[cherdano]

effervesce, on Nov 10 2008, 06:45 AM, said:

I'll make this clear-I'm not against gay marriage because of evolutionary reasons or whatever - or eugenics (Holocaust #2 anyone?). Society as a whole is designed to circumvent evolution- supporting the weak, elderly, valuing helping others, etc. I'm simply trying to make two points - it may be in society's interests to promote straight unions over gay unions - and that if a particular society decides to vote against gay marriage, then so be it. They have spoken and decided their values - that marriage is a union between a man and woman. A similar issue in America are gun laws-America's people have decided that guns are ok for individuals to own. Most other societies in the world, however, have decided the opposite-that guns are not ok. It looks like California has decided that gay marriage is not ok.

But your theory is non-sense. It doesn't make sense for society to try to pressure gays into surpressing their feelings. This pressure is already bad enough as it is, and it leads to millions of Americans having to lead a conflicted life.
You really think that is good for society? You are out of your mind.

[Lobowolf]

cherdano, on Nov 10 2008, 12:34 PM, said:

Some people believe global warming doesn't exist



In any case, I don't think you are right about the reasons why Californians voted in favor of proposition 8. Many voted in favor because they are prejudiced against gays, because they find the thought of gay sex disgusting, or maybe because they believed pro-proposition 8 adds that allowing gay marriage would sooner or later lead to teachers encouraging homosexuality in kindergardens (or s.th. like that, I am only mildly exaggerating).

Quote

Some people believe global warming doesn't exist

Yes, but these are mostly the same idiots that didn't believe that global cooling existed, when that hit Newsweek in the mid-70's.


On a slightly less facetious note...

Quote

In any case, I don't think you are right about the reasons why Californians voted in favor of proposition 8. Many voted in favor because they are prejudiced against gays, because they find the thought of gay sex disgusting, or maybe because they believed pro-proposition 8 adds that allowing gay marriage would sooner or later lead to teachers encouraging homosexuality in kindergardens (or s.th. like that, I am only mildly exaggerating).

Unfortunately, agree...but the tend toward acceptance, at least in California, is strong and fast based on the last 2 votes. I think the landscape will change faster than most people expected (and faster than I'd expected, before seeing how close Prop. 8 was to defeat).

[awm]

helene_t, on Nov 10 2008, 12:21 PM, said:

I see that another Californian poll was about hi-speed trains from LA to SF. Any thoughts?

This is one of the propositions that in principle wasn't a bad idea, but which I voted against because it required large amounts of deficit spending.

The problem is, California has a very serious budget crisis (legislature can't seem to pass a budget, we are way in debt, etc). There needs to be some fiscal responsibility. But most people see these propositions and say "hi-speed train, that sounds cool, I support public transit, I'll vote for it." They don't see the multi-billion dollar price tag to be financed by selling further bonds.

If we want more public transportation, why not raise the gas tax to pay for the train? Or put a tax on auto sales based on gas mileage? Or install a cap-and-trade system and charge for the carbon emission permits?

And why can't our state legislature and governor enact these sorts of things? Why does every single major decision have to be punted to (mostly unqualified to read the legalese) voters? Don't we elect these people and pay their salaries to go live in Sacramento and decide these things for us?

[akhare]

cherdano, on Nov 10 2008, 12:41 PM, said:

It doesn't make sense for society to try to pressure gays into surpressing their feelings. This pressure is already bad enough as it is, and it leads to millions of Americans having to lead a conflicted life.
You really think that is good for society? You are out of your mind.

Coming from a place (India) with more repressive attitudes and laws, I have seen firsthand instances where gay men married women just to conform to societal expectations. The outcome was (predictably) and tragically disastrous for both parties.

Sadly, the outdated (Victorian) laws against "abhorent" behaviour (sic) are still on the books and are to date used to persecute and harass gays (mainly for monetary gain, but I can only imagine the the mental anguish, humiliation and suffering it causes).

The Indian Supreme Court is considering a motion to rescind these laws, but the federal government appealed against it on the grounds that such laws for are required the "moral well being of the society!!!". The government's argument certainly sounds like an echo of the amusing/absurd one made by the original poster...

[luke warm]

helene_t, on Nov 10 2008, 07:36 AM, said:

Thanks, Jimmy (and sorry if I have wrongly accused you of being anti-gay). You said that you would prefer no laws regulating marriage, not sure what that means. Some people here have phrased it as two (or more) consenting adults can sign whatever contract they want and the government shouldn't interfere with it. Not sure if that is you POV. FWIW I think it sounds very idealistic but practically speaking, Californians are stuck with certain laws that give a special status to married couples, and the question was if two people have to be of opposite sex to get that special legal status.

well i know there must be laws for there to be society, i just feel that the more local the laws the more say the people have... as i've said many times before, i have to separate my personal beliefs from my "governmental" beliefs in discussions like this... what i'm saying is, the voters of calif. have spoken and i don't think it's the place of the federal gov't to intercede in this... californians can always repeal this amendment if that's their wish

[awm]

luke warm, on Nov 10 2008, 02:03 PM, said:

well i know there must be laws for there to be society, i just feel that the more local the laws the more say the people have... as i've said many times before, i have to separate my personal beliefs from my "governmental" beliefs in discussions like this... what i'm saying is, the voters of calif. have spoken and i don't think it's the place of the federal gov't to intercede in this... californians can always repeal this amendment if that's their wish

Sometimes it is the local government that decides to oppress people and take away their rights. The question is, who then should stand up to the local government?

Historically, a bunch of state governments decided that black people should be slaves. Should the federal government have figured "well, that's South Carolina's decision, the voters of South Carolina (not including the black people or women who were denied voting rights of course) have spoken, it's not the place of the federal government to intercede, South Carolinans can always eliminate slavery if that's their wish"?

Perhaps a reasonable question to ask is, does the US constitution exist only to define the powers and limitations of the federal government or does it also place limitations upon the powers of state and local governments? It is worth noting that both parties have strongly stated that the constitution should restrict the rights of state and local governments (for Democrats this has mostly revolved around free speech and privacy rights and separation of church and state, for Republicans often the right to bear arms and freedom of religion).

[jdonn]

To put it another way, personally I'm far more interested in what is "right" than what the respective roles of the areas of government are. Discriminating against a group of people is certainly not right, and I could care less whether my state or local government are the ones to stop it.

Edit: Or federal!

[Codo]

Lobowolf, on Nov 11 2008, 01:51 AM, said:

Codo, on Nov 10 2008, 09:28 AM, said:

I have the opinion that gays should have the right to have a legal union.

But there is exactly no reason to give this right to them.

In the United States, at least, there's a reason. It's called the Equal Protection Clause, and it's found in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Huh?

Any man has the right to marry one woman.

Every woman has the right to marry one man.

Where is this not equal?

Nowadays nobody is allowed to marry more then one - equal rights to anybody.
Nobody is allow to marry one of the same gender- equal rights again.

Sorry this equal right stuff is a very important thing and I am very glad that we have it.

In my opinion it just does not work here. If you allow gay marriage, you allow gay marriage to anybody- gay or straight- and you still have equal rights. IT simply does not matter.

But I really enjoy the discussion.

[Codo]

TimG, on Nov 11 2008, 02:05 AM, said:

Codo, on Nov 10 2008, 09:28 AM, said:

So there are reasons why a family between a man and a woman is something special. But this is not true for gay marriage. There is no history and no easy way to raise children.

Is it easy for a heterosexual couple to raise children?

I don't see why it should be any easier or harder for homosexual couples, except for difficulties related to the stigma applied by society.

I just tried to find reasons why the states do benefit to parents.

Of course it is not easy at all to raise children.

But if my memory serves me right (and it sometimes fails) statistics claim that children are healthier and successfuller when they grew up in a more or less normal family, so maybe the family is on average the best way to raise them.

(but I doubt that there had been any studies about kids in gay families compared with straight families- maybe insufficent data till now.)

But it surely is more difficult to raise them for gay couples. For a start: It is much more difficult to get the baby and most gay pairs will be unable for breathfeeding. If you and your boyfriend try to raise a little girl, it is quite difficult to teach her the role of a mother/Wife/Woman- there is simply nobody there to teach them by simply living at their side.

Of course it is possible to overcome all these additional difficulties. But they are still there.

[helene_t]

And if mixed race marriage was banned you would say, everyone has the right to marry someone of the same race, so its not discrimination? This is silly.

[akhare]

Codo, on Nov 10 2008, 02:54 PM, said:

Nowadays nobody is allowed to marry more then one - equal rights to anybody.
Nobody is allow to marry one of the same gender- equal rights again.

Sorry this equal right stuff is a very important thing and I am very glad that we have it.

By your argument

No <women / group of choice> are allowed to vote

constitutes equal right too -- correct?

[jdonn]

Codo, focus less on the EQUAL and more on the RIGHTS.

By the way, are you arguing single parents shouldn't be allowed to have children? Maybe we should just force them to marry someone so that they can more easily raise their children.

Your points are beyond ridiculous.

[helene_t]

I am not aware of statistics unfavorable to single or gay parents. But ethnic minorities and inner-city populations, on the other hand ....

However, human rights apply to everybody, and in that respect, statistics are irrelevant.

[Codo]

I didn't thought this is so difficult to understand:

If woman are not allowed to vote, they have no equal rights compared to man.

But if it is forbidden for anybody to marry someone of the same gender, this is an equal right to anybody. Where is the discrimination?

And Josh, sorry I cannot express my thoughts in a way that even you can understand them. Live with the idea, that I am (and my thoughts are) beyond ridiculous.

I tried to clarify why the states do support families.
IF you think that this should lead to a force to marry or stayed married if you have children, this is your pov. I think this is a stupid idea, but maybe not in your world.

[Lobowolf]

Codo, on Nov 10 2008, 02:54 PM, said:

Lobowolf, on Nov 11 2008, 01:51 AM, said:

Codo, on Nov 10 2008, 09:28 AM, said:

I have the opinion that gays should have the right to have a legal union.

But there is exactly no reason to give this right to them.

In the United States, at least, there's a reason. It's called the Equal Protection Clause, and it's found in the 14th Amendment to the Constitution.

Huh?

Any man has the right to marry one woman.

Every woman has the right to marry one man.

Where is this not equal?

Nowadays nobody is allowed to marry more then one - equal rights to anybody.
Nobody is allow to marry one of the same gender- equal rights again.

Sorry this equal right stuff is a very important thing and I am very glad that we have it.

In my opinion it just does not work here. If you allow gay marriage, you allow gay marriage to anybody- gay or straight- and you still have equal rights. IT simply does not matter.

But I really enjoy the discussion.

It's helpful (though perhaps not necessary) to have some knowledge of American constitutional law with respect to this discussion. The question isn't one of "equal rights" or even "equal protection" as one would define them from a variety of dictionary definitions; the (legal) question is one of "equal protection" as a term of art - a phrase defined very specifically within a certain discipline, and refined over 150 or so years of Supreme Court cases. The arguments you make here were, for all practical purposes, made (and rejected) long ago with respect to interracial marriage ("Everyone has the right to marry someone of his or her own sex.")

Unfortuntely (for people who support gay marriage), "equal protection" means 3 different things, depending on the classification. Governmental bodies that discriminate against people based on sexual orientation get far more leeway than those that discriminate based on race. Gender discrimination is somewhere in the middle.

[jdonn]

Codo, on Nov 10 2008, 03:40 PM, said:

If woman are not allowed to vote, they have no equal rights compared to man.

But if it is forbidden for anybody to marry someone of the same gender, this is an equal right to anybody. Where is the discrimination?

Let's only legalize marriage between people of the same race. That is not discriminatory since everyone can marry people of the same race, and no one can marry people of a different raise.

While we are it it let's charge $1,000,000 to marry, but we are not discriminating against poor people, because it is perfectly legal for them to pay $1,000,000 if they can find it and get married.

While we are doing that, let's make it illegal to marry anyone named Codo. That is not discriminatory because no one is allowed to marry someone named Codo, and everyone is allowed to marry anyone they want who is not named Codo.

We should also label all water fountains with a race of people such as African American, and only let it be legal to drink from a water fountain that is labeled with your race. Same as earlier logic, not discrimination.

Codo logic is fun, anyone else want to take it even farther?

[TimG]

Codo, on Nov 10 2008, 03:10 PM, said:

If you and your boyfriend try to raise a little girl, it is quite difficult to teach her the role of a mother/Wife/Woman- there is simply nobody there to teach them by simply living at their side.

How does the role of a mother/wife/woman differ from the role of a parent/spouse/human?

[Codo]

1. If this is a question of Equal rights, why do you need a voting?
Just ask the Supreme Court, they will have sufficent knowledge of your
constituional law.

2. If I understood you right, equal protection is not equal protection. You have classes of equality. Yes I guess, my knowledge of your law is too limited to understand this.

3. You state that my arguments had been long rejected in the fight for equal rights for different races. Do you mind to explain to me where the logical mistake in this argument is?

[TimG]

Codo, on Nov 10 2008, 02:54 PM, said:

Any man has the right to marry one woman.

Every woman has the right to marry one man.

Where is this not equal?

Men are allowed to marry women; women are not allowed to marry women. This is not equal.

[mike777]

It does seem that many millions who feel strongly in favor of CIVIL RIGHTS have voted against GAY Marriage. There seems to be some disconnect between marriage based on race and marriage based on sexual orientation. I can only guess that millions seem to not view this as morally equivalent. Not sure how else I can understand the vote.

To put it another way if the ballots in Florida and Calif, banned different races from marrying does anyone doubt the vote would have been radically different?

Btw I am in favor of gov't sanctioned gay marriage but the logic seems to demand that any type of marriage between consenting adults should be equal. I guess since some kids can also marry legally in many states the same applies to them.