Same sex marriage in California

[heliochrome85]

I'm against all government involvement in marriage. The government got involved originally to promote "hygiene" and other nonsense... and to control society.

This has nothing to do with equality. Nothing to do with morality. Nothing to do with right and wrong. Its one silly agenda vs another. If people were rational they'd get the government out of the business of marriage.

Eventually, the politically loud Christians and the spandex liberals will be cast aside and forgotten by the public. Gay marriage, gay this, gay that... its all meaningless and noisy and distracts us from more important things: war, spending, taxation, the economy.

This isn't an "equality" issue. This is a LIBERTY issue. The government got involved in marriage to control society and promote "good hygiene".

The government needs to get the hell out of the business of marriage. THERE'S your equality -- freedom for all from being told what to do.

I'm not a "Bush man" you tard. I didn't vote for McCain either.

Way to completely skim over my marriage argument.

Sorry if I don't fit perfectly into your labels. I know it causes your head to explode that I vote for Libertarians, occasional Republicans, and occasional Democrats. I realize you can't comprehend the the existence of views that transcend a flat political spectrum.

I am a socially liberal, fiscally conservative, pro-defense kind of guy. I like people like Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Kathleen Sebelius, James Carville, and Ron Paul. I am pro-choice on abortion, pro second amendment, and anti-tax. I despise the far left and the religious right.

I'm sure its easier for you to argue with someone if you can squeeze them into your narrow mental constructs. It allows you to completely ignore the issues and point fingers.

Is there more to your arguement that i have missed? I understood your arguement from the get go. You dont want the government anywhere within 10 miles of marriage. You dont want it anywhere within 10 miles of most of a citizens life. thats understandable. That being said, you hinge your arguement on that people need to be rational. People are not rational. if we were rational, things would not be so messed up.

I want the government of the United States to be as small as possible, and to have the maximum amount of freedoms as possible. At the same time, there is always a threat to the minority, from the majority. I do not want to be the one feeling the brunt of an anti-minority backlash. Its bad enough as it is. Today its gay marriage, tomorrow, the people of california will want national IDs so we can spot the "terrists" and one day i will wake up chained to a post, in an internment camp due to my ethnicity, and due to people not caring that civil liberties of our citizenry should never be violated. The government needs to protect these rights. the people themselves are not rational enough to protect them on their own.

[Jesda]

I see modern government as a tool used by the mob to control those it fears, be it racial minorities, religious groups, or political factions.

And segregation was LAW.

[themadscientist]

I'm not a "Bush man" you tard.

Sorry, but taken in the context of a sexuality debate it cracked me up.

Prop 8 passed so the will of the people was served. Don't like it too bad. I now have a prez I didn't want for the same reason, cry me a river.

[ishkabibble]

The reason why it passed is interesting:

http://latimesblogs.latimes.co....html

[themadscientist]

don't care, it passed and I agree with it.

[Leash]

I'm rather disappointed that 8 passed...

Me being bisexual I still find it very discriminating and I'm still surprised that people still treat it the same as it was ten years ago.

And the whole thing about homosexuality coming from both environmental and genetic isn't entirely true. Its either or both. I have a friend that's been gay for as long as I have known him, but for me its very much a past psychological issue.

And personally, I don't ever remember being taught about marriage in school..

People are just scared of something they just do not understand. Banning marriage for gay couples will not change the fact they they will still walking around the streets as couples.

[themadscientist]

Banning marriage for gay couples will not change the fact they they will still walking around the streets as couples.

Exactly so we don't need to dismantle the institution of marriage so let's quit trying to.

People are just scared of something they just do not understand.

As a heterosexual man I can understand what a homosexual woman might see in another woman. The other option though, totally don't understand. The great part is I don't need to understand. If that works for them great, I wish them a lasting relationship based on love and respect.

That is why I am in favor of civil unions with the legal trappings of marriage to protect their rights.

[mattblancarte]

That is why I am in favor of civil unions with the legal trappings of marriage to protect their rights.

+1

I think this is a fair compromise that gays should take.

If a gay couple wants to get married, then they get married privately. As long as the gay civil unions receive the EXACT same benefits, who cares what name it goes by.

This will keep the institution of heterosexual marriage safe, and provide equal rights to gays.

[ADDirishboy]

+1

I think this is a fair compromise that gays should take.

If a gay couple wants to get married, then they get married privately. As long as the gay civil unions receive the EXACT same benefits, who cares what name it goes by.

This will keep the institution of heterosexual marriage safe, and provide equal rights to gays.

The problem with Civil Unions is this. Homosexuals want to be treated like heterosexuals. In taking marriage away from them, we are denying them that equality. I have a few gay friends and a couple gay relatives. How is their love not as good as mine? Why am I allowed to marry but they can't?

A lot of people talk about protecting marriage. I really don't understand how gays being able to marry effects marriage. Does is somehow make hetero marriages less powerful? Does is take away what marriage is supposed to be? Marriage is what 2 people go through when they love each other unconditionally, why do hetero's get to have that and gays don't?

I've debated this topic with many people. And one of the arguments I hear a lot is the "slippery slope". People are worried that if we allow gays to marry that then we will have to start letting polygamysts (sp?) marry multiple wives. Honestly, as long as each wife is of age and consenting to the marriage, fine. I don't have a problem with it.

But then people say that for some reason once we let the "slippery slope" start, then we will have to start letting people who love children marry children. Or people who love goats marry a goat. Both of these arguments are just stupid. Plain and simply, stupid. People can't marry children because children are not of age. They do not have the mental capacity to be able to understand what love is. That is why you must be 18 in order to marry. Also, the beastiality one, seriously? Now we are putting homosexuals on the same level as people who are in love with animals? You can't marry anything of a different species because it cannot consent.

And I hear my friends say that they still love their friends who are gay. And I'm not trying to say they don't. But I honestly don't understand how you can say you love someone (as a friend) and then deny them their happiness.

[krimsonviper]

A lot of people talk about protecting marriage. I really don't understand how gays being able to marry effects marriage. Does is somehow make hetero marriages less powerful? Does is take away what marriage is supposed to be?

In the eyes of the religious, yes. It interferes with beliefs. By allowing it, it flips some fundamentals.

Marriage is what 2 people go through when they love each other unconditionally, why do hetero's get to have that and gays don't?

Who's stopping them from loving their lover unconditionally? Why does there need to be a title to it? Why not have the civil union, and call it "marriage" to themselves? I wouldn't stop them from calling it that to their friends/family. Even though in my head, I know it's not. It also wouldn't be "legal", but are they really going to be arrested or fined for calling it that to friends and family? In the eyes of the gov't, they're "married" its just called a civil union.

For now, hetero's get to have marriage, but given some time, gays will be able to too. When that time comes, I'm just going to have to say "tough tits John, the other side has the majority of the vote. Dont go complaining and get the law flipped. Just take it for what it is and dont b!7ch about it and go crying to some lawyers about how its unfair, and blah blah blah"

But then people say that for some reason once we let the "slippery slope" start, then we will have to start letting people who love children marry children. Or people who love goats marry a goat. Both of these arguments are just stupid. Plain and simply, stupid. People can't marry children because children are not of age. They do not have the mental capacity to be able to understand what love is. That is why you must be 18 in order to marry. Also, the beastiality one, seriously? Now we are putting homosexuals on the same level as people who are in love with animals? You can't marry anything of a different species because it cannot consent.

The beastiality is just

But my argument is experience over age. I'm not saying "lets go out and do some 12 year olds!" What I am saying is age just doesn't equal the inability to love someone. I could have just turned 15, and been through enough relationships with older women and/or women my age to know what I want in a soulmate, but due to age, I couldn't marry her on the spot? I have to wait? What if I'm 15 and she's 28? LOL absurd right?

And I hear my friends say that they still love their friends who are gay. And I'm not trying to say they don't. But I honestly don't understand how you can say you love someone (as a friend) and then deny them their happiness.

I have an argument with this one, but I need to come up with a comparison in order for me to put it into words....How a diabetic cousin wants uber amounts of sugar. They absolutely cannot live with out an awesome amount of sugar every hour. Yet, you deny them sugar so that they can live. You love them, yet you aren't giving them something they want and love.

Its not a direct comparison to the subject, but its an answer to "how can you say you love someone and deny them their happiness?"

Its also not how I really wanted to answer the question, but do to the inability to express myself, it's the best I can do.

Why not just delete marriage term in the gov't? It would help in the seperation of powers. Just let the term be a religious word, meaning everyone who's "married" become "civil union'd(SP?)" Meaning among their church they're married, but outside of it, they're union'd. This would make everyone equal in the terms of the law, and gay's couldn't ask to be married because its a religious act, and the reason for them being denied it is pretty obvious and the gov't couldn't do anything about it.(Pretty sure someone/Marlin put this idea up. Maybe something similar)

Marriage is spit on anyway by the majority of the people. It's no more sacred than a long term relationship.

[HashiriyaS14]

Way to completely skim over my marriage argument.

Sorry if I don't fit perfectly into your labels. I know it causes your head to explode that I vote for Libertarians, occasional Republicans, and occasional Democrats. I realize you can't comprehend the the existence of views that transcend a flat political spectrum.

I am a socially liberal, fiscally conservative, pro-defense kind of guy. I like people like Ronald Reagan, Newt Gingrich, Kathleen Sebelius, James Carville, and Ron Paul. I am pro-choice on abortion, pro second amendment, and anti-tax. I despise the far left and the religious right.

I'm sure its easier for you to argue with someone if you can squeeze them into your narrow mental constructs. It allows you to completely ignore the issues and point fingers.

You know, for two people who essentially AGREE with one another on the gay marriage issue (i.e. tell the government to GTFO), you sure are arguing a lot.

[marlin29311]

But then people say that for some reason once we let the "slippery slope" start, then we will have to start letting people who love children marry children. Or people who love goats marry a goat. Both of these arguments are just stupid. Plain and simply, stupid. People can't marry children because children are not of age. They do not have the mental capacity to be able to understand what love is. That is why you must be 18 in order to marry. Also, the beastiality one, seriously? Now we are putting homosexuals on the same level as people who are in love with animals? You can't marry anything of a different species because it cannot consent.

And I hear my friends say that they still love their friends who are gay. And I'm not trying to say they don't. But I honestly don't understand how you can say you love someone (as a friend) and then deny them their happiness.

I think there was a guy in europe (france if i remember correctly) that got married to a dog...I could be totally wrong though. I do remember someone marring someone that was dead though.

You know, for two people who essentially AGREE with one another on the gay marriage issue (i.e. tell the government to GTFO), you sure are arguing a lot.

It's a politics forum! People are going to argue about the fact that they agree...lol

[ADDirishboy]

I think there was a guy in europe (france if i remember correctly) that got married to a dog...I could be totally wrong though. I do remember someone marring someone that was dead though.

France is just weird. I don't think he actually legally married the dog. I'm fairly certain that is illegal everywhere. I'm gonna google the one about marrying a dead person though, I just don't see how that can possibly be true. Did they keep the carcus?

[JustinStrife]

Voted for Prop 8, I voted for the original Prop 22, and glad this state hasn't completely lost it's sanity.

Marriage needs to stay as it always has been. No slippery slope for me please.

[Sentientbydesign]

The problem with Civil Unions is this. Homosexuals want to be treated like heterosexuals. In taking marriage away from them, we are denying them that equality. I have a few gay friends and a couple gay relatives. How is their love not as good as mine? Why am I allowed to marry but they can't?

If marriage is primarily a religious custom, then consider the ban a protection of the religion. I can see a lot of hetros viewing h0m0 marriages as defiling something they hold very near and dear. Believe me, if I had the power to do so, I would revoke the right to marry from the 50% who can't keep their **** together.

Again, this refers to societal and moral framework that is absolutely necessary for our nation to restore itself.

I've debated this topic with many people. And one of the arguments I hear a lot is the "slippery slope". People are worried that if we allow gays to marry that then we will have to start letting polygamysts (sp?) marry multiple wives. Honestly, as long as each wife is of age and consenting to the marriage, fine. I don't have a problem with it.

But then people say that for some reason once we let the "slippery slope" start, then we will have to start letting people who love children marry children. Or people who love goats marry a goat. Both of these arguments are just stupid. Plain and simply, stupid. People can't marry children because children are not of age. They do not have the mental capacity to be able to understand what love is. That is why you must be 18 in order to marry. Also, the beastiality one, seriously? Now we are putting homosexuals on the same level as people who are in love with animals? You can't marry anything of a different species because it cannot consent.

Do you really think it's your right to subject the rest of us to your "experiment". What if the "slippery slope" analogy is true. Are you ok with opening up the flood gates because of a largely confused (if only in the natural sense) group wants it all. I try to understand their fight and desire to fit in, but realistically they don't because too many of us "know" (just like they "know" it's right for them to be gay) that their orientation is wrong.

It's true that many of the Prop 8 supporters were fearful of what they don't understand, but on the flip side there were quite a few things that we didn't understand in the past that have led us in a very dangerous, immoral society.

Social responsibility is something that ALL of us need to exercise. I see too many instances were people just want with no care or thought in how that affects them or anyone else for that matter.

[Jesda]

You know, for two people who essentially AGREE with one another on the gay marriage issue (i.e. tell the government to GTFO), you sure are arguing a lot.

Because the CORE issue is NOT equality. Its a matter of principle and recognizing that in nature, man is free. It is the organized institution that controls him.

[sensibleS13driver]

.

[Jesda]

That's fine and novel that you feel that way, I don't disagree, but the case at hand is no longer one of of principle or philosophy.

It ought to be time to recognize the government's unjust role in controlling society. This is a VERY clear case of the mob exercising tyranny over the minority. This is a PERFECT example of why inviting the government into our lives, whether its through the guise of a modern conservative or modern liberal, results in less freedom.

The state being able to control who gets to marry is a product of allowing the state to control marriage in the first place. This debate should not exist, and both sides of the issue ought to recognize that its time to change the way society and the state handle marriage.

CHICKEN <-> ROTTEN EGG

[mattblancarte]

I think the slope is already greased up in terms of marriage... We allow legal divorces and multiple marriages, which is by definition a form of polygamy.

The federal government "protecting" Christians by denying the other group the right to get married doesn't make sense. The protection is only meant to go so far. It's meant to protect the rights of those who wish to practice religion, whatever the customs may be. It's NOT meant to protect religions from plagiarism and spin-offs.

I think the federal government should define all marriages as "civil-unions" and allow the private citizens and religious organizations to label it as they see fit.

[C-Kwik]

If a gay couple wants to get married, then they get married privately. As long as the gay civil unions receive the EXACT same benefits, who cares what name it goes by.

Who's stopping them from loving their lover unconditionally? Why does there need to be a title to it?

If it truly was perceived as only a word, then why did those who voted for Prop 8 do so?

That theory is supported by research. Whether you believe that research, like it's findings, or find other research that contradicts it is immaterial.

All research is subject to peer review. Exact methodology for the research must be well documented such that it can both be scrutinized and repeated. I did the former without much effort. Any research of that nature is disconcerting, especially when shown through a site with an apparent agenda. Keep in mind that the findings I used to scrutinize the research posted was such that it was very generous. I attempted to essentially prove you right as best I could, based on info I could find. The numbers were still way off base.

The fact of the matter is that it makes logical sense. It has wide acceptance by both researchers AND homosexuals alike. I think lots of people are missing the point. Being h0m0 is beginning to seem like the "cool" thing to do. A group that accepts all because there is power in numbers.

You should know me well enough to know that I take a very logical approach to most things. But one thing I've learned is that not everything can be explained with logic until we can actually figure out the logic behind it. As I said before, I think there are various causes for people to be attracted to the same sex. To what extent each occurs, I have no clue. My argument is you are asserting or suggesting that one cause is highly likely without any credible basis.

Here is a website that states the various theories and also has some decent evidence to back up my beliefs.

http://www.familyresearchinst.....html

Are you serious? Just for kicks, I googled causes of homosexuality. That was within the first page. Within the first page you can find several articles that discuss causes and they vary greatly. So why not pick out ANY of them and post them up? The fact is, there is no research that conclusively pinpoints any cause of homosexuality with any high degree of scientific certainty.

The atheists and agnostics who are angered that religion is being force fed to them are analogous to Americans going to a foreign country and saying, your food and architechture is amazing, but your customs and lifestyle is stupid and has to go.

I don't support those who feel that religion is forced on them. They have the same right in this country to not practice a religion as those that that do practice a religion is allowed to do so as well. The problem in this case is that IT HAS BEEN ENACTED INTO LAW. As its support came largely from religious groups, it would appear that this is a religious practice being forced on people. On the other hand, allowing gay marriages does not FORCE heteros to have momosexual marriages. They are still provided with the right to choose.

I don't follow the "teaching" and try to evangelize everyone I come across. I do have a few friends who I wish I could "help", but I'm not going to force feed you my religion. I find that to be one of the least effective methods of garnering respect and following.

This law effectively forces a religious issue onto the citizens of this nation. While the non-religious homosexuals probably won't become Godly as a result, the impact is that people will be forced to follow a religious practice despite the fact that they may not prescribe to it. Might as well create a law that requires people to get married before moving in with each other. Or having children. Perhaps we should outlaw divorce. Force everyone to pray in schools.

On the flipside, much of the moral framework and social norms that hold/held this society together are the ones that came from where??? Our religion (just about all of them save Islam).

I agree that's where it started. But the country has evolved. The ideals of the nations Constitution were stated in manners so that it could be altered. But if you've noticed, laws enacted are generally done so to protect us both from each other and from ourselves. They don't follow some moral code. In fact most laws that were really only religious ideals have been abolished since then and if any still exist, they are largely ignored.

So you now have a large secular group who once benefitted from our morals, but want to shut the rest of our belief system in a closet (hmm sounds familiar) and tell us to keep quiet, the church has no business here.

But NOONE is removing your right to practice YOUR religion. There is a huge fundamental difference between your argument and what this law is doing.

FAIL

The proof is in the...prisons

I had a good feeling you'ld take it there. The difference is most homosexuality that occurs in a prison is not as a result of preference, but likely as a result of a lack of options and perhaps a system of power/protection/economy. Some of it is simply forced. But I highly doubt the prisons are filed with a bunch of naked men running around fornicating all day long.

Cancer is mostly not contagious. AIDS...I'm still surprised that no forms of quarantine are initiated. I don't support that idea, but I'm surprised with all of the other liberties that we've lost that that isn't one of them.

I'm a bit confused by your position here. You claim we lost liberties, but this fundamental basis of this issue is that a group of people have lost their liberty.

IF homosexuality is socially contagious (it is, but in an illness point of view), then promoting it in society only perpetuates a social issue.

Last I checked noone was "promoting" it. I don't see flyers being left on my car in the parking lot, or ads on the TV, or goups of avtivists telling everyone to be Gay. And frankly, I simply don't see it as a social "issue" anyways. Every person in this country is free to decide what makes them happy so long as it doesn't hurt the next guy.

There are already children's books with homosexual materials in them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/King_&_King

I would be irrate (if I could spell it lol) if that was read to my child one day.

I highly doubt there will be curriculum like that being read to your children in schools. Either you've run out of arguments or fear and paranoia have gotten the best of you.

If marriage is primarily a religious custom, then consider the ban a protection of the religion. I can see a lot of hetros viewing h0m0 marriages as defiling something they hold very near and dear. Believe me, if I had the power to do so, I would revoke the right to marry from the 50% who can't keep their **** together.

Religion is already protected. Quite well in fact. This does not protect religion in any way, shape or form.

Again, this refers to societal and moral framework that is absolutely necessary for our nation to restore itself.

Lets assume you're right and force a single religion on every person in the country. Do you really think that would make society better? Perhaps it will. But then have you seen the way people live in places like North Korea? They consider their president a God. There was a video released when foreign doctors were allowed to go in and treat many people. Some were cured of blindness. The first thing they did with their sight was praise their leader for making their sight possible. It saddened me to see that these people may never taste an ounce of freedom in their lives. FREEDOM is what this country is supposed to be about.

Do you really think it's your right to subject the rest of us to your "experiment". What if the "slippery slope" analogy is true. Are you ok with opening up the flood gates because of a largely confused (if only in the natural sense) group wants it all. I try to understand their fight and desire to fit in, but realistically they don't because too many of us "know" (just like they "know" it's right for them to be gay) that their orientation is wrong.

You're worried about a flood. The body of water is seriously nothing more than a wading pool. And it's not exactly raining gay...

It's true that many of the Prop 8 supporters were fearful of what they don't understand, but on the flip side there were quite a few things that we didn't understand in the past that have led us in a very dangerous, immoral society.

On the other hand, fear caused the execution of many innocent lives when they were accused of being witches. Fear caused our scholars to be executed for ideas like the world is round or the earth revolves around the sun.

Social responsibility is something that ALL of us need to exercise. I see too many instances were people just want with no care or thought in how that affects them or anyone else for that matter.

I don't see how allowing hmosexual marriage is socially irresponsible...I don't disagree wqith your statement. It just has no relevance to the topic...

[mattblancarte]

If it truly was perceived as only a word, then why did those who voted for Prop 8 do so?

I was stating my personal opinion. I agree with you that most people don't perceive it in that manner.

From what I understand, the majority of people that voted for Prop 8 feel threatened, both religiously and morally.

Hence why I stated that the government should not define "marriage" as anything other than civil-unions. Let the private citizens and private organizations, be them religious or whatever, define the concept with the wording of their choice.

I'm not even for tax benefits for any marriage or civil-union... That's another convo, though.

[ishkabibble]

Hence why I stated that the government should not define "marriage" as anything other than civil-unions. Let the private citizens and private organizations, be them religious or whatever, define the concept with the wording of their choice.

I like that idea. Good one.

[audtatious]

Spinning already.....This "Constitutional Amendment" won't last. This will be twice the CA voters voted for something and it will be undone.

Latest from the Great Pelosi:

"Unfortunately, I think people thought they were making a statement about what their view of same-sex marriage was," the San Francisco Democrat said. "I don't know if it was clear that this meant that we are amending the Constitution to diminish freedom in our state."

So, the people who voted for this twice were only voting on their viewpoint but not an actual amendment.....Wonder if it will hold water?

[Cold_Zero]

I think it was either this thread or the one that is locked where I called this.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,481308,00.html

[audtatious]

Of course, and if fair was fair he should win based on the reasons they have gay marriage in Canada.

[BoostFab]

funny thing is in texas a first case of two dude file for a divorce. the law doesnt have such thing here, because they were married from another state. http://www.nbcnewyork.com/news....html

what is this world coming to...leave marriage to male and female. transgender doesn't count. next thing you see is a person wanting to divorce from their dog.

[audtatious]

You big meanie

[Jesda]

I think the slope is already greased up in terms of marriage... We allow legal divorces and multiple marriages, which is by definition a form of polygamy.

The federal government "protecting" Christians by denying the other group the right to get married doesn't make sense. The protection is only meant to go so far. It's meant to protect the rights of those who wish to practice religion, whatever the customs may be. It's NOT meant to protect religions from plagiarism and spin-offs.

I think the federal government should define all marriages as "civil-unions" and allow the private citizens and religious organizations to label it as they see fit.

And state governments have the AUTHORITY to do that because we gave them the right. Undo the slope.

Voting in favor of legalized gay marriage is insufficient. It completely bypasses the core issue.

Take sex and gender out of it and try this analogy:Imagine if this nation was 99% white. The government permits marriage between two people, white and white. When any of the remaining 1% want to marry each other, the government, authorized by popular vote, steps in and disallows it.

You could make it legal for minorities to marry each other, sure, but it misses the point entirely -- government shouldn't be dictating marriage rights to begin with.

THIS is why I am trying to make a philosophical point. I may vote to legalize gay marriage, but it doesn't address the issue of government-restricted marriage. It doesn't matter how you feel about gay marriage, because its a completely irrelevant side issue.

The BIG issue is government's role in marriage regulation.

Imagine if the state restricted the type of music you could listen to, and in order to listen to a new genre, you had to put it to a vote. Its absurd.

[mattblancarte]

I agree. Some legislator in NC is trying to make profanity a crime. Why oppress harmless and innocent behavior? Why does the government need to meddle in the private lives of citizens?

[Jesda]

You know, for two people who essentially AGREE with one another on the gay marriage issue (i.e. tell the government to GTFO), you sure are arguing a lot.

There is -not- agreement because legalizing gay marriage isn't the same as telling the government to GTFO.