Proposition 8 Ruled Unconstitutional

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Ham, Aug 5, 2010.

  1. Ham

    Ham Member

    I think this is great. It's good to see that another pretty glaring inequality in the US legal system is starting to crumble. It will probably get appealed to a higher court, but for now it's great news for people who up until now would run into all sorts of roadblocks because of the benefits that extend to marriage and not domestic partnership. I've heard stories about people who have had to expatriate to be with a foreign partner (no marriage, no green card) or even have trouble visiting a dying partner at the hospital because their marriage hasn't been recognized by the state.

    Hopefully this ruling sticks for awhile.
     
  2. garcia1000

    garcia1000 World Champion Staff Member

    You know why abortion is such a divisive topic in the US, while it's a non-issue in Europe? It's because of Roe v Wade. A court rules on an issue, prematurely settling it before society has had its chance to agree on a consensus. The proposition 8 ruling could be analogous!


    Maybe that is a dumb opinion, who knows
     
  3. Ham

    Ham Member

    Prop 8 was a ballot measure, so when it passed a majority of voters (though not necessarily all society) came to the consensus that gay marriage should have been outlawed. I think the federal courts are a useful thing to have around, since it allows the rights of unpopular minorities to get protected. After all the biggest steps in civil rights for black Americans in the mid 1900s came thanks to court decisions.
     
  4. Hyphen-ated

    Hyphen-ated New Member

    I think it's because the radical religious right doesn't have nearly as much power in Europe as it does in the US.
     
  5. Gavisi

    Gavisi Active Member

    This is a great step towards getting people to realize that banning gay marriage is a human rights violation. It's still gonna be a point of contention as long as the religious right is around, but it's getting better.
     
  6. Logo

    Logo Well-Known Member

    It's also not as clear cut of an issue as generally neither option is very appealing (the appealing option would be to not get pregnant in the first place) so people have some room for debate beyond religion.

    Gay marriage, from the state's point of view, is (should be) purely about taxes and a few other legal issues and it's absurd that 2 citizens can have these rights, but 2 other citizens cannot purely because of their relative sexes.

    Gay marriage is one of the biggest waste of our government's time right up there with the steroids scandals. This is something that should have resolved itself in 5 minutes (or in the political/judicial world 1 court case).
     
  7. Boco

    Boco Member

    I hope the ruling gets appealed so SCotUS can declare it unconstitutional and thereby set a nationwide precedent for allowing gay marriage (or at least being forbidden to ban it).
     
  8. Logo

    Logo Well-Known Member

    That'd be awesome, but it'd also be a little worrying as if the judges rule against it for some BS/Political reason then it'd be a huge setback.
     
  9. brainof7

    brainof7 Member

    well it depends on how you view marriage.

    For religious people, most of them just don't want to see people get the same name as their union between their spouse that is ordained of god. Most people are fine with civil unions or w/e and wouldn't even care if homosexual couples had the same taxes and stuff too.
     
  10. Logo

    Logo Well-Known Member

    The state isn't religious.

    If religious people don't want the state to use marriage in their laws then tough shit. It's just a word.

    People in the world need to calm down about terminology.
     
  11. garcia1000

    garcia1000 World Champion Staff Member

    I think George Orwell would have disagreed. He thought that words are important.
     
  12. icewolf34

    icewolf34 Well-Known Member

    Some things that are interesting to me about this case: seemed that no one was happy with the compromise "Civil unions now have all the legal benefits and recognitions of marriage. State doesn't issue marriage license any more, only issues civil union license," which seemed like the most reasonable approach to me.

    Second interesting thing, court seems to define marriage as a fundamental right, on the same level as a right to vote, right to privacy, etc.

    Third interesting thing, is there any remaining justification for a law banning marriage between a consenting brother and sister? Suppose that the male has a vasectomy, so there's no worry of offspring with elevated risk of genetic defects, etc. Part of the ruling was that "Moral disapproval, without any other asserted state interest, has never been a rational basis for legislation".
     
  13. Warskull

    Warskull Active Member

    I don't think it has to (but this is attracting enough attention that it might.) The judge ruled that a ban on gay marriage violates the US constitution. This could be used as precedent in other states as is. There will be a strong push from the religious right to get this decision overturned.

    It will be interesting to see what happens if it hits the supreme court.
     
  14. pictish

    pictish Member

    I think this is a very misleading post.

    Yes, he thought words were important. Does that mean that we should make up new words for marriage to avoid offending people's religious sensibilities? That seems like a less clear system and a misuse of words. If it's marriage, let's just go ahead and call it marriage.

    It's hard to take the idea that gay marriage would sully the holy name of marriage seriously. Particularly since atheist marriage is not illegal.
     
  15. icewolf34

    icewolf34 Well-Known Member

    pictish, it means you can't say 'terminology is unimportant, calm down,' which is what Logo was saying in the post before garcia's. Defining the terms is half of winning the debate.

    Also, I am unaware of any religion which does not recognize marriage between two people not of that religion. So marriage between two atheists is not contested by anyone, which is untrue of a gay marriage. Anyways, no one here is arguing that gay marriage should be illegal, just that the state could choose not to recognize a state of marriage between anyone (gay or straight) -- only a civil union. This has the advantage that it's not tied up with all these traditional notions that already exist. I agree that it's less clear in some ways, though calling it a 'misuse of language' is overstating the point. To be honest I don't really care about this point much, just found it strange that it had so little traction with either side.

    Anyone want to take me up on my question about incestuous marriage, above? I hear the argument a lot, that moral disapproval (even of the majority) shouldn't be the basis for law, but I wonder if that too is overstating the point. One might say the basis of our law is that we morally disapprove of deprivations of life, liberty, property, or the ability to vote.
     
  16. Thelo

    Thelo Administrator Staff Member

    Yeah that "moral disapproval" thing is a bit too vague to be useful, imo, because it can encompass pretty much everything if you really want it to.

    ***

    I think a big part of why gay marriage actually has relevance is that the tax benefits for married couples, at the base level, probably come from the fact that raising children is hard, so let's give a break to those who do. So gay couples have, uh, less chance of raising children, and so the original justification isn't there anymore.

    Yeah there are married couples that don't raise children, so it doesn't quite hold up to reality. So this makes me think, would there be a way of actually only giving tax benefits if the couple is actually raising children? That way the original reason to give the tax break (my hypothesis) would be more consistent with its application.
     
  17. Shiri

    Shiri Well-Known Member

    Calling it a misuse of language doesn't really address the point at all, which is that separation between church and state is vitally important (and should be more prevalent even in officially Christian states like the UK) and that as such marriage, which is prescribed by religious officials, should have no bearing on anything relevant to the average person except on an opt-in basis. Settling for gays being allowed to marry is a kind of second best thing but having seen how people now react to "attacks on marriage" that don't actually do that in, imagine the popularity of a proposition which, you know, would. Even the people on the civil rights side of the issue would feel uncomfortable about it in the social climate we have today. Real separation isn't something people are ready for.

    Not sure what you're asking. If you ask in any decent system of morality whether incest is wrong or just icky, the response should never be the former. To be honest even disallowing incestuous couples from having children feels like an unnecessary concession to religious people considering that we don't also prevent people with genetic defects from having children and the possibility of those defects is the only reasoning the anti-incest camp has that even looks like it holds up.
     
  18. qzujak49

    qzujak49 Active Member

    Couldn't this be done with claiming dependents? I'm aware there are other types of dependents than children, but there could be additional tax benefits that are dependent upon claiming children as dependents.

    [X]Claim dependent.
    [X]Dependent is child.
    [X]Dependent child is disabled.
    [X]Child has yadda yadda specific disability.
     
  19. brainof7

    brainof7 Member

    Hold it! There is the establishment clause, but this in and of itself is a serious misuse of language. There is No Such Thing as separation of church and state, and in fact a lot of things that the government does are because of a religious aspect at founding!

    Using that as an argument against anything is not valid, however you also couldn't use religion as a crutch to support an argument.

    This seems like a societal issue, and should be left to a vote by the people. Federal government has no say in this. Now, whether or not homosexual couples should be restricted or anything is of course restricting freedom of those people and shouldn't be done. However if the same template were applied to them and same types of tax breaks and rules (like hospital visiting and stuff) were applied then it wouldn't be discrimination and it wouldn't be wrong in any way IMO. I think that both sides just don't have an accurate idea of what the other side means/says.
     
  20. Shiri

    Shiri Well-Known Member

    I'm not American so you may have to explain this to me. When I say separation of church and state is vitally important, I mean it. I'm not referring to any American government details or anything like that. I mean, the church should not interfere with the state any more than any other random organisation is allowed to. And it should have to obey the same rules as everyone else too (yes, that means if it wants to employ people it has to obey everyone else's employment laws, etc. etc.) Basically, no special treatment. An important civil function like marriage being in the hands of things other than the state is special treatment.
     
  21. Bucky

    Bucky Well-Known Member

    The entire debate is fuelled by the homosexual community's desire for legitimacy. That is, they believe on some level that having their relationships called 'marriages' will make them acceptable to the moralists. Diverting the issue to one of 'civil unions' would, for the pro-homosexual-marriage side, defeat the point.


    Separation of church and state means that the government doesn't interfere with the running of the church. If the state tells the church they must consider two people married, when such a marriage would be blasphemous, that is just as much a violation of the principle of separation of church and state as the converse.
     
  22. Shiri

    Shiri Well-Known Member

    Okay. All the more reason to make civil marriage and religious marriage entirely separate affairs then. Religions can conduct their rituals and whatever as they please (to within the same limits that anyone else would have - no scientology stalking people etc.), and the rest of the country can handle important legal unions without any intereference.
     
  23. Logo

    Logo Well-Known Member

    That's not what I said =/.
     
  24. ChadMiller

    ChadMiller Well-Known Member

    I wouldn't say "everyone," but I noticed at least three major opposition groups:

    Group A, people who don't want gay people to have said rights, in marriage or otherwise

    Group B, people who wanted to flip the bird at the religious in general and group A in particular

    Group C, people who thought it might be ok if it actually happened that way, but were skeptical it would (see: "Separate but equal")
     
  25. Ham

    Ham Member


    It's not really fair to decide a minority's rights based on the results of a majority vote.
    I agree that the government has no say in this (federal or state). I personally feel that they should stay out of America's bedrooms and let people get married regardless of sexual orientation, which is a view that this court case seems to support.
    I keep getting reminded of the Brown v Board ruling from 50 years ago; I think that a separate but equal institution for homosexuals would be inherently unequal. It also seems illogical to me to think that setting up a union that is equal to marriage in every way but name would be okay, but calling it same-sex marriage would be very bad.
     
  26. brainof7

    brainof7 Member

    Shiri, the idea is that nowhere in american gov. is there anything that says that church and state have to be separate. There is the first amendment which says that the state can never establish a religion (and by extrapolation, fund one or support one) but there isn't anything in the US constitution which says that church and state have to be separate. Congress for example starts off with a prayer (or did at some point in time) which not everyone has to participate in and there are other references to god in the currency, national anthem, and other similar things.

    Now, some people have the philosophy that you have that state shouldn't be involved in religion at all (separation of church and state) which is fine if that is the way that the state and the people want to go (which in recent years seems to be). However, if the government wants to be loosely tied to religion in that that is how they deal with social issues or whatever, they are perfectly allowed to do things like prop 8 because of the close tie to religion and the fact that doing so isn't banned in the laws at all.

    Yes, it is harder to argue that gay couples shouldn't be married then people can't take others property, but when you can take any argument that a homosexual could use, and apply it to kleptomania, it seems more of a social issue and how people feel about it. No one really wants to take away their right to be together, but the majority of the population in even liberal states like California, does not want to see this.

    I am not really arguing either side, just trying to explain it from the religion side because I think I understand it to a degree and it is sometimes misrepresented with things like "separation of church and state" or people who think they are a bunch of people trying to take away rights from other people.
     
  27. Claytus

    Claytus Well-Known Member

    A) I think you're completely wrong about the raising children thing... as people said, dependent clauses exist for that.
    B) There are non-married couples who raise children, and even gay couples that adopt children, so it's even less in tune with reality than you're implying.

    What... no, it's totally a legal issue. The concerns are tax benefits, hospital visiting rights, inheritance rules, and like a billion other things.

    This is completely a civil rights issue, and the fact that it hasn't already obviously been decided as a case of illegal discrimination is pretty damn appaling.

    No, that's not what it means at all.

    The seperation of church and state thing is that the church can't tell the government a law is blasphemous and get it overturned. The whole inspiration for the idea is old European monarchies where the Pope was pretty much more powerful than any of the reigning kings because he could threaten excommunication if they didn't change any particular policy he didn't like.

    brainof7 is kind of right that this day-to-day stuff is outside the scope of the concept, and it's not really written down anywhere anyway. But you're completely wrong... the church-goers are free to consider anything they want blasphemous, and they can tell anyone they want because of the 1st amendment. But they pretty much just have to accept the reality of the situation, and the fact that they disagree with something gives them no legal authority to challenge that thing.
     
  28. Ham

    Ham Member

    Theft laws apply to everyone regardless of race, gender or sexual orientation. I fail to see the connection.

    I said this before, but it's not fair to decide a minority's rights based on the results of a majority vote. Just because the masses agree on a prejudice doesn't make it right morally or sound legally... I trust the courts more on this one. Prop 8 passed with only 52% of the popular vote anyway, that's not exactly a mandate that the people don't want same sex marriage.
     
  29. brainof7

    brainof7 Member

    well all that anything I said means and boils down to is: "Is a homosexual couple equal to a heterosexual couple based on what people think"

    I don't think it is really a civil rights issue at all, because it is a fundamentally different relationship entirely. Ultimately, we have to take someone's right away in order to protect someone else's no matter what. The connection with stealing laws is that there are choices involved. It is wrong to say that theft laws apply to everyone while anti gay marriage laws don't. They apply to every race, gender, and any other characteristic you can think about. Homosexuality is a choice ultimately, a mindset, and the voting and stuff is just whether or not people want to tolerate that kind of choice just like if they want to tolerate whether or not people want to steal their property.

    edit: just realized:
    Make sure you read this in context with my other post. And I make the disclaimer that this is not how I personally believe nor am I trying to argue with anyone here. this is simply me bringing up the other side. People aren't for taking away others choice but they are fine as long as they are "civil unions" and nor "marriages" because they are making a different choice
     
  30. Claytus

    Claytus Well-Known Member

    Again, no, it's completely a civil rights issue. There is no tradeoff here... gay couples are having rights such as hospital visitations denied from them, and noone is having a right protected, or gaining anything in exchange. Heterosexual couples have these rights either way, and noone's being forced to enter into a gay marriage just because they're legal.

    It's clearly a case of discrimination where one group is society is simply being treated differently for no particular reason.

    Uh... actually, the scientific consensus is pretty clear at this point that it's not a choice.
     
  31. brainof7

    brainof7 Member

    That is not what the majority of people think though, which is why it is an issue in the first place.

    It is not a rights issue, esp. when people are fine with gay couples having their own equivalent thing. Someone said "watch out, seperate but equal" but really a gay couple =/= to heterosexual fundamentally. If the few things you brought up like hospital visits and taxes were fixed it would be fine!
    I would like to see where the scientific consensus says this, because I have never heard of this before. Links or something? Everyone who I have talked to who is gay has basically said it is a choice, or else they are younger and don't feel it is at the time... but anyone who is older that I have talked to says it is.
     
  32. Ham

    Ham Member

    So Prop 8 takes away gays' rights to marry. I don't see what rights are being protected here. Your right to.. not like homosexuality? You can still do that, but it's not really a point of view our government should be endorsing.

    When's the last time you chose who you were attracted to? I think the only choice homosexuals have is whether or not to come out about it.
     
  33. brainof7

    brainof7 Member

    So the issue is over whether or not marriage is a homosexual thing or not. Some people do not think, because of the inherent differences in the relationship type, that it should be called marriage. Way to take my post out of context!

    All the time I have to choose whether or not I am attracted to someone. I especially choose how I act on those feelings, and choose to become attracted to someone if I like, it is not hard...
    1) people who are in arranged marriages learn to love each other
    2) some people who are homosexual get counseling and become heterosexual!
     
  34. Claytus

    Claytus Well-Known Member

    You're back to the semantics issue. I don't believe that what you're saying is actually the case. The whole problem is that Prop8 type bans preclude even "seperate but equal", they're simply "not equal".

    If we get those issues like I was mentioning, then I'd probably be generally okay with it, and the religious right can run around as much as they want hammering on the specific meaning of various terms. But we're so far away from that point that even accepting a ban in name only does too much to hurt the situation.

    This is just the whole intelligent design thing all over again (i.e. it's not creationism anymore if we found a society that hasn't officially registered as religious!)... a bunch of homophobes want to make gays cease to exist, and they can't openly say that they're homophobes, so they're masking the whole thing behind a concern over the particular word "marriage". And even openly engaging in this discussion of whether maybe civil unions are different, and figuring out whether religious sensibilities should affect the government's views is just playing into their hand, and we shouldn't stand for it.

    I don't have any articles off the top of my head... I was kind of assuming everyone had done some research to be past this point by now, it's talked about in the media so much. It's an issue like global warming that's so politicized that random google searches are kind of pointless and you can find evidence for any opinion. Gotta start at, like, Scientific American, and get increasingly academic if you want to get anywhere...

    I will say that I absolutely don't care what "people you talked to" have to say about it... being gay doesn't actually give you any particular power to tell why you're gay that a heterosexual doesn't have. It's an incredibly complex question that requires biological/medical/sociological studies to say anything about.
     
  35. Ham

    Ham Member

    Unfortunately, tied into this debate is the fact that gay couples don't have the same rights and privileges as straight couples. The fact that "some people do not think that it should be called marriage" doesn't sound like a good enough reason to deny American citizens their right to have their unions recognized.

    1) So a gay person can stay in the closet and have unfulfilling heterosexual relationships that they will "grow into." That sounds like it'd be a wonderful experience for everyone involved.
    2) ...or they can get "cured" and go back into heterosexuality. I seriously doubt how effecting such counseling could be. This sounds to me like an excuse for a homosexual to get back into the closet after getting hit a little too hard by the stigma/prejudice that goes along with being gay.
     
  36. SpicyCrab

    SpicyCrab Well-Known Member

    Warning, Warning, SpicyCrab Text wall Incoming

    This decision is meaningless. It was going to be appealed either way.

    Are you surprised that a San Francisco judge ruled in favor of gay marriage? This sets no meaningful legal precedent.

    This only matters as high as it's appealed and will likely end up in the supreme court if they are not too cowardly to take on the case. (I suspect that they are)

    The liberal political machine probably doesn't want that to happen. Most Americans are against gay marriage, and minorities are disproportionately against it. This is the last thing the dems need dividing their constituency coming in to this highly contentious election cycle (aren't they all?) so they probably don't want the case to get too high in the system.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/08/06/obamas-opposition-to-gay_n_672836.html

    P.S

    I am surprised that homosexuals are so eager to ruin their lives and become involved in contentious property disputes for no reason.

    Other than that it makes no difference to me at all and they can do whatever they want.

    To me this entire issue looks like brainless political pandering. Marriage is the last right that I would want. Hey, if I wasn't legally allowed to marry I would have a great excuse for my next girlfriend!

    I believe that part of the reason that many homosexual couples are so insistent on this is that they want to lend legitimacy to their unions, it's not actually about the financial and civil rights, which even the wingnut religious right would probably be happy to give them (hospital visits, benefits etc...) It's about the word.

    It's about lending legitimacy to their relationships and forcing society to recognize and "love" their love. The word marriage is the point of contention here. As I said, I don't really care what happens either way but if it was really just about getting the same functional rights as heterosexuals; why are they not fighting for "full civil unions?" They could win that fight MUCH easier. No, they choose to fight for "marriage." They want the word, and they want the legitimacy and acceptance that it implies.

    Unfortunately American society seems unwilling or unready to extend that word of acceptance to them. :/

    And just so you know there are plenty of gay people who are actually against gay marriage, I can't speak to their reasons as I am not one of them; but they do count Elton John among their number.

    http://www.celebitchy.com/21719/elt...ge_says_civil_unions_are_for_same_sex_couples

    http://nogaymarriage.wordpress.com/

    http://www.indegayforum.org/blog/show/30365.html
     
  37. Claytus

    Claytus Well-Known Member

    I think this is technically false. If the decision had gone the other way, the law would be "in effect", until the opposition wins both the chance for an appeal hearing, and an injunction against the law until the completion of the appeal.

    As it stands, the pro-Prop8 side can't do anything to affect an actual change in their favor unless they actually win the appeal.

    I'm sorry, this is just a dumb thing to say. Ask anyone on either side of the discussion, and I think you'll find people actually care about their religion, they actually care about their place in society, and sometimes they actually care about each other when they are in a relationship. You being a bachelor with a short outlook doesn't somehow preclude others from having different opinions...

    While, you're right, you're really choosing the wrong words here. You could describe civil rights about trying to make people "love" blacks. Which is pretty pointless thing to say, and clearly doesn't preclude all the racism that still exists.

    It's about acceptance and legal protection. The relationships are clearly legitimate without outside approval. And I think it's understood that homophobes won't cease to exist because of the way those laws roll out. The real issue is whether sexual orientation deserves the same protections as race/gender discrimination, etc...
     
  38. garcia1000

    garcia1000 World Champion Staff Member

    Why gay marriage and not civil unions, then? Seems like "civil unions for people of all sexual orientations" would be totally fine.


    Here's what the Church Times has to say about it!
    http://www.churchtimes.co.uk/content.asp?id=60752

    Maybe that is a lot of words for you so you can skip to number 8
     
  39. SpicyCrab

    SpicyCrab Well-Known Member

    Just so you know claytus I was actually trying to make a marriage joke with my "last right would want" thing. Perhaps I failed?

    Also, keep in mind that more than 50% of marriages end in Divorce ( including many gay marriages including the very first one) and many marriages which don't end in divorce do end in unhappiness. I think it would be more accurate to say "Many people think that they care"

    Also just so you know, the judge put an injunction on gay marriage pending appeal. As it stands homosexual couples still can not marry in California; the decision is meaningless.
     
  40. link6616

    link6616 Well-Known Member

    www.manhunt.com talk to a few more gay guys about the issue and you'll find very few really find it a choice...

    I'm for gay marriage as such, but I really think gay people are pushing the wrong word here... Australia now see gay 'de facto' relationships, and most social service forms just ask about de facto partners as opposed to married... It also means people no longer have to 'get married' as such to register under the term defacto partner, I think you simply need to have been living together for 6 or 12 months together.... There are a few things which aren't solved, but using a different term i think made it much easier to swallow, as the term has no relation to Christianity, stopping them worrying so much.

    One thing that is of a much much greater concern for me though is the right to adopt... I understand fair rights and all we should be allowed to. I understand that many children are raised by a single parent meaning much less contact with one gender....

    But I'm personally worried as a gay person, the impact of a gay couple raising a child, i don't mean this in a bad sense, but without a lot of management, i think the lack of male/female reference without a lot of management could be very detrimental, so unless regular baby sitting happens with a person of a different gender to the couple, i am still a little worried.
     
  41. -Y-

    -Y- Well-Known Member

    To be honest, I think the overall quality of a relationship is more important than whether one of you is male/female. Anyhow you can still send the child to your mother/father if you are on good terms with them.

    I do think homosexuality has some kind of social/cultural component to it (as in tolerating/approving homosexual relationship increases the overall number of homosexuals, that they aren't all closet gays) and that most people use the "it's just a nature" thing as an excuse. If basic psychology taught me anything is that love is 40% nature and 60% environment.
    That being said I don't thing oppressing/hiding your gays is a good or even a smart thing.
     
  42. brainof7

    brainof7 Member

    @garcia

    IDK if that is supposed to be an insult to me or something with the "maybe that is too many words for you" comment. Also on that article you linked, it appears that most people believe that there are mostly environmental factors involved. There is a genetic study, but that didn't really show any correlation with the genes. The part (number 8) that you told me specifically to look at referenced results from the 60's and 70's which is laughable. The more recent results were very glazed over and said that it wasn't successful, but you would have to look at the process very closely to decide whether or not they were valid or not. Counseling only works with people who are willing to get help, you can't force someone to change.

    @link6616

    Notice how I said some younger guys don't but older ones do? I am talking from personal experience here, I am going to guess that people online who are looking to find other gay men are going to say they don't find it much of a choice, they are already past the sexual orientation stage, they are actively making decisions with the mindset of "I am this way". Older people can look back on their decisions, and a lot of them really wish they had the opportunity to have a family and stuff. One of my friends from high school actually made these kind of decisions recently, and decided he wanted to be heterosexual. There aren't necessarily a lot of people who go out and do this, but it isn't the false dichotomy everyone so far has claimed it is (and I don't mean that nobody has claimed bisexual here).

    Homosexual people can have heterosexual feelings and desires (and heterosexual people can have homosexual ones) and make choices and be happy. I wasn't trying to imply how common it was in the general public or anything, but I have seen it personally, and I understand that you can't "force" someone to be a certain way, just saying that it was possible!

    Personally, I am not really for or against the movement in either way, I feel I don't know enough. But what I do know is I have seen people make choices and I know it is possible.
     
  43. garcia1000

    garcia1000 World Champion Staff Member

    Hey man, if you gotta have your convictions and you don't want to change them, that's fine with me! I'm not trying to change anyone.
     
  44. Wail

    Wail New Member

    The fact of the matter is the US government can do whatever it wants. Pretenses of appealing to law, logic, rationality, what have you are just that - pretenses. If a judge wants to rule that homosexual marriage should be legally recognized but not follow through on the equally valid arguments for any number of other non-legally-recognized pairings, they're perfectly able to do so. Similarly, the valid rationales for allowing homosexual marriage need not be recognized by the US government either. There are an effectively infinite number of laws which the US governments enacts and enforces on a daily basis which are essentially purely arbitrary, and it's impossible to remove arbitrariness from the law.

    The argument from the position that the state shouldn't "legislate morality" has similar problems. I doubt it's possible to divorce a system of law from a moral perspective, and even if we could do it no one knows whether it would be a good system. Given that such a system doesn't exist in the real world, we can make an educated guess that it's either impossible or doesn't work very well.

    Either way I think it'd be nice if we could collectively move past the idea that everything we has to do is consistent with some sort of ideology/principle. In my opinion it's far better to first off accept that human culture is beyond any human's ability to accurately predict or change, then take a step back and look at what our goals are and gather empirical data on how to accomplish those goals. Then we can try to enact policies which actually produce the desired result instead of providing meaningless sheets of paper for politicians to sign, wasting untold amounts of effort pursuing nebulous goals with ineffective methods.
     
  45. Sirlin

    Sirlin Steward of the Realm Staff Member

    My jaw is still dropped at someone thinking being gay is a choice. I mean seriously. To any one not gay, maybe just try being gay. If it's a choice and all, no big deal, right. Or maybe you will notice that you are extremely, extremely not into it no matter what you "choose."
     
  46. SpicyCrab

    SpicyCrab Well-Known Member

    I know at least one openly gay man who considers it a choice; he flat out told me so. :/

    Edit: At least 1 = exactly one ^^,
     
  47. garcia1000

    garcia1000 World Champion Staff Member

    How many straight people do you know who consider it a choice to be straight instead of gay? That is a more interesting question.

    It's because there are social forces which incentivize a gay people into saying it's a choice. But we can see what the "control group" really thinks in the absence of such incentives.
     
  48. link6616

    link6616 Well-Known Member

    You've probably seen this video before
    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JQ1I_-MY_NY

    But it feels someone appropriate. It's simply someone asking all the questions gay people get asked all the time, but saying straight... And it sounds absurd....
     
  49. -Y-

    -Y- Well-Known Member

    Dunno, never talked much about sexuality with my friends tbh. I do think I made that conscious choice some time ago.
     
  50. brainof7

    brainof7 Member

    One of my friends in HS got out of his second serious relationship (both of them were about a year and a half) and he told me "women are stupid. They are all just bitches" and now that he is in college, he is gay and he is happy.

    I would like to say that by everything I have said, I never meant that heterosexual was the "right" way or anything, nor did I mean that it is the way that people are born and that people actively choose to be homosexual, Nor did I say that it is "really" a choice for everyone. It is a personal decision and if you don't want to change you are not going to. I also never meant that we should try changing all the gays straight. I only said that I have seen people change (and I have seen people change between a lot of different things gay,straight,bi) and to say that it seems to me that it is a personal choice because I have talked to some people who have done it and t people who feel it is a choice (mostly older people).

    Even some of the people I have talked to who were gay, and never "chose" to become straight say that they felt it was kind of a choice at some point in their lives, but they were happy with the way they were. This is fine! I am not against homosexual people here. There is a point where I was saying "here is what the general religious population thinks" and then I said "here is what I think specifically because of my experiences". I honestly don't vote on the stuff like prop 8 because I can't do it.
     

Share This Page