US Elections 2008

[Eggs in a Bottle]

Originally Posted by mg1942

To procreate, and continue/sustain familyl lineage. That's it.

If I'm not wrong, genetically we are still walking monkeys that hunt mammoths with spears.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by mg1942

That's it? More benefits? To deepen the deficit and bankrupt california?


PS: DO not connect civil rights movement of the late 20th century to some sexual preference movement, it's a disrespect to the original meaning of the movement 30-40 years ago.

You read that list and all you can see are "benefits"? Seriously?

Also of note, you apparently think that people should be taxed more depending on sexual orientation. I could see demanding the abolition of all couple-related tax benefits (who asked those people to form families anyway?), but why should homosexuals pay more?

Originally Posted by ani_d

Well, prop 8 is a California state ballot afterall.

I'm not a lawyer, but from what I understand, there are laws forcing states to recognize marriages formed in other states. For example, you could get drunk in Vegas, get married, and get back to California, and you'd still be married. Even if California has stricter conditions on the eligibility for marriage. (Does it?)

OTOH, you can register for partnership in California, go on vacation to Vegas, and suddenly your partnership's worth spit. If your partner gets into an accident, the hospital won't consider you a next of kin.

[Clarste]

Originally Posted by mg1942

To procreate, and continue/sustain familyl lineage. That's it.

You don't need to marry to have children. Plenty of people don't. Marriage has to do with property and ownership (particularly inheritance).

Plus, from your perspective, adoption makes no sense.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by mg1942

To procreate, and continue/sustain familyl lineage. That's it.

OK, I can see why you'd think there's a genetic... influence for a man and a woman to get married and have kids. Now, explain to me why there isn't a similar genetic imperative for same-sex to get married and adopt kids.

[SeijiSensei]

Originally Posted by mg1942

The whole gay marriage thing is not a (new) civil rights issue, it's been won 10-20 years ago. They are trying to equate a sexual preference with something genetic. there is no comparison

Funny how the gay community doesn't think it's been "won," yet. Wonder why they think that?

I heard a black pastor from California the other morning claim that there is no equivalence between civil rights issues based on race and rights based on sexual preference. That's because many people still see homosexuality as a "preference," not as "something genetic." Considering the degree of discrimination and abuse many homosexuals encounter in daily life, I find it hard to believe anyone consciously chooses homosexuality over heterosexuality. If you want to consider race "God-given" then you need to accept homosexuality as "God-given" as well.

At least the CA vote will improve tourism here in economically beleaguered, gay-loving Massachusetts.

One of my college classmates who's now a biology professor pointed out that determining in a scientifically conclusive way whether someone is male or female is a very difficult task, much more difficult than simply a question of which plumbing a person displays. (And some people have unusual plumbing as well; what about them?)

[james0246]

Originally Posted by mg1942

If you are for same-sex marriage, does the couple have to be homosexual?

Spoiler for longer reply:

^{Remember, if you answer yes, you are discriminating based on sexual preference.}

Let's imagine...

I love my sister...
Should I be allowed to marry her?

Or my mother? Why should the state be allowed to prevent my mother and me from marrying if we both want to?

Why should the state limit me to only one spouse? I love both my wife and my brother, perhaps I should be allowed to marry both? Heck, my mother can join in on our marriage too . . . she's a good cook.

While we are at it, why don't we get the state to force my employer to allow me to add all 3 people I am now married to (my wife, brother, and mother) to my employer's group health insurance policy? Actually, my brother is already married, so I need to add his wife and three children onto my policy too...

Hmmmm... probably shouldn't mention the horse down the street...

^{Ok, serious business mode...Maybe some people fail to realize that marriage has always had restrictions and that we all have to live with those restrictions. Those restrictions include, you can't marry your brother, sister, mother, father, grandfather, grandmother, grandkids, more than one person, children of either sex, animals, or even fictional 2D characters. Another thing some people fail to recognize is that we ALL have the exact same rights to marry someone of the opposite sex. Every person in America has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Marriage has been an institution between a Man and a Woman for thousands of years.}

^{The whole gay marriage thing is not a (new) civil rights issue, it's been won 10-20 years ago. They are trying to equate a sexual preference with something genetic. there is no comparison.}

First of all, why are you placing Gay Marriage on the same moral level as a consenting Incestuous relationship? They are not morally equivalent, nor have they ever been morally equivalent.

Secondly, I agree with you. Incest between consenting adults is a victimless crime (unless we start making it a crime to produce genetically deficient offspring). If you wanted to be with your sister I would not stop you, so long as you were both consenting adults (New Jersey famously does not prosecute Incest over the age of 18, and several other states have similar laws (that being said, Massachusetts has a 20 year sentence for anyone committing incest)), nor should you be stopped.

That being said, Incest has nothing to do with same-sex marriages, so I am unsure why you are bring up your strange desires for your various family members .

Sex involving a child is, of course, sexual abuse. So, it is obvious why pedophilia is illegal.

Sex involving an animal is also sexual abuse. Specifically, the animal cannot consent to the sexual advances, and in many respects is hurt by the sexual encounter. So, it is obvious why bestiality is illegal.

Polygamy is considered illegal by the supreme court because it detracted from women's personal freedoms.

In the end, there is no reason to ban gay marriage, whether or not that also means we have to accept consenting incestuous relationships is a totally different matter all together (they are seperate, and have to be argued seperatly), but the rest of your points are invalid and inconsequential to the actual discussion of marriage. Additionally, we still have to decide on transexual marriage, so there are still many debates to be had before marriage rights can be laid to rest .

[Slice of Life]

Originally Posted by mg1942

That's it? More benefits? To deepen the deficit and bankrupt california?

When you're pro gay/straight equality this argument is unfounded. When you're against it it's unnecessary. So no matter how you look at it ...

[Vexx]

Being a member of a marriage which was ILLEGAL in many states no more than a few decades ago (interracial), I can't say I put much weight on the arguments against the right of any two people to "marry". Again, I think "marriage" ought to be a religious term and the state should get out of it as a church vs state issue --- the state should only issue a form of civil union legal instrument that grants the rights that razer listed above.

But here we are with particular religious factions trying to impose their interpretation of doctrine (i.e. religious control of sex) on other people...

[Solace]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

One of my college classmates who's now a biology professor pointed out that determining in a scientifically conclusive way whether someone is male or female is a very difficult task, much more difficult than simply a question of which plumbing a person displays. (And some people have unusual plumbing as well; what about them?)

Personally I think this will be an even greater challenge than the issues over homosexuality. It's one thing to debate about sexual orientation, but gender....hoo boy, that's gonna be a painful one.

I think this will especially be an issue seeing as how science typically moves faster than cultural views do. People have a hard enough time understanding current transgender people, once science creates better methods of switching (and it will happen), some very ingrained views of how the world should be will be shaken.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by mg1942

^{Ok, serious business mode...Maybe some people fail to realize that marriage has always had restrictions and that we all have to live with those restrictions. Those restrictions include, you can't marry your brother, sister, mother, father, grandfather, grandmother, grandkids, more than one person, children of either sex, animals, or even fictional 2D characters. Another thing some people fail to recognize is that we ALL have the exact same rights to marry someone of the opposite sex. Every person in America has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. Marriage has been an institution between a Man and a Woman for thousands of years.
The whole gay marriage thing is not a (new) civil rights issue, it's been won 10-20 years ago. They are trying to equate a sexual preference with something genetic. there is no comparison.}

What's the point of a homosexual couple each having the right to marry someone of the opposite gender? They're attracted to people of the same gender. Of course you already know that. Just because marriage has "always" been between a man and a woman doesn't mean it should remain that way. That's simply an appeal to tradition fallacy. Our overall culture has changed over time. As such, we have to look at how marriage fits into our current culture and determine if it should be changed.

Also there is evidence of homosexuality having a biological basis. It's not a choice someone makes one day to be gay. If it was, given the discrimination homosexuals face in many parts of the country, why would anyone in their right mind decide to be gay? Did they think life was too easy and wanted to do something that would make people hate them for no real reason?

As for the first part of your post, incestual relationships are a problem for a different reason. There is a greater, though frequently overstated, likelyhood of passing on a genetic disorder. As long as you won't have children, and you're all concenting adults, I don't see the problem with allowing incestous marriage. Though I do see problems with requiring genetic screening or regulation about having children.

[WanderingKnight]

I... I... I really can't understand how anti-gay people can even bear to argue against it. I can't understand how in the blazes they pretend to make a logical argument about it and prevent the contradictions from burning their (rather weak) brain.

I won't even get in the incest discussion (though I believe any two people should have the right to marry, even brothers/sisters/you name it) because it isn't even remotely related to the gay issue.

They are trying to equate a sexual preference with something genetic. there is no comparison.

And who the hell cares about genetics. Marriage isn't genetic. Marriage is preference. Sexual preference (I won't marry the first woman I find on the street, and I'm sure as hell you aren't, either).

[yezhanquan]

My take on homosexuality is: Don't force yourself on me. Other than that, I couldn't care less about what you do. It's not my business to interfere, nor should it be.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by SeijiSensei

I heard a black pastor from California the other morning claim that there is no equivalence between civil rights issues based on race and rights based on sexual preference. That's because many people still see homosexuality as a "preference," not as "something genetic." Considering the degree of discrimination and abuse many homosexuals encounter in daily life, I find it hard to believe anyone consciously chooses homosexuality over heterosexuality. If you want to consider race "God-given" then you need to accept homosexuality as "God-given" as well.

As long as the God they believe in forbids homosexual relationships, there is hardly something you can do about it, at least for now. But, if many (or all) people within that community recognize their sexual orientation from a very young age, then, you cannot provide any logic to say it is not genetic, especially when the implication of the word was not even known well at that age. Of course, it won't be easy to make those people understand the meaning of that, but, it will happen. There is no escape.

Originally Posted by Kamui4356

Just because marriage has "always" been between a man and a woman doesn't mean it should remain that way.

No matter how rightful it can be, you can not deny the strangeness of it.

[Autumn Demon]

Prop 8 passing is sad news but hopefully gay marriage will be legalized in New York now that Democrats control the State Senate.

[Vexx]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

As long as the God they believe in forbids homosexual relationships, there is hardly something you can do about it, at least for now.

Ah but there's the inconsistency .... Certain people sit there in their poly-cotton blend outfits, eating mussels, lobster, and pork, getting and charging interest, and committing many abominations from the same set of paragraphs they like to use to condemn the idea of gay marriage. Most of the proscriptions (e.g. better to bonk a trollop than to waste seed) come from the Old Testament, i.e., the Jewish part of the Bible. Jesus has pretty much nothing to say on the topic other than "get over it, you're all mulch without going my way and stop throwing stones unless you're sinless".

So.... the USA is a country founded on the idea that no particular religion get a special swag at how the laws work out. Unless there's a logical rational argument to be made against it (have not seen one yet), that it somehow interferes with the function of society -- then there ought to be a legal instrument which gives any two people the civil rights, responsibilities, and benefits of the concept that for convenience I'll call "marriage".

[Solace]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

As long as the God they believe in forbids homosexual relationships, there is hardly something you can do about it, at least for now.

Let's be clear here though - not every religious person or group believes in condemning homosexuality. Many do believe that rights should be equal, even if some of those people don't agree on what to call the union (semantics I suppose but hey, it's a start). I guess using the M word is a bit much for now.

On the other hand, it's difficult for them to have a voice when raving loonies like this are around:

The organization, founded and led by Fred Phelps, believes the United States has condemned itself to destruction by accepting homosexuality and other “sins of the flesh.” Phelps’ daughter, Shirley Phelps-Roper, said the Virginia Tech teachers and students who died on Monday brought their fate upon themselves by not being true Christians.

“The evidence is they were not Christian. God does not do that to his servants,” Phelps-Roper said. “You don’t need to look any further for evidence those people are in hell.”

Cho Seung-Hui, the Virginia Tech student responsible for the killings who took his own life after the shootings, was sent by God to punish those he killed, and America as a whole, for moral decline, said Phelps-Roper, while adding that she believes Cho is also in hell for violating God’s commandment to not kill.

“He is in hell,” Phelps-Roper said. “But he was also fulfilling the word of God.”

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/...n2699800.shtml

Can one have faith, but be faithless? I wonder.

[ani_d]

Now we're talking about genetics? I'm gonna say this though, there are no solid medical evidences to say that a 'gay gene' exists. Many tried to prove it but ultimately failed in the end.

Originally Posted by Anh_Minh

I'm not a lawyer, but from what I understand, there are laws forcing states to recognize marriages formed in other states. For example, you could get drunk in Vegas, get married, and get back to California, and you'd still be married. Even if California has stricter conditions on the eligibility for marriage. (Does it?)

I'm not a lawyer too so I can't answer what other states will do, California's state law is California's state law. But the fact that Prop 8 is specific to California's issue also means that even if it failed and gay marriage was legalized, they'll still have a problem with other states that doesn't recognize gay marriage. It should go both ways.

... I... I really can't understand how anti-gay people can even bear to argue against it. I can't understand how in the blazes they pretend to make a logical argument about it and prevent the contradictions from burning their (rather weak) brain.

Apparently, it's not about telling people not to be gay because that's intrusion of individual's free will, it's about telling them that what gay activists want, which is changing the definition of "marriage," is stepping on conservatives' beliefs. It's one thing to respect gay relationship, but it's also another thing to embrace it together with your family and children, (why do you think people can live in harmony despite their differences?) and when they know they're going to get affected, people start to complain and this kind of clash happens.

What kind of "equal rights" are we talking about seriously? Gays are NOT treated like slaves in California. Domestic partnership already have the same rights and protection of a married couple here in Cali. If this is all just about the rights and protection, they already have it. Is this about the wedding gown and the bells? lol

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Vexx

Ah but there's the inconsistency .... Certain people sit there in their poly-cotton blend outfits, eating mussels, lobster, and pork, getting and charging interest, and committing many abominations from the same set of paragraphs they like to use to condemn the idea of gay marriage.

Those are the people who had gotten over it, most probably. The problem lies in the poor or ordinary people who are trying to live their own lives according to their principles (whom has a bulkier presence when it comes to distributing the equally-weighted votes). It is not like they were given all the opportunity to examine whats or whys. And, we cannot expect them to change those overnight. Even though they live together with people they condemn in the same society, even though they are aware that many people are like that, and they are living a lifestyle they consider wrong, if you give them a choice whether to make things change or go the way it is, they will choose to protect the status quo.

Most of the proscriptions (e.g. better to bonk a trollop than to waste seed) come from the Old Testament, i.e., the Jewish part of the Bible. Jesus has pretty much nothing to say on the topic other than "get over it, you're all mulch without going my way and stop throwing stones unless you're sinless".

Unless there's a logical rational argument to be made against it (have not seen one yet), that it somehow interferes with the function of society -- then there ought to be a legal instrument which gives any two people the civil rights, responsibilities, and benefits of the concept that for convenience I'll call "marriage".

Probably, they assume by giving the same rights would mean making it much easier for them to raise children in their own ways, it becomes a tough decision to make for them. Especially if they see it as a preference.

[mg1942]

Originally Posted by Razer_2mb

Yeah, they're just complaining like the blacks. They should just be happy they could sit on the bus, but only in the back.


Here are some rights civil unions and domestic partnerships don't grant:

1. Joint parental rights of children
2. Joint adoption
3. Status as "next-of-kin" for hospital visits and medical decisions
4. Right to make a decision about the disposal of loved ones remains
5. Immigration and residency for partners from other countries
6. Crime victims recovery benefits
7. Domestic violence protection orders
8. Judicial protections and immunity
9. Automatic inheritance in the absence of a will
10. Public safety officers death benefits
11. Spousal veterans benefits
12. Social Security
13. Medicare
14. Joint filing of tax returns
15. Wrongful death benefits for surviving partner and children
16. Bereavement or sick leave to care for partner or children
17. Child support
18. Joint Insurance Plans
19. Tax credits including: Child tax credit, Hope and lifetime learning credits
20. Deferred Compensation for pension and IRAs
21. Estate and gift tax benefits
22. Welfare and public assistance
23. Joint housing for elderly
24. Credit protection
25. Medical care for survivors and dependents of certain veterans

You know, nothing important.

hmmmm that looks outdated.

All of those things that homosexuals don't get now in their partnerships could be granted via a law that gives equal status to civil unions or whatever you want to call them.

[Solace]

Originally Posted by mg1942

hmmmm that looks outdated.

All of those things that homosexuals don't get now in their partnerships could be granted via a law that gives equal status to civil unions or whatever you want to call them.

Separate but equal then?