Prop 8

[tea_and_blues]

I'm just wondering, gay couples have most, if not all of the rights that traditional married couples have under civil unions and domestic partnerships, so why do they care about legalizing gay marriage? You guys aren't being very clear why it should it legalized in your arguments..

Well, what reason is there not to extend marriage to all citizens? Because no one has actually presented a very compelling argument that gays shouldn't be allowed the same marriage rights as other families.

Also, no-one has illustrated how bans against gay marriage do not violate the 9th Amendment of the US Constitution, and I hope I've made a decent case that they do in my previous posts.

 

[Sudo]

I'm just curious because in the country my family came from to the United States, marriage is legally defined as a system to promote and protect procreation. That's why married couples get benefits that unmarried people do not; they're not shouldering the responsibility of continuing the human race.

Homosexuality is just a sexual deviance in the viewpoint I've grown up with, similar to being a furry or whatever. My culture views homosexual marriage as just a bad joke, something that is a logical contradiction at best. I'm sorry if these views seem bigoted, but that's just how I was raised.

 

[umbarsc]

There are methods of artificial insemination, and adoption, so it's not as if it's impossible for homosexuals to raise kids. Besides, it's not as if heterosexual couples take oaths that they will have kids when they get married.

In fact, the fact that gays are inclined to adopt if they want to raise kids is a good thing. That means they don't add to the out-of-control population, and they take a kid that would otherwise live in a (probably) bad environment and give him or her a good home, and make them more likely to be successful and be productive to soceity.

 

[manekineko]

I'm just curious because in the country my family came from to the United States, marriage is legally defined as a system to promote and protect procreation. That's why married couples get benefits that unmarried people do not; they're not shouldering the responsibility of continuing the human race.

Homosexuality is just a sexual deviance in the viewpoint I've grown up with, similar to being a furry or whatever. My culture views homosexual marriage as just a bad joke, something that is a logical contradiction at best. I'm sorry if these views seem bigoted, but that's just how I was raised.

There's a difference between ignorance and bigotry. However, I'd advise that you try to keep an open mind about it.

 

[DM]

I'm sorry if these views seem bigoted, but that's just how I was raised.

I appreciate your honesty. Being a human being, though, you have the wonderful opportunity to open your mind to new ideas every second of the day. You should consider homosexual relationships not as a "sick joke," but merely the love between two people, no different than heterosexual relationships. The sooner you realize that, the sooner you can come over to the good side.

 

[Zathura]

if this is still being discussed
issues of discrimination simply should never come down to a vote. the masses are too stupid to be trusted with issue that can make or break other people's lives. just imagine how much shittier the lives of black people would be now if the civil rights movement ended up coming down to a national vote.
and isn't it really undemocratic. i thought the basic premise of locke's social contract was that you could not touch fundamental issues of "life liberty property"

 

[jamespicone]

All systems dealing with this will be flawed in some way, Zathura - I think the US system of having a constitution and needing to vote to change it works as well as any system can - the constitution needs to change over time, due to events unforeseen by its drafters, and there's no way you can simultaneously allow that while preventing civil rights being infringed.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

Did you seriously just say that enforcing the Constitution makes it impossible to prevent civil rights violations? I get what you're trying to say, that a flawed society is going to make flawed decisions sometimes, but I wouldn't say the Constitution is to blame...more like a lack of attention to the Constitution. I think you just worded it backwards.

Either way, I agree that a flawed society works in mysterious ways sometimes, the only thing gays can do is just hope for that 1.5% of people to sway the ballots the other way and hope that it comes before another generation of homosexuals dies off without seeing the end of discrimination =\

 

[jamespicone]

Not quite, jrrrrrrr. I was saying that the constitution is changeable - indeed, must be changeable in any society based on a constitution - and because of that changeability it isn't a foolproof solution to the tyranny of the majority problem.

 

[Zathura]

that's why we have a supreme court.
unfortunately, enter scalia and thomas. (fucking race traitor)

 

[jamespicone]

Given that all the supreme court can do is enforce the constitution, that really doesn't change the problem - the majority can still change the constitution to harm the civil rights of others.

I had to look up who "scalia and thomas" are, but now that I know... well, Clarence Thomas is entitled to his opinions, no matter what they are (And I really don't know what they are, I only skimmed the wiki entry). Just because he's black doesn't mean he should be expected to vote one way or another.

 

[ReijiIIV]

In response to the first post: I don't believe in taking away someones rights; hence, why I believe it is wrong what has happened in California.

 

[sanjay120]

Given that all the supreme court can do is enforce the constitution, that really doesn't change the problem - the majority can still change the constitution to harm the civil rights of others.

Ah, but in a case where the constitution is changed to affect or take away rights, it comes down to a vote of the state legislature. They need a two-thirds majority for it to be permanent which is the basis of the repeal movement.

 

[Itchni]

I understand the reasoning behind the whole "Child that is artifically inseminated / Adopted by a gay couple argument" would potentially hinder a child's maturity / growth, especially if said child is the opposite sex of his / her gay parents, and then issues for the child may come up (Can two dads help a girl prepare for her first period? The child may wonder "If both my 'adopted' parents are gay, maybe am I gay too?")

But wouldn't these issues also come up if 2 heterosexual parents adopted a child / did artificial insemination (say the husband is unable to reproduce because of a groan injury, and the wife must find sperm elsewhere), or one of the parents dies and it happens to be the gender of the child so the child is left with the parent of the opposite gender (the scenario about the girl worrying about her first period would again be relevant), but this time in a heterosexual coupling.

You pointed out the RI Lesbian scenario, well what about hetero couples who want a divorce after 3 years but for some reason feel morally/religiously obligated to feel divorce is NOT an option, so although they can get divorced they do not. Is that any better? They both want to feel their "divorce would be honored" but they themselves feel that a divorce is not honorable, or perhaps even if they don't mind they know their families would mind for the same reasons. In other words, saying a marriage only happily lasted 3 years does not justify preventing an entire community of Millions of gays and bisexuals around america from getting married. Gays are about 3% of America's Population, so of the 320 Million Americans that means 9.6 million gays/ bisexuals cannot get married.

This was done and over with, dont thread necro

 

[Ancax]

The bible says premarital sex is wrong, why are there no laws banning that?

I would just stop calling marriage marriage and give every person the right to civil unions.

 

[Shirase]

I vote yes. In all honesty, I think most people vote no just to "stick it" to the "man" or the church or whatever the hell they oppose. Because most humans put on a mask to pretend to care, they probably have their own agenda or just feel like rebelling because they like feeling "cool." Not many actually care about the subject itself.

Most people who oppose the church vote no.
Most people within the church vote yes.
I'm voting yes because I do believe homosexuality is wrong, not because I'm a "religious nut" or whatever. If people vote yes, all the power to them for whatever reason they view as right. I'm just stating my opinion.

 

[Firestorm]

I vote yes. In all honesty, I think most people vote no just to "stick it" to the "man" or the church or whatever the hell they oppose. Because most humans put on a mask to pretend to care, they probably have their own agenda or just feel like rebelling because they like feeling "cool." Not many actually care about the subject itself.

Most people who oppose the church vote no.
Most people within the church vote yes.
I'm voting yes because I do believe homosexuality is wrong, not because I'm a "religious nut" or whatever. If people vote yes, all the power to them for whatever reason they view as right. I'm just stating my opinion.

That's not an opinion. That's an accusation. I'm not "putting on a mask" to pretend I care. I know people offline and online who are gay. I am a part of a visible minority myself. Discrimination pisses me off and this is a blatant form of discrimination.

 

[Shirase]

So I cannot say that it is my opinion that people put on a mask? Welll, i thought opinion meant whatever I thought was true. Well, my bad for obviously not understanding what opinion meant.

 

[Firestorm]

I could say that my opinion is that grass is purple. Just because I think it's true doesn't mean it is. What you did in your last post is say something that was blatantly false. A lot of people in this topic personally know someone who is affected by rulings like this or are affected themselves.

I take offense to your previous post in this thread.

 

[SAN DIEGO SUPER CHARGERS!]

Prop 8 is overturned!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/04/proposition-8-overturned_n_670739.html

Love conquers hate!

Here's a random video of kids having fun in California

edit:
PS, suck it Utah

 

[cim]

Or rather, constitutional equal protection is extended to homosexual marriage. I recall reading earlier that a key component of the debate is whether homosexuals are viewed as "status" (like race or gender) or "conduct" (more of a choice), and that if the former was true, the protections obviously extend to homosexuals. The decision has not been released yet (on the Internet) so I can't say whether or not this was addressed, so I'm looking forward to reading it in full.

Great riddance, or GREATEST riddance?

 

[lilyhollow]

pretty embarrassing that this situation even exists in the first place, but good news regardless.

 

[Firestorm]

Can someone create a new thread with all the info please? Link to this thread as reference.
Edit: Just gonna undelete chris is me's. Continuing an 11 page discussion after 2 years might not be the best idea.