Prop 8

[Calax]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081220/ap_on_...rriage_lawsuits

 

How is this not the most effed up thing ever?

 

The idea that marriages entered under the law as it stood at the time would be nullified is abhorrent. No person should be willing to countenance that outcome, no matter how he voted on the measure of gay marriage.

I had thought that it had been made clear to voters that it could not be applied retroactively, at least that's what I heard prior to the election and I'm a cali resident

 

No, the California Supreme Court should not overturn this ammendment. And the folks who support such an idea should pause to think what the effects of this sort of rank judicial activism would mean for the rule of law. If you want to advocate something, how about advocating a state constitution that cannot be ammended by a simple majority? How about cleaning up our joke of a constitution.

 

Yes, we should allow homosexual marriage. However, we should not allow the supreme court to impose it by fiat. The Supreme Court has acted irresponsibly enough on this issue.

 

Just because you disagree with the voters does not mean that you should be glad when the supreme court oversteps its bounds to reverse the will of the people. That should strike as much terror in your heart as the idea of a repressive majority.

 

These are two separate issues. The marriages carried out under standing law should remain valid. The new ammendment should stand. The people of the state should reverse the amendment and allow for homosexual marriages.

The state Supreme court couldn't legally overturn it, I would hope that the US supreme court would rule it unconstitutional (the REAL constitution rather than the toy that california has).

[Guard Dog]

The state Supreme court couldn't legally overturn it, I would hope that the US supreme court would rule it unconstitutional (the REAL constitution rather than the toy that california has).

 

They had better not. Unless there is a component of the law that affects another state/nation/or guranteed rights enumerated in the Constitution the 10th Amendment grants sole jurisdiction of State law to the State. Perhaps an argument could be made that it is a violation of the Full Faith and Credit clause since some states do recognize gay marriage but that argument has lost everywhere it's been tried.

[Killian Kalthorne]

So, if there was a Prop 8 styled amendment that targeted African Americans or some other minority that got approved by a state you would approve of it Guard Dog?

[Guard Dog]

So, if there was a Prop 8 styled amendment that targeted African Americans or some other minority that got approved by a state you would approve of it Guard Dog?

 

Heck, I don't even approve of Prop 8 as it is. You know me better than that. I oppose ANY infringement on personal liberty. And I really don't see what the big deal is about allowing gays to marry. And I can say that as a Christian and as a Libertarian.

 

I'll pretend for a moment you were actually asking an intelligent question rather than tossing a firebomb at me. If an amendment that blatantly discriminates against someone on the basis of age, gender or ethnicity is passed by the voters or legislature of any state it would be a violation of a number of Constitutional Amendments including the 14th, 15th, 19th and 26th. In that case the SCOTUS would intervene because no state law can supersede the Constitution. It is the supreme law of the land. Prop 8 does none of those things. I do think it was wrong but it would be unjust for a court with no jurisdiction to overule the will of the voters. You will not like where that action leads.

 

Gays are not recognized as a legitimate minority in this country or any other I know of. Whether that is right or wrong I don't know. Personally, I do not think they should be considered a minority because nobody chose to be black, or Asian, or white. Homosexuality is not (IMO) a genetic condition. It is not a disease. There is an element of choice in it. It is just what some people like to do and they should be free to pursue whatever lifestyle they wish. Thats my $.02

[Hurlshort]

Um, why would anyone make the choice to be homosexual? They are basically choosing to be discriminated against and face bigotry. Sure, you might get a small percentage of the population actually seeking out that type of attention, but evidence shows that gay people aren't a fringe group. Even the low estimates of 1-2% means you've got 60 million people making the "choice" to face some pretty tough obstacles in their life.

 

http://www.gaydemographics.org/USA/2000_Census_Total.htm

 

And if it's a choice, shouldn't there be more of a rhyme or reason as to why people choose it? Why do you have a family of five and one sibling "chooses" homosexuality? Most children choose to follow the religion of their parents, but why is it two gay parents rarely raise a gay child?

 

There is all sorts of debate about the dormant genetic trait that supposedly influences sexuality. But I just have a hard time believing people throughout human history have made the "choice" to be ridiculed, discriminated, and persecuted.

[Guard Dog]

I don't know if it is a choice or not. That is just my opinion based on my understanding of genetics and biochemistry, and animal behavior, which I'll freely admit is limited. However, the one thing I can say with absolute certainty is that it is not proven one way or another. If it ever is, it is. And if it is not genetic they should still be free to pursue that lifestyle if that is their wish. That whole "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness" thing must apply to everyone or it applies to no one.

 

Personally I find the concept of hating or discriminating against someone because of what they do in the bedroom a little silly. I also find it a little silly for a homosexual to believe their "rights" are being violated because they can't get "married". There are legal arrangements and domestic partnership laws in all 50 states that provide all the benefits of marriage with the exception of federal income tax filing (and they actually penalize married couples anyway). As for private companies not extending benefits to gay partners, most do now. Mine does. And at any rate, employment benefits are granted and paid out solely at the discretion of the employer. If company A won't extend benefits to a gay employees spouse, that employee can either take it or go work elsewhere.

 

When you get right down to brass tacks, being gay is all about who you have sex with. That is it. There is no mystery here. Gays are not and have never been forbidden from working, voting, shopping in whatever stores they want, sitting where they want on the bus, or visiting any part of town they wish. Gays have never been subjugated, enslaved, segregated, etc. To compare the gays difficulties in getting society to accept them, and gain rights they already have to the actual struggle of minorities for basic civil rights is just absurd on it's face in my opinion

[Trenitay]

I thought that Some time ago gays couldn't join the army. I know if its true that its only one example, but to say they've never been discriminated in that way isnt completely true.

[Calax]

I thought that Some time ago gays couldn't join the army. I know if its true that its only one example, but to say they've never been discriminated in that way isnt completely true.

The current policy is "don't ask, don't tell". However if you are gay, or show homosexual tenancies once in the military, you will be booted and have pay docked for false enlistment. This is after they hit you with a visit to the Psych unit and force you to sit around in a barracks for three f'n weeks, then throw you on a bus to get you back home.

 

Can you really pursue happiness if a jack hole puts a freaking redwood across the road?

 

I'll pretend for a moment you were actually asking an intelligent question rather than tossing a firebomb at me. If an amendment that blatantly discriminates against someone on the basis of age, gender or ethnicity is passed by the voters or legislature of any state it would be a violation of a number of Constitutional Amendments including the 14th, 15th, 19th and 26th. In that case the SCOTUS would intervene because no state law can supersede the Constitution. It is the supreme law of the land. Prop 8 does none of those things. I do think it was wrong but it would be unjust for a court with no jurisdiction to overule the will of the voters. You will not like where that action leads.

 

Except that they already kinda did in Lawrence v Texas. Several states had sodomy laws that basically said any sex other than that used to procreate was unlawful. In fact it seems like the Supreme Court of the United States has as much of a leg to stand on in the case of Prop 8 and it's brothers, as it did back when Lawrence was decided (and Justice O'Conner actually used equal protection in her decision, as the laws in particular were aimed at a group rather than at the people as a whole.).

 

Heck Even Scalia stated that State laws against bigamy, same-sex marriage, adult incest, prostitution, masturbation, adultery, fornication, bestiality, and obscenity are likewise sustainable only in light of Bowers' validation of laws based on moral choices. (Bowers' being a previous case that was overturned in the Lawrence decision)

Edited December 22, 2008 by Calax

[I want teh kotor 3]

This is a good example of why democracy only works well in a homogeneous population. In a population with a friggin crap load of minorities, like ours, everybody tries to screw everybody else over, and we get this debacle.

Edited December 22, 2008 by I want teh kotor 3

[Hurlshort]

Gays have never been subjugated, enslaved, segregated, etc.

 

What? Do you live on another planet?

[Guard Dog]

Gays have never been subjugated, enslaved, segregated, etc.

 

What? Do you live on another planet?

 

Nope, the good old US of A, just two time zones east of you. And try as I might I cannot recall a single instance in US History where homosexuals have been treated with institutionalized discrimination like most minorities have at one time or another. I'm not talking about people, there is nothing you can do about that. I'm talking about using the power of the state to suppress liberty for a group. And no marrige does not count because there is no "right" to marry. The military would be a good example here but I also discount that because it does not exist for the empowerment of the individual and is a whole different animal than real life anyway.

[Hurlshort]

You can make the argument that the US has come a long way in the discrimination of homosexuals, but you are really stretching it. Gay people have never been enslaved, but segregation and subjugation are much tougher cases to prove.

 

Gay people are segregated around the country. They have two choices, hide the fact that they are gay or move to an area more tolerant. This country used to have separate locker rooms for minorities, but have you heard the testimonials of gay athletes? They keep their identity secret because they know there is no law that will protect them in that locker room.

 

Even the term gay is thrown out as an insult. People barely notice when a slur is made about someone's sexual orientation. Racial slurs, on the other hand, are much more taboo and can even get you prosecuted.

 

And it's not about the bedroom, it's not about sex. Just like my relationship with my wife isn't about the sex or the bedroom. That's a minor part of my life. You've been married, and I know it didn't go well, but did you get married just because you wanted sex? I'm guessing no, it was probably more about building and sharing a life with a person. Can you imagine if you couldn't put up pictures of that person at work, if you couldn't talk about your partner with anyone else? That's what a lot of gay people go through every day. We aren't close to equality here. There needs to be a complete shift in perception, just like there has been with race over the last 50 years.

[Calax]

Gays have never been subjugated, enslaved, segregated, etc.

 

What? Do you live on another planet?

 

Nope, the good old US of A, just two time zones east of you. And try as I might I cannot recall a single instance in US History where homosexuals have been treated with institutionalized discrimination like most minorities have at one time or another. I'm not talking about people, there is nothing you can do about that. I'm talking about using the power of the state to suppress liberty for a group. And no marrige does not count because there is no "right" to marry. The military would be a good example here but I also discount that because it does not exist for the empowerment of the individual and is a whole different animal than real life anyway.

... I believe you missed the bit where being gay was technically a Mental Disease that could lead to people getting "institutionalized" to make them "better". HOW is that NOT institutionalized discrimination? Being told you have a disease and the nice man with the ice pick is going to make it all better.

[taks]

(and they actually penalize married couples anyway).

not anymore, actually. it is a temporary reprieve i think, which could be bad. bush rescinded the "marriage penalty" right when my wife stopped working (pregnant) and we no longer had dual incomes. we ended up with one income two people (eventually three), which wasn't the problem with the marriage penalty anyway. now that she's working again, figures that the moratorium is about to be lifted... sigh.

 

taks

[Xard]

I'll second Hurlshots suggestion of banning government sanction of marriage.

my suggestion, actually.

 

the UN is evil, btw, if there is a such thing as "evil." the UN caters to evil sorts such as xard: those that want to oppress and will go anywhere to get oppression forced on people if his country won't sign up for the oppression. at least, that's what xard told me in another thread.

 

taks

 

I thought we were debating about "immorality" of taxing before I left internet completely for couple of months. And with random_n00b it had something to do with morals overall.

 

Resurrecting many months old topic would've been more than silly.

 

 

What makes United Nations more evil than single nation? Why would UN legistilations be more immoral than those United States Of America forces on its states?

[Xard]

Um, why would anyone make the choice to be homosexual? They are basically choosing to be discriminated against and face bigotry. Sure, you might get a small percentage of the population actually seeking out that type of attention, but evidence shows that gay people aren't a fringe group. Even the low estimates of 1-2% means you've got 60 million people making the "choice" to face some pretty tough obstacles in their life.

 

http://www.gaydemographics.org/USA/2000_Census_Total.htm

 

And if it's a choice, shouldn't there be more of a rhyme or reason as to why people choose it? Why do you have a family of five and one sibling "chooses" homosexuality? Most children choose to follow the religion of their parents, but why is it two gay parents rarely raise a gay child?

 

There is all sorts of debate about the dormant genetic trait that supposedly influences sexuality. But I just have a hard time believing people throughout human history have made the "choice" to be ridiculed, discriminated, and persecuted.

 

I recently read article on homosexuality on science magazine and basically it boils down to

 

A) with women it's pretty much no genetics at all and instead choice and enviroment.

B) with men it seems to be more "hardwired" but no one knows how

 

However, judgin from the article and numerous controversies I think "gay gene" and such is just more reductionistic, materialist bull**** like, for example, "god gene" or "god spot" or "god circuit" or whatever one prefers as explanation of religion.

 

Oh, and as for someone being gay once and for all as it is hard wired: too bad hard wiring doens't exist in human brain. I worry one day these anti-gay movements will tap on neuroplasticity and will twist it to use it in literally reprogramming sexuality. IF SEXUALITY DEPENDS ON BRAIN. But then we'd end up talking religiously about "souls" and stuff and that's no to srs scientist talk, yes siire

 

When one can rewire him/herself to basically "see" with frickin tongue changing something as ambiguous and unspecific as sexuality...well, theoretically entirely possible, even very likely to succeed.

 

The obvious supremacy of "nurture" versus "nature" in lesbianism just works as further case in point.

 

Explanation for homosexuality:

 

Brain?

 

of course, partially. However, unfortunately for materialists and determinists phenomenoms such as neuroplasticity are absolutely killing the "you're born with brain that works like this and it will work like till you die" model of thinking. Thus if homosexuality is due to neurological mapping = there's no such thing as absolute homosexuality. Same applies to "male brain" and "female brain".

 

Genes?

 

Now how would genes achieve this? Through the brain of course and thus above reasons apply here too. Not to mention "genetic determinism" is pretty much pop media bs. Nurture scored a big one in the debate some months ago when people with similar genetics had different genes becoming active based on enviroment.

 

One could of course make shaky case out of it as person choosing homosexuality and thus "activating" certain genes.

 

Bus as said, there's not much hard proof behind genetics

 

Enviroment?

 

NO NO NO

 

and yet yes as above points prove. But enviroment can't be the biggest deciding factor, at least when it comes to men.

 

 

-----------------------------------------------

 

 

Conclusion 1: sexuality is not fixed and is ambiguous, shaping force of human psyche that apparently can't be entirely reduced to biology. Freud's libido would be so proud of itself...

 

OR

 

Conclusion 2: we just don't have ****ing clue

 

OR

 

Conclusion 3: Genetics, brain structure et al that one has with birth influences and direct towards some sort of sexuality, but we can't escape conclusion 1 entirely...

 

 

Or

 

Conclusion 4: we all reincarnate and make choice of our sexuality prebirth. Our souls then influence formation of our brain and activations of genes during pregnancy

 

 

 

...so yeah. Despite the theory of the weeks no one really has any idea. I'd say Conlusion 1/3 fits closest to truth.

Edited December 22, 2008 by Xard

[Gorgon]

I wonder if you could get out of a tour in Iraq by humping one of your buddies. Has it been tried, was it successful.

[Hurlshort]

I like conclusion 4 the best. Reincarnation for the win!

Edited December 22, 2008 by Hurlshot

[Xard]

I like conclusion 4 the best. Reincarnation for the win!

 

you tell me

 

despite the jokish tone I've become increasingly open to reincarnation in past months

[Killian Kalthorne]

It seems some people have been fighting back against the bigots who voted for Prop 8. There is a website that is listing businesses that supported Prop 8 and advocating people to boycott them. Good on them. I hope it works for them. Boycott the bigots!

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/13/...e=mostpop_story

[Kelverin]

It seems some people have been fighting back against the bigots who voted for Prop 8. There is a website that is listing businesses that supported Prop 8 and advocating people to boycott them. Good on them. I hope it works for them. Boycott the bigots!

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/11/13/...e=mostpop_story

Where's the website to boycott the boycotter's who are boycotting the bigoters.

[Calax]

I wonder if you could get out of a tour in Iraq by humping one of your buddies. Has it been tried, was it successful.

When I was at "Meps" (military entrance processing center) they maked DAMN sure that you knew that just trying to be homosexual wouldn't get you kicked out it had to be pretty outrageous to get you out (or suicidal or depression... there were all sorts of wierd things that people had in Seperations)

[Walsingham]

You'd need people in your unit to corroborate, really. And if you're ratting them out, they're hardly likely to support you.

[taks]

I thought we were debating about "immorality" of taxing before I left internet completely for couple of months. And with random_n00b it had something to do with morals overall.

not sure what you mean about this, but you told me that if your government would not implement your form of oppression (which you clearly stated that you wanted to enforce certain behaviors) you would go somewhere else where the government would.

 

Resurrecting many months old topic would've been more than silly.

i wasn't resurrecting a many months old topic, i was resurrecting your hypocrisy.

 

 

What makes United Nations more evil than single nation? Why would UN legistilations be more immoral than those United States Of America forces on its states?

because the UN advocates oppression within its own constitution. the UN wants a socialist world, that is, as i've stated on many occasions, evil by any standard. while the US practices it, at the very least we have a document that does not. that our government chooses not to abide by said document is something i truly detest.

 

taks

[wesley2]

Not getting involved in the debate myself, but I did think this was funny and lighthearted way to get one side of the argument across and it's received a ton of press:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O5-fZKg4Uj4