Prop 8

[miguelkuk 109]

I knew about the Kinsey scale actually. I'd say I'm a 4 maybe hehe.

[sedimenjerry 1]

This all sounds a bit unlikely to me, although I'm no neurologist either.

I think the whole issue is far more complex than the simple size of certain parts of the brain. quote>

 

Of course, you can't just look at someone's hypothalamus and automatically say, "Yes, this one's gay." or, "No, this one's straight." Just like you can't look at someone's brain and determine whether or not they prefer math to literature.  The size of certain brain structures are just clues that appear to correlate. No two people are exactly the same and neither are their brains.

And thank you SkiGeek for the link.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: miguelkuk

But, and giving you another example, there are men who are only attracted by obese women while the vast majority of men are attracted by skinnier women, so isn't this also a big majority against a small minority? Should there be also a sexual orientation name to describe this kind of attraction?quote>

There is a name for that sort of thing. It's called a "fetish".

Some others might say the difference lays on the fact that straight sex is intended for procriation and gay sex isn't. And to this I simply say bo**ocks!! The sexual drive might be primarily an instinct for procriation, but not the sexual attraction.quote>

The problem with the "sex is intended for procreation" argument is that it has implications other than being against gay sex. It also would justify being against contraception and against oral and anal sex ... which most churches are (at least they're consistent with their arguments).

And, well, there was a time when contraceptives were controversial. Back around 1900 or so there was a woman in New York who set up a service to provide condoms to the poor free of charge to solve the problem of them having more kids than they can afford to raise and being more of a burden on society. It didn't end well. The location she'd set up fell victim to arson and the service was shut down by the court for "being a public nuisance".

We've moved past that, though, and now contraceptives are accepted by society.

The same can be said of sodomy. Many places actually still have a law on the books prohibiting it that's never been repealed. Of course, that kind of law is hard to enforce... still, the common perception used to be "Sodomy! Shock! Horror!". Now it's become mostly acceptable, though the stereotype is that guys love it while girls begrudgingly agree to it.

The problem is, then, that while gay sex itself is, like the other two, something that's a matter for behind closed doors, gay marriage is not. Sex is private. Relationships are usually public. So while if your neighbors are engaging in sodomy or using contraceptives, it's all in private and you can't argue that it's "polluting kids' minds", if your neighbors are a gay couple, then it's a different story since it's not all in private - it's obvious that there's two men in a relationship rather than a man and a woman. So it's naturally harder to get over and accept since the "Oh, god, someone please think of the children!" hysteria kicks in.

Nevertheless, people can learn to coexist. A year or two ago, a gay couple moved in down the street from us. There are also families with little kids in our neighborhood. So far, so good. No trouble.

[miguelkuk 109]

There is a name for that sort of thing. It's called a "fetish". quote>

I know it is a fetish, and that's not exactly what I meant. "Fetish" is a general term and is not specific to, in this case, men attracted to obese women, while "gay" is specific to people attracted to others of the same gender.

So while if your neighbors are engaging in sodomy or using contraceptives, it's all in private and you can't argue that it's "polluting kids' minds", if your neighbors are a gay couple, then it's a different story since it's not all in private - it's obvious that there's two men in a relationship rather than a man and a woman. So it's naturally harder to get over and accept since the "Oh, god, someone please think of the children!" hysteria kicks in.

Nevertheless, people can learn to coexist. A year or two ago, a gay couple moved in down the street from us. There are also families with little kids in our neighborhood. So far, so good. No trouble.quote>

It amazes me how people can be so concerned about polluting the kids' minds with the sight of two members of the opposite sex having a loving relationship, and be so casual about letting the kids be exposed to violence, hate, discrimination, etc.

Besides the kids know far more than their naive parents think they do. Kids know about things far younger than their parents think they do, and they usually discover them not in the best way possible precisely because of this "protect the kids' minds" mentality.

[hummer0328 6]

I oppose Prop 8, the biggest reason being it is nothing more than discrimination. Sure "marriage" might be religious, but who's religion. According to Wikipedia, the following religious bodies opposed Prop 8: All six Episcopal diocesan bishops in California, Board of Rabbis of Southern California, Jewish Mosaic, the American Jewish Committee, Progressive Jewish Alliance, National Council of Jewish Women, and the Anti-Defamation League.

For me I think a particular church should be able to choose whether or not that Church wishes to recognize the marriage. Nobody is forcing anybody to go to that church. But, when it comes to the eyes of the law there shouldn't be discrimination in this matter. Because then it is just that, discrimination in the law by the government of a certain group of people.

[threeswept 12]

...people can learn to coexist. A year or two ago, a gay couple moved in down the street from us. There are also families with little kids in our neighborhood. So far, so good. No trouble.quote>

 

So far, so good? Great! Because we all know what happens in a neighbourhood with kids - they start to bring around their ghetto thug friends, tagging cars and buildings, selling drugs, intimidating the elderly and coercing other delinquent kids to join their gang and eventually dragging down property values.   

[PhantomOwl 3]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

As I've pointed out, when talking about things in the Bible, they need to be viewed from the proper exegesis, i.e. in consideration of the full weight of Scripture. Old Testament commandments need to be placed in the proper context, that is, keeping in mind Christ's words that He came not to change the law, but to fulfill it. Thus the Old Testament's 'eye for an eye' was no longer in effect, but was now the New Testament's 'love thy enemies'.quote>

That's all very well and good, but the fact remains that the Bible is not a legal document. It is a religious text, and while it has had a great impact on the development of Western culture, it has absolutely no bearing on US law. We never sat down and all agreed that we would live our lives according to the Bible, or any other religious text. We all, however, agree to follow the laws of the US by accepting the rights that accompany citizenship. These are laws that we democratically determine, and that we generally write based on the ideals of fairness and equality.

Look, at the end of the day, taking away my right to marry the person I love based on the fact that a 2000+ year old document calls my relationship an 'abomination' is hurtful, and it is unfair. Setting aside the legal precedents for discrimination these ballot initiatives put into place, they are tremendously painful. It is incredibly painful to be told by society that you are not worth the same rights as everyone else. That is why we're going to continue to fight for marriage equality no matter what, and that is why, ultimately, we are going to win.

[patriots_1228 51]

hummer, half those associations are jewish. jews represent what portion of calafornias population? 1%? less?

[hym 358]

Originally posted by: miguelkuk

The question that I answered was whether the Bible said gay marriage was bad, which is does suggest.  Whether people are taking it out of context is another issue entirely, and one that I didn't attempt to answer as the answer to that question is not an objective yes or no answer.

quote>

 

Forgive my ignorance but I didn't know the bible mentioned gay marriage. Could you tell me what passage(s) please?quote>

It doesn't have to specifically mention it.  Back then, marriage was officially sealed by the sex act itself.  By condemning the act of homosexual intercourse, it automatically condemns the concept of gay marriage.

To many Christians, the Bible doesn't have to specifically address an issue for the Bible to have something relevant to say about it.  For example, take embryonic stem cell research.  The Bible says nothing about it.  However, it does say that you can't murder another human being.  Many Christians consider an embryo to be a developing human, and because of that, they considered embryonic stem cell research to be against the Bible.  And that's how something can be against the Bible, despite the fact that the Bible has nothing to say about that particular issue.

[Meg 368]

Originally posted by: hym

  And that's how something can be against the Bible, despite the fact that the Bible has nothing to say about that particular issue.quote>

 

For instance, Europeans initially avoided potatoes, partly because they were not mentioned in the bible.  [link]

 

but people eventually got over that.

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: miguelkuk

I know it is a fetish, and that's not exactly what I meant. "Fetish" is a general term and is not specific to, in this case, men attracted to obese women, while "gay" is specific to people attracted to others of the same gender. quote>

Okay, "chubby fetish" then.

Pretty much everything like that can be described by a term of the form "____ fetish".

[miguelkuk 109]

LOOL

[ididntdidit 0]

Too many people take religion too far and it bothers me so much. Well whose seen Milk and whose ganna see prop 8 the musical lol!

[Lambert14 0]

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Originally posted by: belfastuniguy

Yeah. well firstly your experience with some of your friends gives you no valid basis to make the assumptions you did. I asked for evidence, you friends aren't evidence. Sorry but a bit of a FAIL there. Opinion is not fact..

As for your lesbian mates forcing their child to be a lesbian....oh please. Clearly they were wholly inappropriate parents and did not deserve to have the child. However you CANNOT FORCE people to be gay, straight, lesbian, transsexual, transgendered or whatever else. Its just happens, some people are born gay, other straight, other bisexual. It not something you can teach or force onto someone.

quote>

So then I'll toss it back to you... where is your evidence that it is born? The last study I saw said there is no 'gay gene'. There have been several genome research studies coming to the same conclusion, so you're just left with your opinion. Fail, indeed. Fail yourself.quote>

There is no gay gene, correct. the latest studies show it is something to do with hormonal levels while developing in the womb

[Lambert14 0]

So basically, this whole thread is mute. Most everyone who has posted is stuck on one side or the other and wont budge. However, the one thing you cant argue about is the fact that discrimination on any group of people has always been fought against and for. Our governing document protects our rights, which have slowly been taken away. When the phrase "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" appears, what does that mean to you? As long as you are happy, then others protections dont matter? I used to be one of those people, so selfish and self centered. After I came out I woke up to how cruel the world is and how necessary securing everyone's rights are. I hope you all can see that

[Duke87 1,070]

Originally posted by: Lambert14 So basically, this whole thread is mute. quote>

Every thread is mute. Web pages don't exactly talk and this one certainly doesn't make any noise.

As for whether this thread is moot... well, maybe, but a little intelligent discussion never hurt.

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Originally posted by: Lambert14  When the phrase "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" appears, what does that mean to you?quote>

It's obsolete. You have no 'right to life', our liberties are long gone, and 'pursuit of happiness' means avoidance of responsibility and personal accountability. It's a vestige of our past that is slowly but surely being erased from the American experience. You'll get over it. Just pick up a new iPhone, or whatever gadget strikes your fancy, and download the newest video by whatever artist you like. Soon you'll forget all about it, like the rest of America.

edit: Is it my imagination, or did a couple of posts disappear?

[Barbarossa 51]

.

  Edited September 1, 2012 by Barbarossa  

[Lambert14 0]

Originally posted by: Barbarossa

Originally posted by: manticorefan

Originally posted by: Lambert14  When the phrase "life liberty and pursuit of happiness" appears, what does that mean to you?quote>

It's obsolete. You have no 'right to life', our liberties are long gone, and 'pursuit of happiness' means avoidance of responsibility and personal accountability. It's a vestige of our past that is slowly but surely being erased from the American experience. You'll get over it. Just pick up a new iPhone, or whatever gadget strikes your fancy, and download the newest video by whatever artist you like. Soon you'll forget all about it, like the rest of America.quote>

I detect a note of sarcasm in your post, lol.  I believe these rights are in danger and worth fighting for, but no necessarily gone just yet.

I think Lambert14's question drives toward how this phrase is interpreted.  Everyone looks at it with a particular bias and perspective.  To me, "life" means the government should not have the ability to execute or to force me into a position that could deprive me of it.  "Liberty" means I can live my life with freedom (while respecting the freedom of others), and the government has no right to tell me how I choose to live my life (or how anyone else lives theirs).  "Pursuit of happiness" is probably the most vague of the three.  I take it to mean that I have the right to do or be anything without being tied down by my social class, faith, race, gender, or sexual orientation.  Basically, I have the right to live a happy life and improve it as I am able for the benefit of my family and offspring.

This is a digression, but worth discussing, IMO.

Barbarossaquote>

Exactly what i was getting at. You can dissagree with treating people as equals, but once you start taking away there liberties and pursuit of happiness, then you are threatening your own.

[Lambert14 0]

Originally posted by: Duke87

Originally posted by: Lambert14 So basically, this whole thread is mute. quote>

Every thread is mute. Web pages don't exactly talk and this one certainly doesn't make any noise.

As for whether this thread is moot... well, maybe, but a little intelligent discussion never hurt.quote>

lol, my bad

[Lambert14 0]

Just to show how hatefull the prop 8 supporters are, read this...

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/12/19/california.proposition/index.html

The supporters have just filed three suits in the California Supreme court to annul EVERY same sex marriage performed before the amendment went into effect. They argue that this amendment clearly states no marriages not composing of one man and one women are legal anymore in the state, therefore turning this amendment into a retroacive ruling to destroy families that have already formed. How cruel can you be that after you destroy hundreds of thousands of peoples hopes of getting married, you try and take away the marriages already LEGALLY performed. Stop the Hate!

[LarksTonguesInAspic 28]

Lambert: You can use the edit button, that's what it's there for. There's no need to triple post.

Look around ST, there's a lot of support for your POV here. To label everything that you disagree with or resent as 'hate' is just unnecessary polemics that won't change anyone's mind. And it begs the question, isn't the use of terms like 'fish' and 'breeder' (though not present on this site) hate as well? What about the actions of ACT-UP and Queer Nation, like vandalism, and disruption of church services?

If the law is upheld, as it likely will be, then those marriages will be effectively nullified anyways. Whether or not they are actually legal is for those who practice and administrate the law to decide. But if I were on your side, I would question the wisdom of depending on 'Moonbeam' Jerry Brown to carry the argument.

Chant and march if you want, but have a Coke and a smile first. You're hurt, I know. But maybe, just maybe, others have a solid argument that has nothing to do with hate. Further withdrawal to the extremes (by both sides) will do no one any good. It just guarantees that everyone will be too far from the common ground to ever find it again.

[hummer0328 6]

Originally posted by: patriots_1228 hummer, half those associations are jewish. jews represent what portion of calafornians population? 1%? less?quote>

I think you missed the point of my argument.  My point is to dispel the whole argument against Marriage being religiously defined as between a man and a women.  Because that's only certain religions.  The US Supreme Court has concluded under the 1st amendment that "government should not prefer one religion to another".  If someone is arguing for Prop 8 on the basis that it is a religious ceremony defined as between a man and a women, well that is only according to their religion.  Should the government give preference to their religion over another?  IMO it is not a valid argument for Prop 8.

Actually, jews represent closer to 3% of the population.  Thats more than the mormon population, and the LDS church are the ones raising the most fuss about it.  By some estimates, they contributed to 2/3rds of the campaign financing for Prop 8.  The groups biggest argument: Protect Marriage. 

[Odainsaker 2,134]

Gee, who was taking away whose marriages again?  Usually, ex post facto laws (retroactive laws) are barred by many constitutions, including the U.S. Constitution, as a violation of rights.  Muhuhuhahaha...next step after retroactively erasing those marriages already legally performed by the State before the passage of Prop 8, is to prosecute with the full force of the law those who continue to claim themselves married or attempt to apply for marriages without the appropriately requisite reproductive organs.  Gosh, we even have Inspector Javier Kenneth Starr, the Special ReichsProsekutor from the Monica Lewinsky fiasco, waddling in again on the side of the Moral Empire!  Well, this is California...maybe OJ's circus Judge Ito will preside!

[threeswept 12]

manticorefan - Lambert14 didn't "label everything that you disagree with or resent as 'hate'". Clearly, Lambert's comment was regarding the lawsuits to take away a right that was already provided. In any event, no matter the lawsuits. As I mentioned above, another prop will come up for vote in the coming years. That's just how it works. Laws can be created or fought over and over and over to no end for civil rights, which this is. This prop just happened to stir a hornets nest from a fringe religious group (not just my words, but words used by other religious groups, too). The 'will of the voters' is fairly bogus in regards to this prop simply because voters were misled by advertising - which is exactly what Prop 8 supporters counted on. An interesting and more personal side to this is that conservative friends in SoCal felt that they were misled - they didn't want homosexuality taught in schools, but felt that marriage between homos wasn't their business.

I found this interesting information from divorcemag.com : 8.1% of coupled households consist of unmarried heterosexual partners, according to The State of Our Unions 2005, a report issued by the National Marriage Project at Rutgers University. The same study said that only 63% of American children grow up with both biological parents -- the lowest figure in the Western world.

Seems to confirm what I've always thought and experienced. Only ONE of my childhood friends still have parents that are married. And, out of my friends from all walks of life and places around the world, only ONE set of my friends are still married - around 14 or 15 years. Many of the others didn't make it past two years.

So, in support of Prop 8 to protect marriage? Yes. Ban divorce. And, stop taking away rights already provided.

[Ntq€310 1]

personally i have no opinion on gay marriage, mostly because i can aggre with both sides on diffrent points. But the voters of California for whatever reason voted for Prop 8, and we should respect that decsision by the people of California.

[Lambert14 0]

Originally posted by: manticorefan Lambert: You can use the edit button, that's what it's there for. There's no need to triple post.

Look around ST, there's a lot of support for your POV here. To label everything that you disagree with or resent as 'hate' is just unnecessary polemics that won't change anyone's mind. And it begs the question, isn't the use of terms like 'fish' and 'breeder' (though not present on this site) hate as well? What about the actions of ACT-UP and Queer Nation, like vandalism, and disruption of church services?

If the law is upheld, as it likely will be, then those marriages will be effectively nullified anyways. Whether or not they are actually legal is for those who practice and administrate the law to decide. But if I were on your side, I would question the wisdom of depending on 'Moonbeam' Jerry Brown to carry the argument.

Chant and march if you want, but have a Coke and a smile first. You're hurt, I know. But maybe, just maybe, others have a solid argument that has nothing to do with hate. Further withdrawal to the extremes (by both sides) will do no one any good. It just guarantees that everyone will be too far from the common ground to ever find it again.quote>

Sorry, I am new to blogging and didnt know about the edit button, lol. But I do see it as a form of hate to refuse to allow what marriages that have occured to keep going. These are people who have had the happiest days of there lives occur and are now being told it means nothing. Yes, legally, these marriages can no longer be recognized by the state, but is that the right thing to do? Additionally, the supreme court may continue is ruling by re stating there earlier decision that marriage in the california constitution is a basic right of humanity and cannot be discriminated against by using sexual orientation. This is what they originally stated, and by stating this, the amendment may be anulled. This somes up how hurt we all are, and how my side does not understand how people can be so cruel to deny what happiness one can find in this life.

http://www.newsweek.com/id/172653

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVUecPhQPqY&feature=related

[rawr APPLES 15]

I dont see why anyone would want to be tied down to a single person anymore..its pointless, there's no such thing as monogamy anymore.

I do think it should be legalised, society needs to evolve

[Patricius Maximus 236]

I've just looked at this thread and just can't resist adding in my opinions (a.k.a. two cents, which corrected for inflation would be about 50 cents by now).

The commonality of all the things discussed here -- gay marriage, sodomy, polygamy -- is that they are all social stigmas which have been codified into the law.

Polygamy, for some strange reason, has been stigmatized by the conservative settlers and codified into their laws, and their laws have never been repealed, since polygamy is still stigmatized.

For evidence, look at the headline on CNN during the crisis at the YFZ Ranch -- "Polygamy's Children". The children's parents were no doubt polygamous, but they are not "products" of polygamy, a word that has a negative connontation for many.

Sodomy was/is another codified stigma. Some people had their sexual relations different than the majority, so the majority moved swiftly to ban and discriminate against such people, thus codifing their stigma.

Gay marriage is a third one, which I will discuss in detail.

Imagine there are two people which are in a relationship with each other -- they love each other, there are no major problems. Eventually they wish to get married. Upon that, the state government takes a look at them. They happen to be of the same gender. The state government says, "Sorry, you're homosexual. You cannot marry in this state." While the homosexual couple looks on at the heterosexuals getting married every day.

This couple cannot get married because of the intolerance of conservative Christians which seek to "protect" the "institutions" most valuable to them -- in this case, "protecting marriage". There is no reasoning that can justify this.

What does marriage need protecting from? Is marriage in danger from the 1 or 2 percent of homosexuals that want to get married? They're not dangerous, and they harbor no more ill will than any other group of humans.

All they want is to marry and live with the person they love. All that is standing in their way is a bunch of religious fanatics waving a 2000-year-old book which is part fiction, part history, and that they claim is "the word of God".

It seems to me to be the height of hypocrisy for a population to preach tolerance and a liberal democracy, yet not apply it to down-to-earth ethical choices. It is as if these people are saying, "We're tolerant to eveyone. Except those who we don't like." It also goes against the principles in the Declaration of Independence and the U.S. Constitution, which they also claim to promote.

That statement I have mentioned also has a ring of selfishness to it, another thing that those people are claiming to try to reduce in our society.

This "line of reasoning" from their sacred book cannot be justified by reason, and then the whole argument just falls apart.

On the contrary, the opposing argument actually applies the principles of rights, tolerance, and equality to every person.

My argument is this: Grant them the same rights as everyone else and let them marry the ones they love.

- Patricius Maximus

[ilikehotdogsalot 307]

Ban divorce? What if your spouse ruined your house, killed someone you loved, or beat your children or you?