but they sure can hate gay people well.

Parental notification can go against protection of the child from abusive or incestuous parents.

Yea, because obviously, it must have been the Republicans that defeated your measure.

Sorry man.. I voted for you.

[Paradii]

Are you telling me that pulling out is not 100% effective. If not why is it so fun? How did we end up talking about abortion....

it's 100% effective at ruining a motel room.

[Hulkein]

like I said in a previous thread, I may have mixed feelings on same-sex marriages but I won't deny anyone their rights to it.

To be technical, no one is denied the right to get married. Marriage is a man and a woman. Necromancer can marry and divorce as many women as he wants.

As an aside, I do support civil unions.

[Some Rogue]

Republicans may not have the Presidency but they sure can hate gay people well.


Wait, who won the states of California and Florida?

Careful, your bias is showing. Again.

[Jorddyn]

To be technical, no one is denied the right to get married. Marriage is a man and a woman. Necromancer can marry as many women as he wants.

As an aside, I do support civil unions.

Separate but equal is definitely the way to go.

[Parkbandit]

Wait, who won the states of California and Florida?

Careful, your bias is showing. Again.


:rofl:

You spelled stupidity wrong. God, u r dum.

[Tsa`ah]

Wait, who won the states of California and Florida?

Careful, your bias is showing. Again.

I wasn't aware that FL and CA were bereft of republicans.
Or that either state had an anti gay hate shield in place to thwart them.

[Warriorbird]

Oh wait... who proposed these?

Some Rogue... totally not political.

I also don't think liking civil liberties is solely a Democratic ideal.

[ViridianAsp]

To be technical, no one is denied the right to get married. Marriage is a man and a woman. Necromancer can marry and divorce as many women as he wants.

As an aside, I do support civil unions.

I support civil unions, same sex marriages do not get the same rights as straight marriages, they don't get all that comes with it.

[Warriorbird]

These amendments go against civil unions and common law marriage.

[Tsa`ah]

How about you go to a fucking church to get married. Every time you're in public, in your church, in your home ... you can claim that you're married. When it comes time for legal documentation, litigation ... pretty much anything that has to do with the government, rights, so on and so forth ... you have a civil union.

That way ... everyone is the fucking same and everyone has the same rights that they're supposedly fucking born with.

Unless you never paid attention in school, or perhaps you were home schooled ... separate but equal is not equal. It's a fucking violation of the 14th amendment.

Stop shitting on the constitution over your fucking prejudice.

[g++]

The way I see it the government should look out for families with children a little more than two people enjoying each other. I think a better way to approach that problem then kicking gays with referendums would be to place more of the weight of marriage benefits on #of children, if not all of the weight. If your just living together married with no kids your not any more or less productive to society than a gay couple. The inherent benefit society receives from couples bearing the weight of raising children should continue to be recognized however. Thats my opinion anyway, legalize gay marriage and shift the benefits of marriage to a children basis.

[ViridianAsp]

How about you go to a fucking church to get married. Every time you're in public, in your church, in your home ... you can claim that you're married. When it comes time for legal documentation, litigation ... pretty much anything that has to do with the government, rights, so on and so forth ... you have a civil union.

That way ... everyone is the fucking same and everyone has the same rights that they're supposedly fucking born with.

Unless you never paid attention in school, or perhaps you were home schooled ... separate but equal is not equal. It's a fucking violation of the 14th amendment.

Stop shitting on the constitution over your fucking prejudice.

Uh...I'm not. I believe gay couples should have the same rights as straight couples?

[Tsa`ah]

Uh...I'm not. I believe gay couples should have the same rights as straight couples?

The wording of this ...


I support civil unions, same sex marriages do not get the same rights as straight marriages, they don't get all that comes with it.

... was a little hard for me to understand ... or understand the point you were trying to make.

[ViridianAsp]

The wording of this ...



... was a little hard for me to understand ... or understand the point you were trying to make.


Sorry about that, but yeah. I do support it marriage and the rights *shrugs*, I don't believe gay people should be excluded from having the same rights as straight people.

I was merely explaining as it stands right now, you can perform a marriage ceremony as a same sex couple, but you don't get any rights.

Also, I would never deny them the rights, I may have mixed feelings on it (people using this in a fraudulent manner, I believe that marriage is a special thing and I don't want to see it abused by jackasses.) but I don't think it should be denied to anyone who wants to get married.

[Some Rogue]

I wasn't aware that FL and CA were bereft of republicans.

Didn't say it was, but are you claiming it was only republicans that voted it down? Massive amounts of them came out and voted down these proposals and then voted for Obama? As much as you don't like to believe it, there is stupidity and discrimination that comes from both sides.


Oh wait... who proposed these?

Some Rogue... totally not political.


Who proposed it doesn't mean much when it has to be voted on by everyone. It very easily could have been voted down if all those Democrats who voted for Obama had said no.

Once again, I think all politicians suck and both sides are rife with idiots. Which makes me cynical and sick of politics not without an opinion. You immediately jump to blame the Republicans. I'd say it was both sides who voted against it.

[Tsa`ah]

Sorry about that, but yeah. I do support it marriage and the rights *shrugs*, I don't believe gay people should be excluded from having the same rights as straight people.

I was merely explaining as it stands right now, you can perform a marriage ceremony as a same sex couple, but you don't get any rights.

Also, I would never deny them the rights, I may have mixed feelings on it (people using this in a fraudulent manner, I believe that marriage is a special thing and I don't want to see it abused by jackasses.) but I don't think it should be denied to anyone who wants to get married.

I've also been deprived of sleep for nearly 48 hours.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

The way I see it the government should look out for families with children a little more than two people enjoying each other. I think a better way to approach that problem then kicking gays with referendums would be to place more of the weight of marriage benefits on #of children, if not all of the weight. If your just living together married with no kids your not any more or less productive to society than a gay couple. The inherent benefit society receives from couples bearing the weight of raising children should continue to be recognized however. Thats my opinion anyway, legalize gay marriage and shift the benefits of marriage to a children basis.

How exactly is the number of children you have an indicator of how productive you are to society?

There are plenty of non-children related benefits to be had from marriage-- i.e. what to do when you die, power of attorney for medical decisions in times of crisis, etc.

Children are not the end all, be all of our society or worth as human beings. Not everyone can have children, not everyone wants children. I don't get how it's somehow better to take away rights on the basis of breeding, rather than applying them across the board when there are important aspects of those rights that have jack to do with having kids.

[DeV]

Gay marriage will eventually gain all the validity it needs, but at the federal level. As long as this continues to be primarily a states rights issue, separate but equal, if that, will have to find its place until the fight can be taken to the next level. I'm a firm believer that equal rights for all Americans should be upheld by the federal government and getting to that level is key. Denying citizens this particular right is bigotry. I'm also not hung up on what it's called as long as everyone is afforded the opportunity and privilege.

[Tsa`ah]

Didn't say it was, but are you claiming it was only republicans that voted it down? Massive amounts of them came out and voted down these proposals and then voted for Obama? As much as you don't like to believe it, there is stupidity and discrimination that comes from both sides.

No, I was simply agreeing that them republicans like to hate on the gays. Which is very fucked up if you're a log cabin republican.

Of course I know there are democrats that do the same thing ... look down south. Just be sure you're not black and gay while exploring southern dems.

[ViridianAsp]

How exactly is the number of children you have an indicator of how productive you are to society?

There are plenty of non-children related benefits to be had from marriage-- i.e. what to do when you die, power of attorney for medical decisions in times of crisis, etc.

Children are not the end all, be all of our society or worth as human beings. Not everyone can have children, not everyone wants children. I don't get how it's somehow better to take away rights on the basis of breeding, rather than applying them across the board when there are important aspects of those rights that have jack to do with having kids.


This is funny though, I better start cranking out those babies when I get married, I don't want to be seen as less productive!

[Warriorbird]

If you aren't aware of the use of gay marriage by Republicans as a wedge issue... you're a fucking moron. Your debate points, attacks, and avatar also act against your claims pretty effectively, Some Rogue.

[Parkbandit]

If you aren't aware of the use of gay marriage by Republicans as a wedge issue... you're a fucking moron. Your debate points, attacks, and avatar also act against your claims pretty effectively, Some Rogue.


You love that big, giant paintbrush, don't you. When spreading out your stereotypes, you shouldn't call anyone a fucking moron.

[Parkbandit]

No, I was simply agreeing that them republicans like to hate on the gays. Which is very fucked up if you're a log cabin republican.

Of course I know there are democrats that do the same thing ... look down south. Just be sure you're not black and gay while exploring southern dems.

God Shit4Brains.. you are an idiot.

Look at California before spewing your stupid stereotypes... unless you somehow now believe that California is a bastion of southern Republicans now.

Dumbfuck.

[g++]

How exactly is the number of children you have an indicator of how productive you are to society?

There are plenty of non-children related benefits to be had from marriage-- i.e. what to do when you die, power of attorney for medical decisions in times of crisis, etc.

Children are not the end all, be all of our society or worth as human beings. Not everyone can have children, not everyone wants children. I don't get how it's somehow better to take away rights rather than applying them across the board.

Kids are expensive and there are tax benefits built into marriage that are there on the basis that you will eventually produce a new trained member of society. Obviously I expect all the things you have mentioned that have nothing to do with children to stay as is but if your not going to experience the losses associated with having children you should not benefit from the idea that you will.

On the other hand you could take away all monetary benefits from marriage entirely. Being married isnt the end all be all of our society or worth as human beings either so why are their financial rewards for that? There are people who cant get married like Necromancer, not because hes gay, but because hes a total prick, should he be punished because of his inability to interact in a civil manner with other human beings?

Most societies do help parents raise children because its important to our society, I think some of that is still written into marriage tax breaks and I think it should be shifted out if people who are never going to reproduce are going to enter the system.

[Jorddyn]

The way I see it the government should look out for families with children a little more than two people enjoying each other. I think a better way to approach that problem then kicking gays with referendums would be to place more of the weight of marriage benefits on #of children, if not all of the weight. If your just living together married with no kids your not any more or less productive to society than a gay couple. The inherent benefit society receives from couples bearing the weight of raising children should continue to be recognized however. Thats my opinion anyway, legalize gay marriage and shift the benefits of marriage to a children basis.

:wtf:

Reduced estate tax issues, access to spouse's social security, automatic next of kin relationship in health issues - all irrelevant by your plan because any couple doesn't have children.

That makes no sense. At all.

[g++]

:wtf:

Reduced estate tax issues, access to spouse's social security, automatic next of kin relationship in health issues - all irrelevant by your plan because any couple doesn't have children.

That makes no sense. At all.

Im not talking about that Im talking about straight up "HEY WERE MARRIED" duel filing tax breaks like the EIC. Im for all the things your mentioning.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

Kids are expensive and there are tax benefits built into marriage that are there on the basis that you will eventually produce a new trained member of society. Obviously I expect all the things you have mentioned that have nothing to do with children to stay as is but if your not going to experience the losses associated with having children you should not benefit from the idea that you will.

On the other hand you could take away all monetary benefits from marriage entirely. Being married isnt the end all be all of our society or worth as human beings either so why are their financial rewards for that? There are people who cant get married like Necromancer, not because hes gay, but because hes a total prick, should he be punished because of his inability to interact in a civil manner with other human beings?

Most societies do help parents raise children because its important to our society, I think some of that is still written into marriage tax breaks and I think it should be shifted out if people who are never going to reproduce are going to enter the system.

Marriage is not built around the idea of having children, period. It's about a union between two people. The monetary benefits come from being a couple-- monetary benefits that come from having children come AFTER having children and don't have jack to do with people being married but them being PARENTS.

I never said being married is an end all be all, I said there are benefits to being married that don't have anything to do with having children and yet you somehow can't seem to grasp that elementary concept.

Reproduction does not equal the value one has in society, period, nor does it have the biggest weight in why people get married.

I think your line of thinking is absolutely fucking retarded. Sorry.

[Jorddyn]

Most societies do help parents raise children because its important to our society, I think some of that is still written into marriage tax breaks and I think it should be shifted out if people who are never going to reproduce are going to enter the system.

You understanding of the phrase "benefits of marriage" is severely flawed, as is your understanding of the tax system.

Tax benefits for children are largely identical whether one is married or not. In fact, if they're not married, one can claim single, one can claim head of household, and they will likely pay less taxes. Additionally, there is no tax benefit written in to the law for marriage - we're just finally getting rid of the "penalty" (which I won't argue about right now).

[g++]

one can claim head of hosuehold).

Yah, that

[Jorddyn]

Im not talking about that Im talking about straight up "HEY WERE MARRIED" duel filing tax breaks like the EIC. Im for all the things your mentioning.

EIC is available regardless of marital status. It does phase out at a higher dollar amount for married couples, but that's because there are two people combining their incomes and two people to support. The child issue is handled completely separately with separate phase out depending on the number of children.

[Jorddyn]

Yah, that

That's a status only available to those who are not married. So I'm unsure what you're agreeing with.

[g++]

EIC is available regardless of marital status. It does phase out at a higher dollar amount for married couples, but that's because there are two people combining their incomes and two people to support. The child issue is handled completely separately with separate phase out depending on the number of children.

Well guess im wrong than, I thought there were tax breaks in place for marriage. If not then I dont particularly care.


That's a status only available to those who are not married. So I'm unsure what you're agreeing with.

I mean I figured if you were married and claimed head of house hold and filed your other person as a dependant you would get a tax break. That does not make a lot of sense if your not a nuclear family. I guess I assumed our tax system was nicer to married couples then it actually is. Oh well

[Jorddyn]

Well guess im wrong than, I thought there were tax breaks in place for marriage. If not then I dont particularly care.

If only everyone were as willing to actually think through and evaluate their position.

[ElanthianSiren]

Gay marriage will eventually gain all the validity it needs, but at the federal level. As long as this continues to be primarily a states rights issue, separate but equal, if that, will have to find its place until the fight can be taken to the next level. I'm a firm believer that equal rights for all Americans should be upheld by the federal government and getting to that level is key. Denying citizens this particular right is bigotry. I'm also not hung up on what it's called as long as everyone is afforded the opportunity and privilege.

Dev logic FTW.

[Some Rogue]

If you aren't aware of the use of gay marriage by Republicans as a wedge issue... you're a fucking moron. Your debate points, attacks, and avatar also act against your claims pretty effectively, Some Rogue.
I'd attack ClydeR and his retarded positions too if it wasn't so obviously a joke. I'd almost say you're the mirror image to him but I don't think you're that smart.

I have nothing personal against Obama. It's the cult like god status he was afforded and the way people just swoon over him. Guess what, it was a fucking joke, moron. I got a couple laughs out of it. In case you missed it, my avatars usually are put up for laughs.

[TheWitch]

The problem is, marriage is largely based on religious concepts.

Find a partner, reproduce, continue the line, raise them as gifts of God, yada yada yada.

That semantic needs to be taken out of it. Separate but equal leaves the equation too, when all marriage licences become "civil union licenses" and the "marriage" occurs at the couples religious institution, if they want/can/need to, whatever. Separation of church and state, FTW.

Listening to these loons carry on about the "sanctity of marriage" when well over half end in divorce, people marry 4-5-6 times, or 4-5-6 people (anyone else crack up at the irony of the Mormons here?) is painful. Hypocrites.

[Jorddyn]

The problem is, marriage is largely based on religious concepts.

The problem is that while marriage is considered a sacrament by many religions, and seen as a contract between the couple and God in some, it's also a binding legal contract with many non-religious benefits.

It's time for a flip.

Currently, the government refuses to recognize the marriage as valid, but some churches do. This leaves the couple without the legal benefits, and with whatever benefits the churches that choose to recognize them offers.

I say the government needs to recognize the marriage as legal and allow any church that doesn't want to do so to withhold recognition along with any benefits said church associates with marriage.

Tada. Problem solved.

[Athgo]

The problem is that while marriage is considered a sacrament by many religions, and seen as a contract between the couple and God in some, it's also a binding legal contract with many non-religious benefits.

It's time for a flip.

Currently, the government refuses to recognize the marriage as valid, but some churches do. This leaves the couple without the legal benefits, and with whatever benefits the churches that choose to recognize them offers.

I say the government needs to recognize the marriage as legal and allow any church that doesn't want to do so to withhold recognition along with any benefits said church associates with marriage.

Tada. Problem solved.


Isn't that what civil unions are for in the states that allow it, or were you referring to the federal government?

[Jorddyn]

Isn't that what civil unions are for in the states that allow it, or were you referring to the federal government?

Federal. There are tax, estate, and other legal implications defined at that level.

[Athgo]

Federal. There are tax, estate, and other legal implications defined at that level.

Thats what I figured, but seeing as what happened in California I don't think this issue is anywhere ready to be tackled in the federal setting.

[Jorddyn]

Thats what I figured, but seeing as what happened in California I don't think this issue is anywhere ready to be tackled in the federal setting.

I think we'll see a Supreme Court case in the next 4-6 years. Opinion only, of course.

[Xeromist]

Sorry, gotta get my piece in.


"Nope, hispanic and chinese, can't marry."


My Mexican aunt married a white dude and they have a Chinese daughter (ADOPTED). People will stare at that family picture, trying to make sense of it before I have to explain.



if your 14,15,16 you in my opinion aren't mature enough to have sex, you shouldn't even be thinking about it. Safe or not.

It would make parents sleep better at night if this were the case. But the way things should be will rarely, if ever, be the way it is. I wouldn’t even consider laying “kids shouldn’t be thinking about sex” on the table to be factored into any kind of decision making, because kids out there are indeed thinking about sex—whether they have a mature concept of it, or not.
In my opinion, the most rational thing you can do is assume that kids indeed are having sex and act accordingly in a positive, supportive manner that will earn their trust and promote knowledge so that they can make an educated decision for themselves when they do (and countless will) end up in that “I’m about to have sex” situation.
The worst thing you can do is play down a situation/problem/event, or flat out pretend it doesn’t exist.


I'm sorry, but if girls are going to be irresponsible and have unprotected sex, they should have to deal with the consequences.

Not entirely fair to blame a girl for spreading her legs when you have some testosterone-poisoned boy raving and rearing to stick it in something finally coax her into it. Too many times do they get to just “walk away” and not deal with it.
Perhaps requiring a vasectomy (or giving out condoms to the sperm donor…but I like the vasectomy idea more) per every abortion would be more appropriate.


if my son came to me and told me he got a girl pregnant you'd better believe I'd be over at that girl's house knocking on her parents door and telling them about it, then asking them what they thought was the best alternative to this situation. If the girl kept it, my son would pay child support for the rest of his mother fucking life to support it, I believe in the consequences of all actions, every single one.

Word.


I don't think letting kids get off scott free from being irresponsible, having unprotected or protected sex without their parents knowing is right. ESPECIALLY if they are underage.

They WILL have sex without you knowing, EVEN if they are "underage". Maybe not all, but no parents should ever delude themselves with the statement “not mine”. Sex, responsible or not, is why we are here (well, most of us). I am the result of a birthday celebration.

/end wall of text (-100 DS)

[Bokertal]

[QUOTE=Xeromist;834400]
My Mexican aunt married a white dude and they have a Chinese daughter (ADOPTED).
QUOTE]


Really are you sure? ;)

[Athgo]

I think we'll see a Supreme Court case in the next 4-6 years. Opinion only, of course.

I don't see how they could declare gay marriage unconstitutional, but it may do more harm than good if they did rule that way.

[Necromancer]

Eh, I'm deeply ambivalent about these propositions. I don't believe in gay marriage, and I'm very critical of the gay marriage movement and how destructive it has been in many ways.

Gay marriage gives "equality" to those who have socially acceptable (minus dual penis or quad breast mode) relationships, but it continues to shit upon any alternative families. It also continues the idea that how you define your family should revolve around the person you're having sex with. That's wrong. There are many caretaking and family arrangements that are between people who are not sexually involved (particularly among low-income people, the elderly, urban blacks, etc). They're still families and deserve all the rights and benefits bestowed up more "legitimate" families.

My big problem with gay marriage is that it stomps on domestic partnership. In MA they already lost DP benefits- which means there are now zero alternatives to marriage. You are married, or you are fucked. It's an Ogre's Choice for some people.

At least now, in these states, they'll have to continue DP benefits (and I PRAY expand them) to give an alternative. I can't speak for any other state, but in California gay marriage didn't actually bestow a single additional right to gay couples. And banning it doesn't actually take away a single additional right. DPs are functionally equivalent. It's hard to get worked up over that.

But the legalization of gay marriage would likely have resulted in the abolition of DP benefits- in which case some people WOULD have lost rights. That's something I'd get worked up over.

Just my three cents.

[Xeromist]

[QUOTE=Xeromist;834400]
My Mexican aunt married a white dude and they have a Chinese daughter (ADOPTED).
QUOTE]


Really are you sure? ;)

Well, it's on the sticky note I have next to the picture so I don't get confused, either. So if what is written on it is true...then...yes? Maybe?

[Bokertal]

[QUOTE=Bokertal;834401]

Well, it's on the sticky note I have next to the picture so I don't get confused, either. So if what is written on it is true...then...yes? Maybe?


I'm sorry, I just thought it was funny.

[Jorddyn]

I don't see how they could declare gay marriage unconstitutional, but it may do more harm than good if they did rule that way.

I hope they'll declare same sex marriage bans unconstitutional.

[Methais]

So gay marriage in cali banned, florida banned, arizona banned. Arkansas banned adoption by unmarried couples in a catch 22 work around to keep gays from adopting. What do you guys think? Same day we elect the first black president we passed a whole lot of laws specifically targetted at stopping a minority from doing what they want.

http://i287.photobucket.com/albums/ll154/spinarooni226/NegroApprovedLime.jpg

[Hulkein]

Separate but equal is definitely the way to go.

Yeah yeah, we all know the Supreme Court said separate but equal is not Constitutional... That's a different context, however. Separate but "equal" is never actually equal when it comes to schools, hotels, and other tangible things but it's different in this context.

[Hulkein]

There are two interests. On one hand you have the interest of homosexuals who want and deserve access to the same benefits granted by the government to heterosexuals who get married. On the other hand you have the long standing tradition of marriage.

Why not appease both interests and just give homosexuals the same benefits as heterosexuals via civil unions? It seems like the most pragmatic solution to me.

[Daniel]

You means besides being morally questionable or the fact that some conservatives don't even want that?

[Hulkein]

Calling it a civil union instead of insisting on calling it marriage would get gays the same advantages as straight couples a lot faster. If that's the goal then I don't see how it's morally questionable.

[Jorddyn]

Yeah yeah, we all know the Supreme Court said separate but equal is not Constitutional... That's a different context, however. Separate but "equal" is never actually equal when it comes to schools, hotels, and other tangible things but it's different in this context.

How so? Were the Federal government to redefine "marriage" to "civil union", remove all references of marriage, and leave marriage up to churches, you'd have a point. But if they add "civil union" language to current law, it's entirely likely that it will be forgotten/eliminated/not included in laws.

Only possible exception I see: Define marriage as a legal bind between a man and a woman, blah blah whatever, etc. Define a civil union as "a legal bind between any two consenting adults, which carries all the same privileges and responsibilities of marriage", which basically means that a civil union inherits any and all rights from marriage.

[Necromancer]

Eh, I'm not swayed by any argument towards the "tradition" of marriage. Marriage right now bears little resemblance other than its name to the marriage of a 100 years ago in this country.

Marriage's one big tradition is helping to consolidate the power of the majority at the expense of the politically weak. We did it to help ensure white supremacy, to help subjugate women, to help keep wealth within certain classes, etc.

But that one hasn't made a very good poster so far, so the no-on-homo marriage people have sort of left that part out.

(again, not that I believe in gay marriage)

[Daniel]

Calling it a civil union instead of insisting on calling it marriage would get gays the same advantages as straight couples a lot faster. If that's the goal then I don't see how it's morally questionable.

I'd really have to question my morals if I somehow had a problem with gay people getting "married" or if I wanted to preclude someone else from doing something because it "bothers" me.

That's just me though.

I don't neccessarily disagree with your point, but it runs into a snag when you find people who are against even that.

[RainyDay2080]

Arkansas banned adoption by unmarried couples in a catch 22 work around to keep gays from adopting. What do you guys think?

This is part of the trying to have it both ways hypocrisy that really bugs me. Social conservatives don't want to allow abortions and don't want welfare mothers living on the dole. Then they turn around and eliminate a significant number of potential parents who would give homes to those unwanted children they insist must be born.

It doesn't just affect gay people, there are a lot of single straight people who are willing and able to provide foster care and adoptions. A lot of those potential parents, both gay and straight, often foster or adopt harder to place children that married couples don't want because they insist on an infant of their own race.

RD

[Parkbandit]

This is part of the trying to have it both ways hypocrisy that really bugs me. Social conservatives don't want to allow abortions and don't want welfare mothers living on the dole. Then they turn around and eliminate a significant number of potential parents who would give homes to those unwanted children they insist must be born.

It doesn't just affect gay people, there are a lot of single straight people who are willing and able to provide foster care and adoptions. A lot of those potential parents, both gay and straight, often foster or adopt harder to place children that married couples don't want because they insist on an infant of their own race.

RD


/agree

I know two gay couples who have adopted kids and while it may not be the perfect situation, it's a far, far, far cry better than the hell those kids were in before.

Personally, I'm for forced abortions in some cases. See a pregnant mother with 11 kids in HUD housing... FALCON PUNCH!!

Speaking of which and completely unrelated.. my wife watches this retarded show about this woman who has like 4 million kids. Saw this the other day and it made me literally LOL.

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b262/someguyinmo/VaginaClownCar.jpg

[Methais]

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b262/someguyinmo/VaginaClownCar.jpg

Holy shit, talk about hot dogs and hallways.

[Tsa`ah]

There are two interests. On one hand you have the interest of homosexuals who want and deserve access to the same benefits granted by the government to heterosexuals who get married. On the other hand you have the long standing tradition of marriage.

The "tradition" of marriage is bullshit. We're a melting pot ... which "tradition" do you want to observe? Arranged/forced? Sex=marriage? Dowry? Debtor? Shot-gun?

While tradition holds that it is between a man and woman ... tradition varies on many of the often overlooked aspects of said tradition.

The acceptance that marriage is "sacred" also concedes that it is a religious institution. That leads back to the argument of separation ... which is also inclusive, to an extent, of what type of nation we are/were.

The religious right loves to dance around the US being a "Christian" nation in both concept and founding ... yet history only backs them up when they revise it.

No, we can't accept one theological viewpoint of marriage simply because (even if the argument is that a separation is neither implied nor implicit) that would be making a law/ruling favorable to one religion while excluding the rest.

[Warriorbird]

I somehow don't think the 'tradition' of marriage is threatened by two dudes holding hands somewhere. If it causes you to have a divorce maybe you actually are gay.

[g++]

I somehow don't think the 'tradition' of marriage is threatened by two dudes holding hands somewhere. If it causes you to have a divorce maybe you actually are gay.

The only sure fire way to tell if a man is gay is for him to kiss another man. If he starts liking it before the other guy, hes totally gay.

[Gan]

http://i21.photobucket.com/albums/b262/someguyinmo/VaginaClownCar.jpg


I'm so sending this to my catholic neighbor.

:lol:

[Ravenstorm]

The acceptance that marriage is "sacred" also concedes that it is a religious institution. That leads back to the argument of separation ... which is also inclusive, to an extent, of what type of nation we are/were.

There has never been an argument against allowing same-sex marriage that didn't, at its core, fall back on religion as a justification.

All the talk about 'saving marriage' and how gays have the same right to marry as anyone else - an opposite sex partner - displays the hypocrisy of the one making that argument as it advocates people going into loveless marriages based on lies and deception. That would certainly 'save' the institution of marriage. If anything, if they truly consider it sacred, they'd welcome same-sex marriage as it means that more people love each other enough to want to commit their entire lives to each other.

Course, I'm either preaching to the choir or the hopelessly bigoted so I think I'll just stop now.

[Tsa`ah]

Gays should just form their own religion and force the seperation argument before SCOTUS.

[Atlanteax]

Oh!! They could call it "Gayology" and have an in-house team of lawyers ready to file lawsuits and etc at a moment's notice. The "Church" would be funded by required participation in various "how to take it to the next level of gay" courses.

[Tsa`ah]

Or they could call it the Human Rights Church and just marry people in an effort to challenge the system.

[g++]

Oh!! They could call it "Gayology" and have an in-house team of lawyers ready to file lawsuits and etc at a moment's notice. The "Church" would be funded by required participation in various "how to take it to the next level of gay" courses.

Would still be better than scientology.

[ViridianAsp]

Would still be better than scientology.

Name me something that isn't better than scientology?

[Necromancer]

There were also widespread rumors started by church officials that if it did not pass, churches could be sued if they refused to perform a same-sex marriage.

The "Yes on 8" people had a very dirty campaign.

[Tsa`ah]

Name me something that isn't better than scientology?

I dare say syphilis.

[CrystalTears]

There were also widespread rumors started by church officials that if it did not pass, churches could be sued if they refused to perform a same-sex marriage.

The "Yes on 8" people had a very dirty campaign.
And it's for situations like this that I believe that civil unions should be across the board for all unions, same sex and hetero, and leave the "marriages" for the church ceremonies.

[ElanthianSiren]

And it's for situations like this that I believe that civil unions should be across the board for all unions, same sex and hetero, and leave the "marriages" for the church ceremonies.

Hell yes. Let religions/churches discriminate all they like; after all, they're not (and shouldn't be) part of the government.

[Necromancer]

Well the current legal situation is that they CAN discriminate all they'd like. Civil rights laws usually have exemptions to religious institutions built in.

That's what made those rumors so evil. They were patently false. Churches can, and always could/will be able to, discriminate legally against non-heterosexual people.

[ElanthianSiren]

I wasn't saying they couldn't. I'm saying as far as I'm concerned, then they can, and I won't give a damn. For the time being however, the state of marriage in this country agitates me. Churches shouldn't be part of government, and their ceremonies should be ceremonial IMO.

Sorry if that was unclear.

[Hulkein]

The "tradition" of marriage is bullshit. We're a melting pot ... which "tradition" do you want to observe? Arranged/forced? Sex=marriage? Dowry? Debtor? Shot-gun?


You realize that one of the things in common in all those traditions you listed is that it's between a man and a woman, right?

Whether you like it or not, the courts almost always consider tradition in their decisions. It is almost always an interest.

[crb]

I don't understand why gay people continually bitch and moan about their federal government have anti gay marriage people in it. How often have I heard here and elsewhere that "I won't vote for a republican because they are against gay marriage."

When, really, the only thing close to a federal action on gay marriage was the defense of marriage act signed not by Bush, but by Clinton, and in fact the constitution would pretty clearly leave this matter up to the states. The only extent to which the feds can intervene is in governing interstate issues, such as how the defense of marriage act works.

The fight over gay marriage is going to take place on the state level. I don't see why people use issues like that to decide their choice of president (nevermind that this time around both said they were against gay marriage, both for civil unions, both for leaving it up to the states, they were mirror images).

Anyways, I read that one of the reasons it may have been passed in CA is that Obama brought high african american turnout and they're more anti-gay than other ethnic groups, voting for it at like a 70/30 margin.

[Necromancer]

Marriage has not always been defined by one man and one woman. Depending on time and geography, it has been defined in a myriad of ways. (from a two-person same-sex marriage to plural marriage between one man and many women, one woman and many men, and a mix of genders) So, no, marriage doesn't even have that in common.

[Inspire]

And it's for situations like this that I believe that civil unions should be across the board for all unions, same sex and hetero, and leave the "marriages" for the church ceremonies.

I said something like this earlier today and it needs to carry around.

[Hulkein]

Marriage has not always been defined by one man and one woman. Depending on time and geography, it has been defined in a myriad of ways. (from a two-person same-sex marriage to plural marriage between one man and many women, one woman and many men, and a mix of genders) So, no, marriage doesn't even have that in common.

The vast majority of the residents who came to this country were from places where marriage was between a man and a woman. That's why it shaped up that way here. You can't deny what's in front of your face. You can argue that it's not a strong enough interest, however.

[Necromancer]

I'm iffy on churches being able to discriminate. They should be able to deny services to anyone they choose (assuming they are directly dealing with belief systems and are not using Federal funding), but if they're employing people they should have to abide by employment discrimination legislation. You want special tax-exempt status? Then you have obligations to fulfill.

But I'm under no delusion that this is a popular view grin

[Parkbandit]

I don't understand why gay people continually bitch and moan about their federal government have anti gay marriage people in it. How often have I heard here and elsewhere that "I won't vote for a republican because they are against gay marriage."

When, really, the only thing close to a federal action on gay marriage was the defense of marriage act signed not by Bush, but by Clinton, and in fact the constitution would pretty clearly leave this matter up to the states. The only extent to which the feds can intervene is in governing interstate issues, such as how the defense of marriage act works.

The fight over gay marriage is going to take place on the state level. I don't see why people use issues like that to decide their choice of president (nevermind that this time around both said they were against gay marriage, both for civil unions, both for leaving it up to the states, they were mirror images).

Anyways, I read that one of the reasons it may have been passed in CA is that Obama brought high african american turnout and they're more anti-gay than other ethnic groups, voting for it at like a 70/30 margin.

Well, except Bush stating that he would want a constitutional amendment stating that marriage is between a man and a woman.

But hey.. blame Clinton. That shit never gets old. Did you hear he had an affair with an intern and then lied about it?

[crb]

Well, except Bush stating that he would want a constitutional amendment stating that marriage is between a man and a woman.

But hey.. blame Clinton. That shit never gets old. Did you hear he had an affair with an intern and then lied about it?
It isn't so easy to get a constitutional ammendment, because again, states have to ratify it. So it comes down to the states again.

[Necromancer]

The vast majority of the residents who came to this country were from places where marriage was between a man and a woman. That's why it shaped up that way here. You can't deny what's in front of your face. You can argue that it's not a strong enough interest, however.

One, that borders on the tyranny of the majority that prompted (fittingly enough) the creation of the judiciary. Just because a majority of people do one thing doesn't mean it's the only way things should be done.

And we invest a LOT of energy into ensuring that there is only one way to do things. To the point where we will imprison people or steal their children for refusing to conform. So it becomes circular reasoning.

"We've always done it this way, so we must continue to enforce it!" That's the point where marriage begins to become a violent institution. And that's really what it has been from the beginning in this country. It's a means of control hidden beneath lace and cake.

[Parkbandit]

But I'm under no delusion that this is a popular view grin

Seriously, wtf does that even mean? Are you seriously trying to roleplay on an Internet forum, in a political thread? Get some fucking lessons from WB at the very least and surround it with colons. Like this:

"But I'm under no delusion that this is a popular view"

:grin:



That way it makes you look slightly less fucking retarded. Wait.. I bet you are one of those type of people who :grins: over the fucking amulet as well... aren't you Chuckles.

[Parkbandit]

It isn't so easy to get a constitutional ammendment, because again, states have to ratify it. So it comes down to the states again.


Doesn't change the fact that the Republican party has that as one of it's main platform legs along with pro-life. Both stupid.

[Necromancer]

It isn't so easy to get a constitutional ammendment, because again, states have to ratify it. So it comes down to the states again.

You're assuming that Federal leaders have no influence in these matters. Bush never had a snowball's chance in hell of getting that amendment passed, and he knew it. It wasn't about the amendment, it was about fueling anti-gay ferver. And it worked. He continually spewed out heterosexist rhetoric (not quite anti-gay, just REALLY REALLY pro-straight) that had a dynamic impact on the political landscape of the states.

Again, I don't actually believe in gay marriage, but the fight to stop gay marriage is very destructive- and our Federal leaders have been very much implicated in that.

[CrystalTears]

One, that borders on the tyranny of the majority that prompted (fittingly enough) the creation of the judiciary. Just because a majority of people do one thing doesn't mean it's the only way things should be done.I see that you and It are taking turns in believing that because the majority wants it they shouldn't have it and should bend over for the few.

The way to work towards getting what you want for the minority is to work with the majority to appease them as well. If it means calling a marriage a union between a man and a woman, and then referring to all governmental unions as civil unions, then so be it. They keep their marriages, same-sex couples get their union with the state, and everyone is happy. It's when same-sex couples demand for only their way or no way that the majority start to resist.

[Hulkein]

Doesn't change the fact that the Republican party has that as one of it's main platform legs along with pro-life. Both stupid.

Eh, anti-gay marriage is a lot more stupid than pro-life, imo.

[Necromancer]

I see that you and It are taking turns in believing that because the majority wants it they shouldn't have it and should bend over for the few.

The way to work towards getting what you want for the minority is to work with the majority to appease them as well. If it means calling a marriage a union between a man and a woman, and then referring to all governmental unions as civil unions, then so be it. They keep their marriages, same-sex couples get their union with the state, and everyone is happy. It's when same-sex couples demand for only their way or no way that the majority start to resist.

No, the argument is that just because most people do it one way or believe one thing doesn't mean it's right or how it should be done exclusively.

You just missed Hulkein's point- which I was responding to- I think.

And the majority "starts to resist" is misleading. It's ALWAYS been resisting, it just has the luxury of being low-key about it because the political gears turn in the favor of the "majority" opinion.

[Parkbandit]

Eh, anti-gay marriage is a lot more stupid than pro-life, imo.


Both are stupid as main focal points for the Conservative Party.

[Necromancer]

Not from a strategic perspective they're not. They're brilliant.

The fund-raising potential alone for those issues keeps several major conservative organizations afloat. It mobilizes voters to vote for a party that is otherwise not looking out for their best interests. It also appeals to the real success of the Republican party in this country: churches. Churches do all of the work that the Democrats call "grass roots", and they always have. They advertise, mobilize, and inspire a base. That's why Republicans have an easier time in this country- why their voter turnouts are so high compared to the disorganized liberal democrats who lack existing institutions to do their work.

If the Republican party were to drop those issues, they would lose many of their voters. Brilliant stuff on their part. Morally reprehensible to sacrifice the rights, respect, and and safety of entire groups for the purposes of their own political power.

But brilliant.

[crb]

You're assuming that Federal leaders have no influence in these matters. Bush never had a snowball's chance in hell of getting that amendment passed, and he knew it. It wasn't about the amendment, it was about fueling anti-gay ferver. And it worked. He continually spewed out heterosexist rhetoric (not quite anti-gay, just REALLY REALLY pro-straight) that had a dynamic impact on the political landscape of the states.

Again, I don't actually believe in gay marriage, but the fight to stop gay marriage is very destructive- and our Federal leaders have been very much implicated in that.
My point is you can spend your time/energy/resources going against federal level politicians who will, in the end, likely not directly do anything. Or you can spend it for/against state level proposals/politicians who are far more likely to do something, in one way or the other.

[crb]

Not from a strategic perspective they're not. They're brilliant.

The fund-raising potential alone for those issues keeps several major conservative organizations afloat. It mobilizes voters to vote for a party that is otherwise not looking out for their best interests. It also appeals to the real success of the Republican party in this country: churches. Churches do all of the work that the Democrats call "grass roots", and they always have. They advertise, mobilize, and inspire a base. That's why Republicans have an easier time in this country- why their voter turnouts are so high compared to the disorganized liberal democrats who lack existing institutions to do their work.

If the Republican party were to drop those issues, they would lose many of their voters. Brilliant stuff on their part. Morally reprehensible to sacrifice the rights, respect, and and safety of entire groups for the purposes of their own political power.

But brilliant.
Dems don't have any groups helping them?

See unions.

[Tsa`ah]

You realize that one of the things in common in all those traditions you listed is that it's between a man and a woman, right?

Ya, I believe that was the SECOND line in said post ...


While tradition holds that it is between a man and woman ... tradition varies on many of the often overlooked aspects of said tradition.


Whether you like it or not, the courts almost always consider tradition in their decisions. It is almost always an interest.

No ... no they don't. They consider things like the letter and spirit of a law, the constitution ... not many "gay marriage" cases have really been before a bench.

CA was the last case and they did not consider "tradition".

[Necromancer]

Union membership is at an all-time low in this country. And they don't do the same level of organizing that churches do and in the wide variety of ways that they do it in. I WISH unions were as far-reaching in influence as churches are, but they're not.

[droit]

I don't understand why gay people continually bitch and moan about their federal government have anti gay marriage people in it. How often have I heard here and elsewhere that "I won't vote for a republican because they are against gay marriage."

For one thing, the president appoints the supreme court justices, which can have a huge effect on social justice legislation. The fact that one or two justices will be replaced during the next term is one of the biggest reasons I voted for Obama.

[Necromancer]

Don't try to reason with him. Notice it never dawned on him that people don't want to vote for someone who specifically targets their civil rights because of whom they are? That maybe that's a problem they view as more important than their taxes?

Of course not, he's never been in that position and never will be.

You know, I actually have some respect for the religious right. I think they're immoral on the whole, and destructive. But at least they vote out of a sense of what they believe is right. It's the the rest of the party, who vote purely out of self-interest and with blatant disregard for the rest of the nation (Why do I care if someone else doesn't have health insurance? *I'M* covered!) that I have no respect for. Usually the first to say they're patriotic, they are the last to demonstrate any sense of civic responsibility.

[Hulkein]

CA was the last case and they did not consider "tradition".

I'm pretty sure it was part of the discussion. I think the dissenters mentioned it in their opinion. I don't remember the case citation, do you have it?

Edit - I'm reading the opinion now, they mention tradition as an interest over and over again. Granted the majority says it isn't a strong enough interest to pass their balancing test.


Applying this standard to the statutory classification here at issue, we conclude that the purpose underlying differential treatment of opposite-sex and same-sex couples embodied in California's current marriage statutes - the interest in retaining the traditional and well-established definition of marriage - cannot properly be viewed as a compelling state interest for purposes of the equal protection clause, or as necessary to serve such an interest.

[Hulkein]

And here is a snippet of the dissent, which I happen to agree with:



The question presented by this case is simple and stark. It comes down to this: Even though California's progressive laws, recently adopted through the democratic process, have pioneered the rights of same-sex partners to enter legal unions with all the substantive benefits of opposite-sex legal unions, do those laws nonetheless violate the California Constitution because at present, in deference to long and universal tradition, by a convincing popular vote, and in accord with express national policy (see fns. 1, 2, ante ), they reserve the label “marriage” for opposite-sex legal unions? I must conclude that the answer is no.

[crb]

For one thing, the president appoints the supreme court justices, which can have a huge effect on social justice legislation. The fact that one or two justices will be replaced during the next term is one of the biggest reasons I voted for Obama.
They can't rewrite the constitution though, no matter how often they try. Lots of powers are reserved for the states, namely not anything mentioned explicitly is the domain of the feds. our founders wanted it that way.

The feds can outlaw abortion, because they can conclude they are protecting unborn citizens. Gay marriage though, giving states the freedom to reject marriages made in other states is about all they can do, and they already did it under Clinton. They could try to amend the constitution, but that is a long process and highly unlikely to work, because not even ever Republican is in favor of it, see John McCain, republicans of his type would never agree to such a constitutional amendment.

So even if there was a pro gay marriage presidential candidate, he wouldn't have any power to act on that issue. It needs to be tackled by the states. And again, this year, there wasn't. Both Barack Obama and John McCain (and Joe Biden and Sarah Palin) said they were 1. Against Gay Marriage. 2. For civil unions, and 3. For states deciding for themselves.

The point I wanted to make was that homosexuals are a largely democratic group for obvious reasons. And many of them donated large amounts to Obama, it was even speculated they'd have touble funding Prop8 opposition because of Obama taking all the money. Meanwhile, their efforts to stop Prop8 failed. If this is really their number one issue, and to many it seems to be, their time/effort/energy would have been better spent focusing on the state issue than electing a president that they think was only pandering when he said he was against it.

[Ravenstorm]

If this is really their number one issue, and to many it seems to be, their time/effort/energy would have been better spent focusing on the state issue than electing a president that they think was only pandering when he said he was against it.

First of all, there is no 'their'. The quote gay movement unquote is not a monolith. There's lots of different organizations working on different things. And one of those things is most definitely getting gay and gay friendly people elected into office on a state and local level as well as federal.

Obama is the most gay friendly candidate ever. The first openly gay man was just elected to congress (as opposed to coming out after being elected). A good 80 or so gay and lesbian people were elected or re-elected to state and local level positions and that's just the ones who had sought funding by the Victory Fund. And then there's state legislatures such as New York's that are now controlled by the Democrats and can now implement gay friendly laws that the Republicans have been blocking.

California was a blow and a very disappointing one but hatred, fear and ignorance can only hold back the inevitable for so long. It's just a matter of time till we've got full equality and one's sexual orientation is as unremarkable as one's hair color.

[DeV]

If this is really their number one issue, and to many it seems to be, their time/effort/energy would have been better spent focusing on the state issue than electing a president that they think was only pandering when he said he was against it.It is a single-issue political bombshell that has been successfully ignited once again in a Presidential election by social conservatives.

The passing of Prop 8 had more to do with the increase in the numbers of voters along with plenty of misinformation spread about what it meant if the proposition failed. It is a minor setback

[Gan]

It is a single-issue political bombshell that has been successfully ignited once again in a Presidential election by social conservatives.

The passing of Prop 8 had more to do with the increase in the numbers of voters along with plenty of misinformation spread about what it meant if the proposition failed. It is a minor setback
I'm curious as to how and what kind of misinformation can be used in a simple proposition about banning same sex marriages.

I also find it interesting that now that the people have spoken (amazingly enough even for liberal California) in support of the proposition, specific groups are seeking redress through the courts.

If the proposition is overturned, what kind of message does that send to the people who voted? Does that mean that even though they voted, their vote really does not matter? Especially after this being the 2nd time the matter has come before a vote and the results have been the same.

[Parkbandit]

Obama is the most gay friendly candidate ever. The first openly gay man was just elected to congress (as opposed to coming out after being elected). A good 80 or so gay and lesbian people were elected or re-elected to state and local level positions and that's just the ones who had sought funding by the Victory Fund. And then there's state legislatures such as New York's that are now controlled by the Democrats and can now implement gay friendly laws that the Republicans have been blocking.


You got this by him stating that he believes marriage is between a man and a woman? Or did you get this by the 70% of blacks who voted for Obama that voted against gay marriage?

Just wondering

[DeV]

I'm curious as to how and what kind of misinformation can be used in a simple proposition about banning same sex marriages.
http://uspolitics.einnews.com/article.php?nid=566762

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Y4nqtDrJI7A

"Let's protect the sanctity of marriage yet remain divorced from a core belief in basic human rights.

They ran tons of ads fabricating the truth. The fact is, if schools decide to offer sex education, they are required to teach respect for marriage and committed relationships. The curriculum doesn't include references to types of marriages.

What could schools possibly teach about any type of marriage that kids aren't learning in one way or another at home or in the media anyway? It means a lot of things to a lot of people, but it boils down to a legal contract recognizing a committed and loving relationsip.The end.

[AnticorRifling]

What could schools possibly teach about any type of marriage that kids aren't learning in one way or another at home or in the media anyway? It means a lot of things to a lot of people, but it boils down to a legal contract recognizing a committed and loving relationsip.The end. That's what it means to you, that doesn't make it the end. If you're going to be open minded about it be open minded about it.

[DeV]

That's what it means to you, that doesn't make it the end. If you're going to be open minded about it be open minded about it.You're right. That's why I prefaced with "It means a lot of things to a lot of people". I completley understand that so I'll caveat that my reply is of course in my opinion. It's also why I asked the burning question; what can schools teach about marriage that isn't being learned at home. It is the parents responsibility to overlook their child's instruction.

I understand it has a different meaning for everyone, but the legality of marriage is more so the focus at this time.

[AnticorRifling]

what can schools teach about marriage that isn't being learned at home. I would say plenty. I didn't learn shit about marriage at home growing up thanks to 5 different occasions for divorce between my two biological parents.

[DeV]

I would say plenty. I didn't learn shit about marriage at home growing up thanks to 5 different occasions for divorce between my two biological parents.I'd say that's learning quite a lot. As a kid, going to church taught me a fair bit about marriage, but family taught me the most and my parents both remarried (going on 20+ years) so I took a lot away from those situations. School could teach plenty, but when you put it on par with the way they instruct sex education it's probably going to be bore for the course.

[TheWitch]

Unless men are getting naked and doing it in the streets with other men (fill in women there at will in either place and in any combination), why do people even care? Why is what goes on in the privacy of someones home of such concern to people? By extension, if same sex people want to make a legal, binding committment to each other, where is the harm? It doesn't make opposite sex legal, binding committements less.

On the other hand....

There have been times when I just roll my eyes at the behavior of the gay community, in their efforts to force themselves on the straight community.

It goes both ways. The straight community being hung up on private activities that simply are none of their business as being the defining factor of who a person is, is just as ridiculous as the gay community shoving those activities into straight peoples faces and screaming deal with it, this is who we are. People, gay or straight or switch hitters or whatever, are a hell of a lot more than a bundle of sexual proclivities - but that's where the root of discomfort comes from.

Take "sex" and "marriage" out of it, make it "civil union". It becomes more palatable for the majority, and yea, sometimes you do have to compromise to get the thing you want.

No, Jesse, sometimes the majority isn't right and I agree in this case that the majority is misguidedly hanging on to antiquated tradition.

But they are still the majority. And honestly, this victimization tone in this rhetoric is tough to take seriously. When you let that define you, you've already lost.

[g++]

There have been times when I just roll my eyes at the behavior of the gay community, in their efforts to force themselves on the straight community..


I kind of like flaming gays. Their hilarious and the only people that ever buy me drinks.

[Ravenstorm]

If the proposition is overturned, what kind of message does that send to the people who voted?

It means that the tyranny of the majority - which this is a textbook case of if ever there was one - is being redressed.

As for Obama being the most gay friendly president ever, his publicaly stated opinions clearly indicate that: civil unions on a federal level, passing ENDA, repealing DOMA and DADT. Granted, the bar is low but those are a damn good start.

Is he a perfect agent of the gay agenda, willing to advance the cause of the hidden Empire of Gaydonia? No. But in time we'll have one of our people in place and you straights will learn your proper place.

[Gan]

It means that the tyranny of the majority - which this is a textbook case of if ever there was one - is being redressed.
This made me chuckle because considering the majority of Californians are liberal minded people - why did this proposition get voted in to begin with?

But is it really tyranny? If the majority of a society believes a certain way - does that make their beliefs tyrannical? Its not like the ideal being supported/rejected here is detrimental to the human species. And let me remind you that I support same sex marriages simply because I dont believe I have the right to tell others how to live their lives as long as it does not infringe upon my basic rights as provided by the society I live in.

[Parkbandit]

Is he a perfect agent of the gay agenda, willing to advance the cause of the hidden Empire of Gaydonia? No. But in time we'll have one of our people in place and you straights will learn your proper place.


The good news is.. you will always be in the minority. Otherwise, the human race is literally fucked.

[Gan]

The good news is.. you will always be in the minority. Otherwise, the human race is literally fucked.

Well, there's always artificial insemination if that comes to pass.

[ElanthianSiren]

As long as the ban is overturned on legal grounds, it should say to voters that they voted on an amendment that was flawed. I'm sure they'll get another chance if it is overturned, however. Likely, the ballot measure will be continually repeated in different words until the supreme court puts its foot down one way or another (which was my general reason for asking about Prop 4).

For the time, it seems that the religious right and associated churches don't want it to go to the high court, as they're choosing not to challenge any of the marriages enacted during the time that the ban was not in effect.

[ElanthianSiren]

Unless men are getting naked and doing it in the streets with other men (fill in women there at will in either place and in any combination), why do people even care?

IMO money. There is so much money being floated around these proposals, on each side; it's ridiculous.

[TheWitch]

As much as I find the majority suspect in this particular case....

I find the tyranny of the majority preferrable to a tyranny of the minority, which is what it seems like you're asking for.

Don't forget, the majority can work in your favor, too. Maybe not always, but what if the majority never mattered? Because if you want to defy the majority in this case, all other majoritys become subject to defiance too, even the ones you like.

As I tell my 10 year old, you can't have your way all the time.

[Warriorbird]

So... they should just quit fighting for their rights?

Awesome.

[TheWitch]

I said that exactly where.

Asshole.

What I'm saying is that instead of expecting to get their way even though the majority voted against it, they should continue their attempts to sway the majority - or use other legal avenues, or perhaps choose different tactics altogether depending on the region in question - to get what they want done, done.

Not expect the majority opinion to be disregarded.

Which, since I'm not part of that majority, nor am I gay, I'm suggesting as a straight someone who would like to see them succeed.

[Gan]

As long as the ban is overturned on legal grounds, it should say to voters that they voted on an amendment that was flawed. I'm sure they'll get another chance if it is overturned, however. Likely, the ballot measure will be continually repeated in different words until the supreme court puts its foot down one way or another (which was my general reason for asking about Prop 4).

For the time, it seems that the religious right and associated churches don't want it to go to the high court, as they're choosing not to challenge any of the marriages enacted during the time that the ban was not in effect.

What I find interesting is that this is not the first time the legislature has passed legislation countering the 'will of the people' of California only to have it struck down by a vote of the people.

How many times will the acts of a few (legislature) have to be struck down by the will of the many, and isnt this counter to the idea that the legislature of California is representative of its respective constituency?

I see a struggle between the law makers and the people here in a very classical sense. Regardless of how the campaign was waged, I think that Californians were not as misled as some would think simply because this is not the first time they have voted on this issue.

The people have spoken. The question is: Is anyone listening?

[Warriorbird]

I said that exactly where.
-TheWitch

How isn't that what you said? I don't think a tiny portion of the population getting married is some sort of tyranny.

[Gan]

So... they should just quit fighting for their rights?

Awesome.

What rights? And what entity is responsible for the granting of those rights?
If you said the people as your answer, then I would counter that the people have spoken.

[CrystalTears]

How isn't that what you said? I don't think a tiny portion of the population getting married is some sort of tyranny.
That's not what she said at all. I believe it's more along the lines of working with the majority to get what you want, rather than insisting it be entirely your way, making the fight that much harder.

[Daniel]

That's not what she said at all. I believe it's more along the lines of working with the majority to get what you want, rather than insisting it be entirely your way, making the fight that much harder.

So, gays should work harder to convince people that they deserve to be respected as people?

Uh..no.

[Ravenstorm]

Well, there's always artificial insemination if that comes to pass.

Not to mention the time tested, old fashioned 'lie back and think of England'. It might not be enjoyable but it is possible for most of us I suspect. A good imagination is key.

Regarding how Prop 8 won, just google prop 8 lies and you'll get a ton of sites detailing all the blatant falsehoods and scare tactics used by the religious right.

I'll debate the tyranny aspect this evening when I get home from work unless someone has done so already.

[Warriorbird]

So... Booker T Washington versus W.E.B. Dubois?

We see how well that worked out...

[Gan]

So... Booker T Washington versus W.E.B. Dubois?

We see how well that worked out...

So you're saying we need a US Constitutional Amendment for gay marriage?

[ElanthianSiren]

What I find interesting is that this is not the first time the legislature has passed legislation countering the 'will of the people' of California only to have it struck down by a vote of the people.

How many times will the acts of a few (legislature) have to be struck down by the will of the many, and isnt this counter to the idea that the legislature of California is representative of its respective constituency?

If the ballot was strictly on gay marriage, I would agree. However, as the election progressed, commercial implications carried over to school instruction and a host of other things the law had nothing to do with. That's why I mentioned the money.

As far as I understand it, however, (and I am no lawyer), there have been plenty of laws overturned in both states and the national constitution declaring things void based on procedural grounds. As I see it (again IMO), present social laws/standards are generally considered always in flux in the US until they reach the SCOTUS. Then, if you follow the Roe V. Wade method, you work to chip away the rights of satellite groups around the issues (length of pregnancy etc) if you disagree. This is really no different than any other flashpan civil social issue. Please proceed back to my money argument.

[CrystalTears]

So, gays should work harder to convince people that they deserve to be respected as people?

Uh..no.
WTF. That's not what I said. I'm saying it would be easier to get more accomplished if they worked to compromise with majority, rather than insist that it be done only a certain way, thus making their fight that much harder and longer. The majority isn't always right with their views, but that doesn't mean that it should be discounted and ignored because afterall, they still hold the cards.

[ElanthianSiren]

Regarding how Prop 8 won, just google prop 8 lies and you'll get a ton of sites detailing all the blatant falsehoods and scare tactics used by the religious right.

I was going to look up and post some of these from youtube, but if they're that available I'll just waste time on school work.

[Warriorbird]

Did Cesar Chavez work for compromise? Did the anti Castro Cubans work for compromise?

This is a civil rights issue.

[soybean]

Regardless of how the campaign was waged, I think that Californians were not as misled as some would think simply because this is not the first time they have voted on this issue.

I think the proponents of 8 certainly used scare tactics, but I would hope reasonable people wouldn't listen to them. But then, I would also hope reasonable people wouldn't have voted in favor of Prop 8.

Another way in which you could argue that Californians were misled is to whether or not Prop 8 is... legal? Not quite the right word, I know. Some of the lawsuits being filed now say (and I'm sure someone will correct me if I'm wrong) that as this amendment changes the core of the California constitution*, it needs the approval of the legislature. In which case, you could argue that voters were misled into thinking they had the final say, when it really still does need to go through the legislature.

I'm not sure if what I said made sense... if not, please let me know and I'll try to clarify.

*which you could argue either way. But the argument, I think, is that writing discrimination into the state constitution changes its core values, and that requires the approval of the legislature.

[TheWitch]

As long as any fight is framed as us versus them, the fight will be harder.
Didn't The Obama get that through anyone's head yet?

Yes, as a minority, you do have to try harder. Women, blacks, native americans, the disabled, etc., they'll all attest to that. Why should gays not have to try harder? They're asking for something they don't currently have. Didn't Susan B. Anthony have to try pretty damn hard?

Is it right that this society is still largely locked into a white, patriarcal, religious mindframe? Of course not.

Should they have to try harder? If they want the status quo changed, yes.

[Warriorbird]

How isn't this us versus them? I mean...other than Republicans using these measures solely to win votes...

[Gan]

Proposition 8 is a California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California) State ballot proposition that would amend (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitutional_amendment) the state Constitution (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Constitution), to define marriage as a union between a man and a woman, overturning a recent California Supreme Court (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Supreme_Court) decision that had recognized same-sex marriage in California (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage_in_California) as a fundamental right. The official ballot title (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballot#Design) language for Proposition 8 was "Eliminates Right of Same-Sex Couples to Marry". On the day after the election, the results remained uncertified. With 100% of precincts reporting, the vote was 52.5% in favor of Proposition 8 and 47.5% against, with a difference of about 504,000 votes;[1] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29#cite_note-ca-sos-results-0) as many as 3 million absentee and provisional ballots remain to be counted.[2] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29#cite_note-ap-remaining-ballots-1) The organizers of the "No on Prop 8" campaign conceded defeat on November 6, issuing a statement saying, "Tuesday’s vote was deeply disappointing to all who believe in equal treatment under the law".[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29#cite_note-2)

The campaigns for and against Proposition 8 raised $35.8 million and $37.6 million, respectively, becoming the highest-funded campaign on any state ballot that day and surpassing every campaign in the country in spending except the presidential contest (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_presidential_election). The ProtectMarriage.com organization sponsored the initiative that placed Proposition 8 on the ballot and argued for exclusively heterosexual marriage while claiming that failure to change the constitution would require changes to school curriculum and threaten church tax benefits. Equality for All was the lead organization opposed to Proposition 8 and argued that eliminating the rights of any Californian and mandating that one group of people be treated differently from everyone else was unfair and wrong.

On November 5, 2008, three lawsuits were filed, challenging the validity of Proposition 8 on the grounds that revoking the right of same sex couples to marry was a constitutional "revision" rather than an "amendment", and therefore required the prior approval of 2/3 of each house of the California State Legislature (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_State_Legislature). Plaintiffs in the various suits included same-sex couples who had married or planned to marry, in the cities of San Francisco (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/San_Francisco) and Los Angeles (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Los_Angeles), and the county of Santa Clara (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Santa_Clara_County,_California).[4] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%282008%29#cite_note-3)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_(2008 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Proposition_8_%282008))

[ElanthianSiren]

It'll be interesting to see how that goes, to say the least.

[Amber]

Should they have to try harder? If they want the status quo changed, yes.

I'm currently reading "And the Band Played On", by Randy Shilts. It's about the AIDS epidemic and details both the discovery of AIDS and the effects of HIV on the gay community. Reading the book, there appear to have been so many ways the disease could have been discovered earlier if mainstream society had been more receptive to the needs of the gay community. Even with a powerful gay political coalition, it took years before any real interest was taken in preventing the spread of AIDS.

Anyway, according to the book, gays in California have been trying to be allowed to marry since at least 1972. Harvey Milk, the first openly gay politician in California, was assasinated for his belief that gay rights were human rights. How much harder should gays have to try to obtain what should be a human right?

[Daniel]

WTF. That's not what I said. I'm saying it would be easier to get more accomplished if they worked to compromise with majority, rather than insist that it be done only a certain way, thus making their fight that much harder and longer. The majority isn't always right with their views, but that doesn't mean that it should be discounted and ignored because afterall, they still hold the cards.

So, they should compromise on their basic right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

I get what you're saying. I just don't think it's appropriate for this situation.

[TheWitch]

How isn't this us versus them? I mean...other than Republicans using these measures solely to win votes...

Because gays aren't the only ones who would benefit from a further separation of church and state, a further departure from dusty old prejudices driving the law making process. Which is ultimately what is needed here, is a recognition of legal rights beyond those extremely subjective definitions of religion.

By making it a "gay agenda" you potentially alienate people like myself, who are not gay, but believe that two people should be able to make a legal, binding committment to each other no matter what sex they are.

Use people like the two women I read about a few months ago as an example. They live together, raise their children together, and have been for 8 years - but are not gay. They babysit for each other so they can work, date and have social lives. They too would potentially benefit from the protections and advantages afforded by a civil union. In a country of 300 million people, they can't be the only ones.

Is it a stretch, sure. But it takes the "gay" out of the context, and puts it in a context the religious right wing can relate to - doing the best thing for their children and living independent of government assistance through their own efforts.

Now, if doing that is somehow giving in? That's what compromise is about. In the end, if the desired result is achieved - of things like Prop 8 becoming history - I would think the compromise would be worth it.

[Warriorbird]

I'm not gay, TheWitch. Gay people quitting sure wouldn't beat all the 'religious' haters out there who somehow believe that if two chicks get together their marriages will crumble.

You may live in a non Bible Belt area... you might not grasp the sure force of hate out there.

[Gan]

So, they should compromise on their basic right to life liberty and the pursuit of happiness?

Finally, someone brings up the inalienable rights.

This argument is the only argument that makes me question my position of the 'will of the people' in this instance.

[CrystalTears]

Gay people quitting sure wouldn't beat all the 'religious' haters out there who somehow believe that if two chicks get together their marriages will crumble.I swear to God you can't fucking read. Who the fuck said that gay people should quit?

[ElanthianSiren]

I'd like to see some of our lawyers post on the challenge brought up by the gay rights groups. Where do you see it going? To me, it looks like a valid complaint and something the state legislature would rub their hands together about (more power nom nom nom), but again, I'm no lawyer.

[Daniel]

Finally, someone brings up the inalienable rights.

This argument is the only argument that makes me question my position of the 'will of the people' in this instance.

It's the only one that should be considered to me.

I'm not 100% "Pro" gay, but at the end of the day I recognize that it's not my place to tell people what they should be content with in their lives. I think it's a tragedy of freedom that we are trying to tell people what they can and can not do because we are too personally insecure.

If you wanna smoke someone's pole everyday for the rest of your life? Whatever.

[Ravenstorm]

I was going to look up and post some of these from youtube, but if they're that available I'll just waste time on school work.

I didn't see that many links to videos, mostly just articles.

[Warriorbird]

My last post wasn't towards you, CT.

[Ravenstorm]

Finally, someone brings up the inalienable rights.

This argument is the only argument that makes me question my position of the 'will of the people' in this instance.

That was, indeed, going to be one of the main points about the tyranny of the majority. We're not talking about something like Alabama's sex toy ban which, while idiotic, doesn't have anywhere near the same scale of injustice and targets everyone, gay and straight, equally.

For something to illustrate the tyranny of the majority, it has to target a specific minority (or even several of them) and remove their rights while having no effect at all on the majority. Or such is my understanding, which could be somewhat flawed.

[CrystalTears]

My last post wasn't towards you, CT.
It was still retarded.

[Hulkein]

It means that the tyranny of the majority - which this is a textbook case of if ever there was one - is being redressed.

Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought gays in California already have rights to all the governmental benefits of married people via civil unions. If that's the case I don't see how this "tyranny" is actually harming gays in California.

[Warriorbird]

I'm sorry you are completely unable to get where I'm coming from, CT. Reread TheWitch's posts and maybe you'll get it.

[CrystalTears]

I'm sorry you are completely unable to get where I'm coming from, CT. Reread TheWitch's posts and maybe you'll get it.I did and you're the one missing her point, not me.

[Warriorbird]

Given your voting for those who act against your own civil rights... I'm not quite so sure about that.

[Hulkein]

The thing is that marriage comes with protections, benefits and responsibilities from the federal government as well. Things that a California-granted civil union won't/can't guarantee.

Gotcha. I assume you mean federal tax incentives, etc?

[CrystalTears]

I am huh?

She's right. You're an asshole.

[TheWitch]

I'm not gay, TheWitch. Gay people quitting sure wouldn't beat all the 'religious' haters out there who somehow believe that if two chicks get together their marriages will crumble.

You may live in a non Bible Belt area... you might not grasp the sure force of hate out there.

Dude, you seriously can't read. I have never said they should quit. Not once. Anywhere. I'm on their side, ffs.

No, I don't live in the Bible belt. But I grew up there. What exactly is your point? Do you think that's the only bastion of prejudice?

[Hulkein]

Good to know. Thanks for posting.

[Parkbandit]

The thing is that marriage comes with protections, benefits and responsibilities from the federal government as well. Things that a California-granted civil union won't/can't guarantee.


Not that I really care either way.. but is there a listing of protections that are granted if 2 gay people are married that they won't get when they are granted a civil union?

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

This will explain what I mean. I read this earlier today on a comment page of a proposition 8 article.



TO ALL WHO DO NOT SUPPORT GAY MARRIAGE:

I think you're good people, like me. I pay my taxes that support my schools and religious institutions so they can give back to the community. I don't hurt anyone and only try to help. I oppose people who try to infringe on religious freedoms, and I don't seek to infringe upon what "marriage" means to you. I appreciate that most of you DO approve of 'domestic partnerships' and 'civil unions' for gay people, but please listen to why that doesn't work.

The federal government gives married people about 1000 rights. The state gives them about 400 additional rights. The reason the government is involved in marriage at all is to promote and protect stable, happy families as basic units of society. Obviously marriage is not solely for procreation, as we do not remove that right from you if you are infertile, elderly, or choose not to have children. When you marry, you are automatically entitled to those 1400 rights, including the right to visit a spouse in the hospital, be added to your spouse's insurance policies, acquire property with your spouse and automatically inherit it if your spouse dies, and many more. These 1400 rights are not simply and easily written up in a single civil document, nor always enforceable; for instance, a person under a state's domestic partnership can't force the IRS to give him the tax breaks afforded to married couples. It is extremely complex and doesn't always work; I am aware of gay people whose partners died and the deceased's hostile family successfully asserted their ownership of everything in spite of the contract, leaving the survivor destitute. Imagine children being involved, and a deceased partner's hostile family takes your children from you because your civil contract didn't stand up in court proving you were next of kin! In Arkansas, the majority just voted to prohibit unmarried people from adopting, meaning a gay person can't even adopt their partner's children to ensure that if their partner dies the children will remain with the surviving parent they love!

'Civil unions' and 'domestic partnerships' permit OSTENSIBLY most of the 400 state-afforded rights of married couples, but NONE of the 1000 federal ones, and I can tell you from personal experience that the state ones are NOT equal. Just one example is that to get on my partner's insurance policy, we had to provide my certificate of domestic partnership, copies of financial records proving we had co-mingled finances and lived in the same home for at least two years, and more. If I died, my partner would have to wait at least two years to add her new partner to the policy to prove the relationship was 'real'. Married people don't even need to provide a copy of a marriage license, and if their spouse died today, they could add a new spouse tomorrow. This is only one example out of MANY.

Other rights are specific to helping children of married people, including ensuring automatic inheritance rights, the right of a non-blood related parent to pick up a sick child from school, alimony and child support to help with their care in the event of divorce, and many more. No matter the makeup of the family or how it comes to be -- be it traditional nuclear, or grandparents raising their grandchild, or a blended family resulting from divorced people remarrying, or single parents, or adoptive parents, or childless couples, or gay couples -- ALL of these people deserve the same rights so they have the best chances of happiness and contribution to society.

What I would like to see the FEDERAL government do is create one proto-marriage type of relationship ('civil union'?) that applies equally to all people who want it, including granting them all 1400 of the rights and responsibilities that "married" people currently enjoy, and then simply leave the word "marriage" for religiously-inclined people who want to further consecrate their relationship according to their religions. I think that is what the MAJORITY of us all want. Unfortunately, the federal government is currently leaving the issue to states to decide, so we are stuck wrestling for the one word that currently encompasses all 1400 of those rights, and that word is "marriage". Granting the existing rights encompassed by one word to a minority is a lot easier than changing 1400 laws to encompass them. That's really all there is to it, see?

I understand many of you are afraid that legalizing gay marriage will lead to your children being forced to learn in school that homosexuality is "normal". I will be the first to agree with you that homosexuality is NOT "normal" - the parts don't fit and we can't make babies. But consider that in one out of every 100 live births, a child is born with ambiguous genitalia (intersexed). If God creates 1% of babies that way, why do we then do surgery to "correct" them to one sex or the other and make them "normal"? God made me abnormal too - I'm among the small percentage of people whose wiring is crossed so I'm attracted to my own sex. My abnormality doesn't lead me to hurt anyone. The worst law I've ever broken is the speed limit. Learning that homosexuals exist isn't going to turn any child homosexual, but it will help the small percentage born with this abnormality to feel less alone. That's really the worst that could happen.

As for the slippery slope arguments that legalizing gay marriage will automatically lead to legalizing polygamy or incestuous marriages, those forms of marriage existed throughout most of recorded history but are too impractical or undesirable for the vast majority of Americans to even consider. As for legalizing gay marriage leading to legalizing people marrying pets or children, these can't even give informed consent. Please stay off the slippery slope; the ONLY topic we're asking you to agree on is legalizing gay marriage.

We gay people and our families are being hurt by laws as they stand, and all we are asking for is the concession that the word "marriage" include us so we may enjoy its rights - and responsibilities. I will leave you with the words of Mildred Loving, who wrote this forty years after her 1967 legal case struck down laws barring interracial marriage:

"Surrounded as I am now by wonderful children and grandchildren, not a day goes by that I don't think of Richard and our love, our right to marry, and how much it meant to me to have that freedom to marry the person precious to me, even if others thought he was the "wrong kind of person" for me to marry. I believe all Americans, no matter their race, no matter their sex, no matter their sexual orientation, should have that same freedom to marry."

Wow. That totally sums up my feelings about gay marriage and civil unions and stuff.

I sort of disagree about homosexuality not being normal though. I say sort of, because I believe in the Kinsey scale of sexuality and that people fall somewhere on the scale (0 is exclusively hetero, 6 is exclusively homo). I get though that the point is that "normal" is very subjective.

[Parkbandit]

I'm not gay, TheWitch.

Seriously? I honestly thought you were (not a joke or a knock).

:shrug:

[Necromancer]

For what it is worth- it is very likely that this issue will ultimately be decided by the US Supreme Court and NOT the states.

If you're for gay marriage, however, the bad news is that there are some cases in the California system that are likely to end up there. If they get there too soon, well the current makeup of the Bench is bad news. If they get delayed several years, well it looks like Obama will be choosing one or two Justices during this term- so things may even out a bit.

[Hulkein]

Obama probably isn't going to be choosing any replacements for the current conservatives, though. None of them seem to be on the way out.

[Necromancer]

Not that I really care either way.. but is there a listing of protections that are granted if 2 gay people are married that they won't get when they are granted a civil union?

Lambda Legal has a document somewhere on their site that outlines them.

[Necromancer]

Yeah, Stevens Ginsberg and Souter are the likely candidates for the next 3 to go. But as long as Obama is in office, at least they'll be replaced by liberals (not that they're all going to leave, but with a dem in office it's probably seeming a lot more tempting) It'll be VERY sad for this country when we lose Ginsberg though, I will say.

[crb]

Wow. That totally sums up my feelings about gay marriage and civil unions and stuff.

I sort of disagree about homosexuality not being normal though. I say sort of, because I believe in the Kinsey scale of sexuality and that people fall somewhere on the scale (0 is exclusively hetero, 6 is exclusively homo). I get though that the point is that "normal" is very subjective.
From a scientific perspective, it isn't normal.

If you believe in evolution you're sort of required to see that is an aberration. There is no way to reconcile the two. Assuming homosexuality is a genetic mutation or something such as that, it is undesirable to a species and has been selected against for millions of years.

I'm not calling it socially wrong, so don't get your PC panties in a bunch. But it is a biological mistake.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

From a scientific perspective, it isn't normal.

If you believe in evolution you're sort of required to see that is an aberration. There is no way to reconcile the two. Assuming homosexuality is a genetic mutation or something such as that, it is undesirable to a species and has been selected against for millions of years.

I'm not calling it socially wrong, so don't get your PC panties in a bunch. But it is a biological mistake.

I'm not gonna flip out on you, lol. That's why I said "sort of".

The large numbers of people who identify as gay or bisexual leads me to believe that socially it's actually quite "normal" (or at least would be if we didn't have so many religious/personal hangups on it).

But as you pointed out, and as the guy in the article did, you can't make babies and the parts don't fit, so physiologically, it is definitely a mutation/mistake/whatever you wanna call it. It just happens often enough to be considered a "normal" mutation, I guess is the point I'm driving at. Not something that necessarily needs fixing or whatever.

I never really understood some of the hatred and stuff for gay males especially. More gay men = more ladies for the straight guys!

[Allereli]

I'm not calling it socially wrong, so don't get your PC panties in a bunch. But it is a biological mistake.

God doesn't make mistakes

[Necromancer]

From a scientific perspective, it isn't normal.

If you believe in evolution you're sort of required to see that is an aberration. There is no way to reconcile the two. Assuming homosexuality is a genetic mutation or something such as that, it is undesirable to a species and has been selected against for millions of years.

I'm not calling it socially wrong, so don't get your PC panties in a bunch. But it is a biological mistake.

You have no real concept of how evolution works, and you're also erroneously tying together sexuality and genetics as well as evolution (or your perception of it) and normal.

(Also I love how being a mo is a genetic mutation but being a het is clearly the biological norm- very enlightened you are)

No matter how you end up looking at this, you're wrong.

If you assume that normal is what is most advantageous from a (hypothetical) evolutionary standpoint (always hailing back to some idea of people back in caves- as though that's somehow relevant to today), then we're all in trouble. The human knee, wisdom teeth, appendix, etc. are all disadvantages that have not been weeded out by the "miraculous" evolution.

More importantly, however, to date there is absolutely nothing remotely conclusive tying ANY sexual identity to genes. We've got nothing. This would explain why sexual identities change so much across time and space- there's a biological capacity for sex, pleasure, desire, and emotional attachment, but it's the cultural context that determines how they are expressed.

And thus, evolution is actually a moot point in this discussion that serves to do nothing but reaffirm a circular logic that heterosexuality is the species ideal while homosexuality is its (somewhat) wicked step-sibling (read: DANGEROUS!)

[Athgo]

Depends on how you define "normal." Is it the majority state? No, but it is found across numerous types of creatures, meaning that it's definitely "natural," but not normal. Likewise, albinoism is natural, but not normal.

It makes no sense to discriminate against albinos or diabetics because they are so; and no sense to discriminate against gays because they're gay.

The problem religious people have with this argument is that they assume (for whatever reason) that people choose their own sexuality. I certainly didn't choose my sexuality, and neither has any person, gay or straight, I've ever met. You can choose whether or not to act on any sexual impulse, but doesn't mean your brain doesn't send the attraction signals to one gender or another.

I think he was defining "normal" from an evolutionary fitness standpoint. The only thing that determines fitness in darwinian terms is the ability to pass genetic material to the next generation. Fortunately the human race isn't under many evolutionary pressures thanks to lack of predators, medication, etc...

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

You mean that a larger amount of people are more middle-road on the Kinsey scale than societal/cultural pressures allow them to admit? I'd say that's likely, but the general negativity towards homosexuality is very pervasive in our culture.

I can't tell you how often I run across light and moderate anti-gay sentiment on certain Xbox Live games, which is a decent sampling of 15-30 year old men.

I also don't let the gay community off the hook in making it hard for that middle-of-the-road population to come out. Namely, bisexual women.

I can't tell you how many times I've been insulted by gay or lesbian people who find out about my bisexuality-- accusing me of being fake, doing it for attention, hurting women just so guys can like me and all other types of bullshit. I have a hard time getting along with some lesbians in particular when sexuality comes up because I am a bisexual, submissive female. According to quite a few, I'm a mindless bimbo submitting to a perverted Patriarchal will. Obviously I couldn't disagree more. Point is, I've been more attacked about my sexuality by people within the gay community then by straight people and I know I am not the only bisexual woman who has had that experience. There are definite problems within the GLBT movement that makes it rather self-defeating at times.

[Warriorbird]

How isn't gayness normal if other species do it?

[Hulkein]

The problem religious people have with this argument is that they assume (for whatever reason) that people choose their own sexuality. I certainly didn't choose my sexuality, and neither has any person, gay or straight, I've ever met. You can choose whether or not to act on any sexual impulse, but doesn't mean your brain doesn't send the attraction signals to one gender or another.

They believe it is a choice because it's a lot harder to justify hating/discriminating against something that is not a choice.

[Hulkein]

You have no real concept of how evolution works, and you're also erroneously tying together sexuality and genetics as well as evolution (or your perception of it) and normal.

(Also I love how being a mo is a genetic mutation but being a het is clearly the biological norm- very enlightened you are)

No matter how you end up looking at this, you're wrong.

If you assume that normal is what is most advantageous from a (hypothetical) evolutionary standpoint (always hailing back to some idea of people back in caves- as though that's somehow relevant to today), then we're all in trouble. The human knee, wisdom teeth, appendix, etc. are all disadvantages that have not been weeded out by the "miraculous" evolution.

More importantly, however, to date there is absolutely nothing remotely conclusive tying ANY sexual identity to genes. We've got nothing. This would explain why sexual identities change so much across time and space- there's a biological capacity for sex, pleasure, desire, and emotional attachment, but it's the cultural context that determines how they are expressed.

And thus, evolution is actually a moot point in this discussion that serves to do nothing but reaffirm a circular logic that heterosexuality is the species ideal while homosexuality is its (somewhat) wicked step-sibling (read: DANGEROUS!)

Wisdom teeth and appendix actually are being weeded out via evolution, aren't they? I vaguely remember reading that more people are being born without them.

Though current medical procedures will probably reduce the need for those changes.

[Mighty Nikkisaurus]

There's definitely a sense of ironic intolerance in the gay community.. Both politically and non-politically. Conservative gays are often ostracized by their own friends, somewhat for obvious reasons. But, yeah.. I imagine the bias against bisexuals is tough (to be honest, I'm sure I'm a little biased myself. In my experience, every so-called bisexual male has actually been very much strictly gay, though this could be merely incidental) and I think if I were bi, I probably wouldn't bother with guys unless I fell in love with one.

My issue stems mostly from the fact that I am sexually attracted to feminine, girly women but I am not emotionally attracted to them. So I may have sex with them, we may be fuck buddies, but I doubt I will ever have an actual relationship with a woman. I don't encounter that problem with men-- I love the cock as much as I love pussy, and I tend to simply get along with men better. Therefore, my actual relationships have always been with men.

Pair that with the fact that I am submissive, and have a boyfriend who happens to not mind if I do stuff with other girls (as long as we're safe), and I get categorized as a fake whore who's just doing it to make a guy like me more. It doesn't matter that I'm straight-up about it and don't hide it or play games with the women I'm interested in. It doesn't matter that my boyfriend doesn't participate in, let alone get the juicy details about, my encounters. It doesn't matter that most militant feminist lesbians who call me the said mindless bimbo and are opposed to BDSM know jack shit about it or that the sub actually holds the power. I still get treated the most viciously within a community that (ironically, imo) calls itself the most accepting.

I won't lie, it's made me pretty apathetic towards the movement on the whole and is something I think is going to need a serious change if more support is to be had. I'm obviously against discrimination but it's hard to want to jump right in and help out when you've been made to feel unwelcome by the very group that suddenly needs you to stand up for it.

[Methais]

Also I love how being a mo is a genetic mutation but being a het is clearly the biological norm- very enlightened you are

If being gay was the biological norm, we wouldn't survive.

There's a reason why a vag is "designed" to be penetrated, and an asshole isn't.

[TheWitch]

If being gay was the biological norm, we wouldn't survive.

There's a reason why a vag is "designed" to be penetrated, and an asshole isn't.

Not to mention the other parts farther up the route that are conducive to procreation, versus the ones that are conducive to defication.

You don't want to be called "abnormal" Jesse, I can appreciate that. And I happen to believe that homosexuality isn't necessarily abnormal, but the reality is that after a millenium of having it beaten into peoples heads that it is abnormal, it's ya know, gonna take a bit more time.

For comparisons sake, women have been subjugated by men for several millenia and continue to be subjugated by men in many countries. Hell, they're subjugated in various parts of American society to this day. We earned the vote a scant 80 years ago, and still don't earn dollar for dollar what men earn for the same job.

When did gays start "coming out", the 80's? It might take a few more years.

[DeV]

My issue stems mostly from the fact that I am sexually attracted to feminine, girly women but I am not emotionally attracted to them. So I may have sex with them, we may be fuck buddies, but I doubt I will ever have an actual relationship with a woman. I don't encounter that problem with men-- I love the cock as much as I love pussy, and I tend to simply get along with men better. Therefore, my actual relationships have always been with men.

Pair that with the fact that I am submissive, and have a boyfriend who happens to not mind if I do stuff with other girls (as long as we're safe), and I get categorized as a fake whore who's just doing it to make a guy like me more. It doesn't matter that I'm straight-up about it and don't hide it or play games with the women I'm interested in. It doesn't matter that my boyfriend doesn't participate in, let alone get the juicy details about, my encounters. It doesn't matter that most militant feminist lesbians who call me the said mindless bimbo and are opposed to BDSM know jack shit about it or that the sub actually holds the power. I still get treated the most viciously within a community that (ironically, imo) calls itself the most accepting.

I won't lie, it's made me pretty apathetic towards the movement on the whole and is something I think is going to need a serious change if more support is to be had. I'm obviously against discrimination but it's hard to want to jump right in and help out when you've been made to feel unwelcome by the very group that suddenly needs you to stand up for it.
I agree with a lot of your concerns about some lesbians attitudes toward bisexual women, and especially regarding the movement needing a serious overhaul. There are prejudices held that do little more than alienate, hinder progress and create tension among those on the receiving end of the prejudice. I even recall reading about a time when you weren't considered a "real" lesbian if you used dildos -- wtf. Some gay people polarize themselves and others for the sake of holding onto an identity that doesn't define only them, and they fall victim to perpetrating a rather absurd brand of hypocrisy.

[DeV]

When did gays start "coming out", the 80's? Fuck no, that's when intolerance came out of the closet, again. Gays have been coming out in varying degrees since the 1920s as far as what's been most documented.

[g++]

I can't tell you how often I run across light and moderate anti-gay sentiment on certain Xbox Live games, which is a decent sampling of 15-30 year old men.

If I based my world view on things people said to me while playing halo 3 I would be digging a bunker right now.

[TheWitch]

Fuck no, that's when intolerance came out of the closet, again. Gays have been coming out in varying degrees since the 1920s as far as what's been most documented.

Well, color me corrected then.

It still hasn't been all that long, though, relatively speaking.

Interesting, I was in college in the Bible belt in the 80's and several of my close friends were gay men. They were out, they weren't on fire but they were out. And no one else seemed to care. Strictly anecdotal and pointless, I realize.

[crb]

You have no real concept of how evolution works, and you're also erroneously tying together sexuality and genetics as well as evolution (or your perception of it) and normal.

(Also I love how being a mo is a genetic mutation but being a het is clearly the biological norm- very enlightened you are)

No matter how you end up looking at this, you're wrong.

If you assume that normal is what is most advantageous from a (hypothetical) evolutionary standpoint (always hailing back to some idea of people back in caves- as though that's somehow relevant to today), then we're all in trouble. The human knee, wisdom teeth, appendix, etc. are all disadvantages that have not been weeded out by the "miraculous" evolution.

More importantly, however, to date there is absolutely nothing remotely conclusive tying ANY sexual identity to genes. We've got nothing. This would explain why sexual identities change so much across time and space- there's a biological capacity for sex, pleasure, desire, and emotional attachment, but it's the cultural context that determines how they are expressed.

And thus, evolution is actually a moot point in this discussion that serves to do nothing but reaffirm a circular logic that heterosexuality is the species ideal while homosexuality is its (somewhat) wicked step-sibling (read: DANGEROUS!)
I don't? I seem to recall having it as a major at one point... hmm... who do I believe... crazy jesse the gay activist... or college...hmmm...

Natural selection is a system whereby positive traits are selected for through sexual procreation to create changes in species over time. They can be aesthetic features, such as the plummage of male birds, or they can be functional features, such as say the beaks of finches, or a resistance to a disease. Some features are selected for, some features are selected against.

As a rule, any genetic based disease that afflicts creatures BEFORE child bearing age is selected against, because you are killed or seriously maimed before you can bear children, your genes will not be passed on, or are less likely to be passed on. Most of human evolution has taken place without civilization or modern medicine, so the cripples and the infirm and the diseased were likely just tossed out, no pity sex for them.

Any trait that makes you healthier, stronger, better able to provide for your family will be selected for. Stronger males can get more food for their family and defend their family making it more likely their offspring will survive, causing their traits to be passed on.

It all revolves around procreation, and for all but an absolute minute sliver of human existence it has been impossible to pass on your genes without having sex with a member of the opposite sex.

If homosexuality is genetic, and everyone is claiming they don't "chose" it, then it as a trait has been selected against for millions of years in all species.

It is a biological aberration.

Oh, and Jesse, traits that get selected against aren't just "bad traits" they have to either kill you before you reach child bearing age, or make you wholly undesirable as a mate if you reach child bearing age. Or, to sum up, any trait that reduces the likelihood of you procreating is selected against. Any trait that increases the likelihood of you procreating is selected for. Then, secondly, any trait that increases your ability to ensure the survival of your offspring is also selected for.

[ElanthianSiren]

Wisdom teeth and appendix actually are being weeded out via evolution, aren't they? I vaguely remember reading that more people are being born without them.

Though current medical procedures will probably reduce the need for those changes.

Wisdom teeth yeah. Appendix not that I've heard. I never got my wisdom teeth, (ftmfw), and was told this by a dentist also. Evolution doesn't care about current medical procedures; to evolution 100 years, or roughly 4 human generations, is a drop in the pan.

It cares about the fact that in antiquity, humans used to get wisdom teeth at age 17 18 19, which provided teeth after adult teeth rotted away. Wisdoms are modified molars, which means they can still do some grinding of grain and tearing of meat. That let you survive well into late 30s early 40s on a relatively easy to scrounge diet.

What likely happened is that by people surviving without wisdom teeth, the wisdomtoothless gene was amplified in the population and carried on.

Human sexuality, however, is polygenic, meaning tons of genes (ignore environment for now, though that's there too) are involved in anything from mate selection to courtship behaviors etc. Ergo, simple evolutionary genetics can't really be applied to a discussion of sexual preference. It's too complicated.

[ElanthianSiren]

For a reference as to why homosexual tendencies are too complicated, see bisexuality. Also see roman, (THIS IS SPARTA!), practice. See, the relatively rare, but still implicitly significant incidences of individuals who procreate then turn to a homosexual lifestyle.

After all that, we can get into artificial insemination and social expectations. Society has not always been a judeo-christian one mate fest though it has generally been one that emphasized reproduction to conserve genetics. However, most of antiquity was anything but monogomous and anything but defined into neat categories of straight and homosexual exclusively.

[Necromancer]

For a reference as to why homosexual tendencies are too complicated, see bisexuality. Also see roman, (THIS IS SPARTA!), practice. See, the relatively rare, but still implicitly significant incidences of individuals who procreate then turn to a homosexual lifestyle.

After all that, we can get into artificial insemination and social expectations. Society has not always been a judeo-christian one mate fest though it has generally been one that emphasized reproduction to conserve genetics. However, most of antiquity was anything but monogomous and anything but defined into neat categories of straight and homosexual exclusively.

QFT

Don't ever be fooled into thinking that the way we envision sexuality and talk about it reflects some objective reality (rather than creating it). It's just one way of thinking and *being* of many that have existed over the years and that exist today. And every single group of people over ever age has been utterly convinced that they way they envision desire and sex is the one, true, universal way. All of them have pieces of evidence and elaborate use of logic and argumentation to "prove" it- even when those different ideals have been truly inconsistent with each other. We're no different in that regard.

[Ravenstorm]

If homosexuality is genetic, and everyone is claiming they don't "chose" it, then it as a trait has been selected against for millions of years in all species.

It is a biological aberration.

And yet there it is in - as far as I am aware of - every mammalian species as well as most(?) avian ones. The only thing that is safe to say is that we don't know what benefit it gives a species. It is though beginning to be studied.

[Parkbandit]

And yet there it is in - as far as I am aware of - every mammalian species as well as most(?) avian ones. The only thing that is safe to say is that we don't know what benefit it gives a species. It is though beginning to be studied.

Because it is in every mammalian species doesn't automatically make it "normal". If it were normal, there would be no human race.

[crb]

And yet there it is in - as far as I am aware of - every mammalian species as well as most(?) avian ones. The only thing that is safe to say is that we don't know what benefit it gives a species. It is though beginning to be studied.
Albinoism, someone's apt example, is as well. Reptiles too, not just mammals, it is natural, but not normal.

[ElanthianSiren]

Albinoism, someone's apt example, is as well. Reptiles too, not just mammals, it is natural, but not normal.

Albinism is caused by a simple gene mutation that causes epistasis and prohibits melanin from being produced; Melanin produces pigment. Sexuality and sexual behavior is controlled by many genes. You can't compare the two because 1. there's little proof that homosexuality is a "mutation" versus a variable set of phenotypes 2. epistasis likely has little, if anything, to do with homosexuality.

[Stanley Burrell]

If being gay was the biological norm, we wouldn't survive.

There's a reason why a vag is "designed" to be penetrated, and an asshole isn't.

Rocco Siffredi.

[crb]

For a reference as to why homosexual tendencies are too complicated, see bisexuality. Also see roman, (THIS IS SPARTA!), practice. See, the relatively rare, but still implicitly significant incidences of individuals who procreate then turn to a homosexual lifestyle.

After all that, we can get into artificial insemination and social expectations. Society has not always been a judeo-christian one mate fest though it has generally been one that emphasized reproduction to conserve genetics. However, most of antiquity was anything but monogomous and anything but defined into neat categories of straight and homosexual exclusively.
Behavior of society or societal norms is irrelevant.

It is a far cry from being a Roman at an orgy and not caring if the person sucking you off is a 12 year old girl or a 12 year old boy. You're still attracted to the opposite sex, you're just not inhibited by social custom from getting an orgasm however you can.

The evolutionary fact is that any trait that makes it less likely for you to procreate is selected against and weeded out as much as possible.

A man who does not get sexually excited by women is not going to have a good probability to pass on his genes, it just isn't in the cards for that dude.

However... a woman who isn't sexually excited by men is irrelevant. The male takes what he wants, in all species where the males are stronger. So, if there is a gay gene (or really, series of genes) it would be kept in the population because of females carrying it, until the population progressed to a point where homosexual females were no longer forced into procreation, or perhaps no longer went along with it because of society.

I also happen to think there is likely a genetic source of homosexuality, simply because there are other characteristics. People with marfan syndrome tend to be tall with concave chests. Gay men tend to have higher voices, certain mannerisms, etc, among other things (and no, I'm not basing that off TV caricatures of gay men, just ones I've known IRL, all of them had high voices, and also, saying "tend to" is not the same thing as saying "100% of them do"). So since there are other characteristics accompanying the "condition" I'd think that most of it would be nature, and not nuture.

[crb]

Albinism is caused by a simple gene mutation that causes epistasis and prohibits melanin from being produced; Melanin produces pigment. Sexuality and sexual behavior is controlled by many genes. You can't compare the two because 1. there's little proof that homosexuality is a "mutation" versus a variable set of phenotypes 2. epistasis likely has little, if anything, to do with homosexuality.
Nice strawman, but I was not talking about anything like that.

Someone said "you can find homosexual behavior in many species, so it is normal."

I was pointing out that you can find albinos among many species as well, it doesn't make it normal. It makes it natural

Natural != normal. Get it?

[Stanley Burrell]

Being gay is probably natural as a means of population control.

That being said, all the women magnitate to gay guys like they were going to get split open by the gaycock in the first place, so something really wrong is happening here that's preventing me from getting laid.

I'd work out more, but I'm just not genetically predispositioned to be as buff as a gay dude. I just need to work on my abs and start talking with a lisp.

[ElanthianSiren]

Someone said "you can find homosexual behavior in many species, so it is normal."

I was pointing out that you can find albinos among many species as well, it doesn't make it normal. It makes it natural

Natural != normal. Get it?

I understand what you're saying. However, you're oversimplifying quite a few things and that was my point. Begin with the fact that you're trying to boil homosexuality down to something as simple as albinism.

To me, homosexuality is as normal as hetero or bisexuality, mid-to-high intelligence or mid-to-low intelligence, brown-flecked-blue eyes, grey-blue-green eyes, reddish-blonde hair or brownish-black hair. You are arguing qualitatively, based on your perceptions and trying to fit everything in a neat little box.

What I'm saying to you is that traits that are controlled by multiple factors don't fit into a neat box of homosexual or heterosexual or even bi sexual. They are incompletely penetrant in individuals.

[Ravenstorm]

Because it is in every mammalian species doesn't automatically make it "normal". If it were normal, there would be no human race.

I wasn't arguing the "normality". I was saying that what benefit it gives to a species is not known. That a trait which by its very nature would keep one from passing it on is so extremely prevalent in nature is indicative that there is likely to be a benefit to the species that contains it. Just what that benefit is will be interesting to discover, if it ever is. (And no, I'm not arguing that there's a gay gene. It's most likely a whole series of them in combination that don't always get activated.)

[Necromancer]

For the record, homosexuality is a cultural designation that goes far beyond same-sex behavior.

And same-sex behavior is not found in every mammalian species. It's found in some species of animals, but it's not universal by any stretch. Then again, neither is exclusive opposite-sex behavior. (with some species actually preferring same-sex sexual relationships and companionship over opposite-sex on the aggregate)

But, again, same-sex behavior does not equal homosexuality (and vice versa)

[ElanthianSiren]

Behavior of society or societal norms is irrelevant.

It is a far cry from being a Roman at an orgy and not caring if the person sucking you off is a 12 year old girl or a 12 year old boy. You're still attracted to the opposite sex, you're just not inhibited by social custom from getting an orgasm however you can.

The evolutionary fact is that any trait that makes it less likely for you to procreate is selected against and weeded out as much as possible.

A man who does not get sexually excited by women is not going to have a good probability to pass on his genes, it just isn't in the cards for that dude.

However... a woman who isn't sexually excited by men is irrelevant. The male takes what he wants, in all species where the males are stronger. So, if there is a gay gene (or really, series of genes) it would be kept in the population because of females carrying it, until the population progressed to a point where homosexual females were no longer forced into procreation, or perhaps no longer went along with it because of society.

I also happen to think there is likely a genetic source of homosexuality, simply because there are other characteristics. People with marfan syndrome tend to be tall with concave chests. Gay men tend to have higher voices, certain mannerisms, etc, among other things (and no, I'm not basing that off TV caricatures of gay men, just ones I've known IRL, all of them had high voices, and also, saying "tend to" is not the same thing as saying "100% of them do"). So since there are other characteristics accompanying the "condition" I'd think that most of it would be nature, and not nuture.

Spartans by the way, weren't known for orgies really. They were known for marrying to procreate and for having very close ties with the males that they grew up around, including very sexual relationships/apprenticeships etc.

Here is where our communication disconnect is. I don't believe there is A gay gene. I believe there are many genes that control whether or not a person is homosexual and has classically homosexual characteristics. To that effect, I believe that sexuality, in any human, is a mosaic of many things. That, in itself, explains why homosexuality expresses lower population precidence. It has nothing to do with "normal" for me, more recombination frequencies. In something as simple as a double cross over event, you will always get recombinants.

Now imagine if homosexuality is controlled by 30 or 40 genes. That's a whole lot of cross overs and opportunities for recombinations. Then add in the environment.

[g++]

Homosexuality might not be evolutionarily useful, but that doesn't mean anything. Homosexual people, animals, etc, continue to be born of straight parents due to numerous factors we can't yet identify. The only link between albinoism and homosexuality, in that point, is that it makes no sense to blame or discriminate something for being something they have no power over.



It could be evolutionarily useful in the event that all wealth or goods was concentrated with a minority of men. Forming a relationship with those men would be a significant advantage over a heterosexual man that could even lead to you surviving instead of them and going on to reproduce. The idea of evolution is that the population is diverse enough to over come many many many situations not that evolution will eventually result in some sort of super race of people that are all the same.

It could be construed as beneficial to be homosexual in a myriad of situations in the past. Just not in America in the past couple hundred years.

[Necromancer]

It could be evolutionarily useful in the event that all wealth or goods was concentrated with a minority of men. Forming a relationship with those men would be a significant advantage over a heterosexual man that could even lead to you surviving instead of them and going on to reproduce. The idea of evolution is that the population is diverse enough to over come many many many situations not that evolution will eventually result in some sort of super race of people that are all the same.

It could be construed as beneficial to be homosexual in a myriad of situations in the past. Just not in America in the past couple hundred years.

The problem with evolution stories like this is they're always told backwards. We take the situation we see now, and then we start speculating on some possible stories that could justify why things are today. They're no different than Aesop's fables- first you figure the moral THEN you write the story to support it. The reality of the situation is that evolution is just as random as the rest of life. A rogue environmental accident can destroy genetic markers that are an advantage, and genetic traits that are serious detriments can still carry along in a line with no problems. Any attempt to make too much rhyme or reason as to why things are the way they are now based on a hypothetical about some sort of "higher" purpose (to serve the species) is just us trying to bring order to chaos.

The very way we talk about evolution has been highly criticized as being nothing more than a mad lib version of "God" talk. It used to be a higher power wanted things the way they were today- that was god. Now the higher power is evolution/genes. No one in their right mind would deny that evolution actually occurs, but the way we anthropormorphize it says a lot more about our culture than it does about how the world actually works.

[g++]

The problem with evolution stories like this is they're always told backwards. We take the situation we see now, and then we start speculating on some possible stories that could justify why things are today. They're no different than Aesop's fables- first you figure the moral THEN you write the story to support it. The reality of the situation is that evolution is just as random as the rest of life. A rogue environmental accident can destroy genetic markers that are an advantage, and genetic traits that are serious detriments can still carry along in a line with no problems. Any attempt to make too much rhyme or reason as to why things are the way they are now based on a hypothetical about some sort of "higher" purpose (to serve the species) is just us trying to bring order to chaos.

The very way we talk about evolution has been highly criticized as being nothing more than a mad lib version of "God" talk. It used to be a higher power wanted things the way they were today- that was god. Now the higher power is evolution/genes. No one in their right mind would deny that evolution actually occurs, but the way we anthropormorphize it says a lot more about our culture than it does about how the world actually works.

The story was not the point. The point is that evolution always retains elements that are not useful in the here and now because they may be later. Evolution does not lead to a blueprint of perfection where everyone is popping kids out as fast as possible. That was my point.

[Necromancer]

Gotcha

[crb]

You guys need to reread a science book, 8th grade level should suffice.

Or maybe this:

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

It isn't random. Hence the word "selection."

Or do you subscribe to some non-Darwin theory of evolution?

[g++]

You guys need to reread a science book, 8th grade level should suffice.

Or maybe this:

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

It isn't random. Hence the word "selection."

Or do you subscribe to some non-Darwin theory of evolution?

You dont have any idea what your talking about and I am not going to teach introductory genetics on a message board for your benefit. So take your own advice and grab a text book.

[Parkbandit]

That's not his point, Siren. There's just a semantic difference in the word "normal" versus "natural." Homosexuality is natural, but it's not "normal" in the sense that it's not COMMON in sheer numbers.

Homosexuality might not be evolutionarily useful, but that doesn't mean anything. Homosexual people, animals, etc, continue to be born of straight parents due to numerous factors we can't yet identify. The only link between albinoism and homosexuality, in that point, is that it makes no sense to blame or discriminate something for being something they have no power over.

A lot of the bias against homosexuality is rooted in the misguided notion that homosexuality is a "choice" caused by corruption of character, giving in to temptation (are all straight people tempted into gay sex, and only homosexuals "cave in"? Most reasonable people realize that argument's bullshit) rather than choose to view it the opposite way, from a religious perspective: if a god created everyone, they supposedly created the gay people, animals, etc, we also see and it makes no sense to subjugate them or discriminate against them.

I think you forgot to switch accounts.

[crb]

I understand what you're saying. However, you're oversimplifying quite a few things and that was my point. Begin with the fact that you're trying to boil homosexuality down to something as simple as albinism.

To me, homosexuality is as normal as hetero or bisexuality, mid-to-high intelligence or mid-to-low intelligence, brown-flecked-blue eyes, grey-blue-green eyes, reddish-blonde hair or brownish-black hair. You are arguing qualitatively, based on your perceptions and trying to fit everything in a neat little box.

What I'm saying to you is that traits that are controlled by multiple factors don't fit into a neat box of homosexual or heterosexual or even bi sexual. They are incompletely penetrant in individuals.
1. Someone else brought up albinos, I just used it.

2. It isn't normal. So long as you're speaking from a scientific standpoint and not some political correct standpoint, it isn't normal. Is is abnormal for a trait to be expressed that inhibits sexual procreation of a species.

And also, for those still on about other species being gay. Look, sexual reproduction goes way back, from before humans were humans. The genes for sexuality are old, really old, and shared across a variety of species, kingdoms even. It doesn't make it normal that there is a common malfunction in a shared trait.

And I never said there was a "gay gene" by the way, of course there isn't. There really isn't "a gene" for most traits. Which is why I said "if there is a gay gene (gene[b]s really) then.."



It could be evolutionarily useful in the event that all wealth or goods was concentrated with a minority of men. Forming a relationship with those men would be a significant advantage over a heterosexual man that could even lead to you surviving instead of them and going on to reproduce. The idea of evolution is that the population is diverse enough to over come many many many situations not that evolution will eventually result in some sort of super race of people that are all the same.

It could be construed as beneficial to be homosexual in a myriad of situations in the past. Just not in America in the past couple hundred years.

Your concept of time needs a little work. You're thinking hundreds of years, and you need to think millions of years. Traits for sexuality go way back, as do most traits, its why your cat has 2 ears, 2 eyes, a nose, teeth, a tongue, and a cock, just like you. The concept of "wealth" or "money" has not existed for all but the smallest sliver of time of human evolution. When considering human evolution, you really need to look at our animal instincts only, human civilization has not existed long enough to affect human evolution.

And this..



The idea of evolution is that the population is diverse enough to over come many many many situations not that evolution will eventually result in some sort of super race of people that are all the same.


Is wrong, very very wrong. Um... take say Indians, evolving on the Indian subcontinent protected by mountains, they evolved unique characteristics in appearance. Suppose they had stayed isolated for tens of thousands of years they may have turned into their own species and indeed be unable to mate with say, Europeans. See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Speciation

Natural selection is, indeed, the search for a superior genome. Now... your point about diversity is how evolution can happen. Consider a plant species, a bunch of varieties of oak trees growing natural in prehistoric North America. Say a pathogen is introduced and kills 50% of the oaks, the 50% that lived have now been selected naturally and their genes will pass on to create future oaks, but perhaps now you have less diversity. So maybe then in the future a pathogen comes but since the oaks are so similar this time it kills 95%, sucks for the oaks, but the 5% who live are superior, being immune to both pathogens, so they live on. Rinse, repeat, eventually you have oak trees that are resistant to most diseases, but then the diseases evolve, it is as arms race, that keeps ongoing.

[g++]

Natural selection is, indeed, the search for a superior genome. Now... your point about diversity is how evolution can happen. Consider a plant species, a bunch of varieties of oak trees growing natural in prehistoric North America. Say a pathogen is introduced and kills 50% of the oaks, the 50% that lived have now been selected naturally and their genes will pass on to create future oaks, but perhaps now you have less diversity. So maybe then in the future a pathogen comes but since the oaks are so similar this time it kills 95%, sucks for the oaks, but the 5% who live are superior, being immune to both pathogens, so they live on. Rinse, repeat, eventually you have oak trees that are resistant to most diseases, but then the diseases evolve, it is as arms race, that keeps ongoing.

There is no such thing as a superior genome because our genome does not know where the fuck it is, your assuming your genome has a will to survive that simply does not exist in proteins. Your right in that it is kind of like an arms race, unfortunately your under the impression that you will only need one kind of weapon.

Since your so fond of middle school biology lets talk about Mendell.

Lets say I plant 100 pea plants where 25% are double recesssive (tt) 50% are heterozygous Tt and 25% are dominant (TT) for a trait tall where TT means they are tall and tt means they are short and Tt means they are tall. Now every 100 generations of pea plants I either decide to apply a screen where tt individuals all die or weed wack where most TT and Tt individuals will die. I could continue doing this ad naseum for ever and the plants would still be carrying all genotypes fine because they are diverse to the situation. If they all turned to TT after 100 generations and I weed wacked they would all die. Evolution does not happen on an individual basis it happens on a population level. A population will carry a trait that is percieved to be a detriment for a very very very long time sometimes not even showing up in the carriers.

Bottle-necking in endangered species causes the animals to basically be retarded to their enviornment because they are so genetically undiverse and they tend to be more prone to epidemic death than species that were never bottle necked.

Anyway going out drinking well have to continue later.

[Warriorbird]

In a society so advanced that gay folks can have children... who's to say that they are wrong?

[Athgo]

In a society so advanced that gay folks can have children... who's to say that they are wrong?

I think thats why this became a genetic argument, it makes things much simpler.

[AnticorRifling]

In a society so advanced that gay folks can have children... who's to say that they are wrong?
I'd be wary of using technology to validate morality.

[Warriorbird]

I'm wary of using a 1700-2000 year old book... but hey, we all have to use something.