California gets gay marriage and very hot weather

[Sbane]

Could anyone explain to me these recent SurveyUSA poll results from CA ?

The California Supreme Court has struck down the ban on gay marriage in California. Do you agree or disagree with the court's ruling?

Agree - 46%
Disagree - 46%

Do you support or do you oppose amending the state constitution to define marriage as being between one man and one woman?

Support - 52%
Oppose - 36%

http://www.surveyusa.com/client/PollReport.aspx?g=9ed7e37c-ea73-416f-bf4d-cc53dd280538

Eh just bros in the IE acting tough. Anyways I think what could be happening is that most people did not truly understand the ruling and thus did not have concrete opinions. I think the second question was more partisan as you can see republicans really got behind that measure with full force. In the other poll it was all mixed. Also very interesting to see how much support gays have in the central valley. Maybe that has something do with sacramento being pro-gay or something but regardless that finding is surprising.

[Verily]

It's not so much Sacramento but Yolo County (Davis), although I would expect Sacramento to be in favor as well.

[Sbane]

It's not so much Sacramento but Yolo County (Davis), although I would expect Sacramento to be in favor as well.

Davis is really small almost to the point of being irrelevant. Unless they voted 80-20 in favor but that seems unlikely just by looking at the age breakdown. Its weird how the usual age difference is absent from this poll. Do not know if this is that accurate at all. The central valley result is weird because not only does it have conservative whites in Bakersfield and Fresno, half the population is basically conservative hispanics. They may vote dem but they vote against abortion and gays when given a chance.

[Verily]

It's not so much Sacramento but Yolo County (Davis), although I would expect Sacramento to be in favor as well.

Davis is really small almost to the point of being irrelevant. Unless they voted 80-20 in favor but that seems unlikely just by looking at the age breakdown. Its weird how the usual age difference is absent from this poll. Do not know if this is that accurate at all. The central valley result is weird because not only does it have conservative whites in Bakersfield and Fresno, half the population is basically conservative hispanics. They may vote dem but they vote against abortion and gays when given a chance.

They generally don't vote at all, which makes me skeptical of this poll's ability to screen out the non-voting Hispanic population.

[Alcon]

I'm discussing the aspect of drive, and not the criminality of the act.  Is it the same drive that attracts men to women?  Men to men?  Adults to kids?  If the drive is the same, then you will hear the exact same argument of discrimination and bigotry since we allow marriage for one group and not another.  This is why I keep going back to how to quantify something that may or may not be genetic.  Race and gender are genetic predispositions, which is why many of our archaic laws had to be revised in order not to unjustly punish people for characteristics out of their control.  But is sexual orientation/attraction?  If science can't determine it, then it will require a change is thought by society.  If it goes by social thought, then those who are attracted to minors will have the exact same argument.  (Again, I'm not equating homosexuality to the criminal act of pedophilia, just discussing the parallels in attraction and how we treat one group one way while another group a different way based upon personal views.)

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me.  You're arguing that if pedophilia is determined to not be a choice, society would be obligated to allow it because the same logic was used for homosexuality?

They might not hurt you, but it could cause legal problems in the future.

Could you give me an example of something that you can not feel [in the mental sense] or touch, either the existence of or effect of, that can cause you damage?

Nah, not really.  All I cared about was having fun when I wasn't studying.  To me (attraction wise), there was no difference between boys and girls.

Huh.  OK, then.

Neither do I, but I don't feel comfortable about giving our "rights" to for the wrong reasons either.

And what concrete reasons are you afraid of here, that don't apply to heterosexual marriage?  Or does heterosexual marriage get a free pass because it is "proven" and gay marriage isn't?  If the latter, there needs to be proof of substantiative differences.  Plus, we have seen institution of gay marriage in other countries, so I dispute that it isn't "proven."

[MODU]

I'm sorry, but that doesn't make any sense to me.  You're arguing that if pedophilia is determined to not be a choice, society would be obligated to allow it because the same logic was used for homosexuality?

I'm just providing the closest example to the gay marriage issue to highlight how trying to apply a "right" on an emotional issue that is not tied in with our classic definition of discrimination/bigotry is tricky, and that the argument used by one group to get what they want can easily be assumed by another group to highlight their own sense of discrimination.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Give me some time to think on that.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

"I" am not afraid of anything here.  I'm just giving you the otherside of the issue which needs to be considered before passing legislation based on emotions.  This process should be applied to any form of legislation, be it gay marriage, global warming, smoking, trans fats, etc...  As far in this case, the institution of and the legal contractual references of marriage have been based on male/female pairing since before the country was founded.  As far as other countries go, those are other countries with a single set of governing rules, which goes back to my point that this should ultimately be a federal decision due to the potential of married gay couples being limited in where they can live and what companies they work for due to the individual state laws recognizing the marriage or not.

[Alcon]

I'm just providing the closest example to the gay marriage issue to highlight how trying to apply a "right" on an emotional issue that is not tied in with our classic definition of discrimination/bigotry is tricky, and that the argument used by one group to get what they want can easily be assumed by another group to highlight their own sense of discrimination.

But if their argument is solely "we should be allowed to do what we want because we can't control it," which is not the overall argument for gay marriage, they're going to be laughed out of society.  To argue that this would open the gates for such a thing is a slippery slope fallacy, that could be used against giving rights to heterosexual couples were that not already traditional.

If the argument is "equality should be allowed unless it can be objectively proven that there is likely to be an inordinately negative impact on society," which I think is most people's standard when it comes to bigotry, then obviously pedophilia is a "no" but neither heterosexual or homosexual marriage is covered.

Give me some time to think on that.

Sure.

"I" am not afraid of anything here.  I'm just giving you the otherside of the issue which needs to be considered before passing legislation based on emotions.  This process should be applied to any form of legislation, be it gay marriage, global warming, smoking, trans fats, etc...  As far in this case, the institution of and the legal contractual references of marriage have been based on male/female pairing since before the country was founded.  As far as other countries go, those are other countries with a single set of governing rules, which goes back to my point that this should ultimately be a federal decision due to the potential of married gay couples being limited in where they can live and what companies they work for due to the individual state laws recognizing the marriage or not.

I understand that changing the status quo bothers some people.  And if this were a zero-sum situation, I would probably yield to that.  But when it comes to balancing a demonstrably near-harmless change against denying the rights of a significant minority group, culture may have to get over itself.

My argument is not just emotional.  I recognize that there are emotional impacts on the other side.  Emotion is a component of any logical analysis.  It would be hypocritical of me to dismiss the emotions of gay marriage opposition while using emotions of gays in support of gay marriage.

But in a situation where someone is denied rights, and another someone is bothered by the enumeration of those rights for generally irrational reasons, my empathy is going to primarily lie with the former "someone."  Giving empathy to the irrationally-troubled minority is fine, of course.  Giving too much is an invitation to tyranny.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I really take a very libertarian position on this and many other social matters.  If it doesn't hurt anyone else....ok by me.

Here is going to be a headline very soon:

MARRIED GAY {WO}MAN DENIED EMPLOYMENT.  ALLEGES EMPLOYER DID NOT WANT TO PAY SPOUSAL BENEFITS TO GAY MARRIED COUPLE.  SEEKING $50 MILLION IN LAWSUIT JUST FILED.

And the sad part is it will probably be true.

[Conan]

I really take a very libertarian position on this and many other social matters.  If it doesn't hurt anyone else....ok by me.

Here is going to be a headline very soon:

MARRIED GAY {WO}MAN DENIED EMPLOYMENT.  ALLEGES EMPLOYER DID NOT WANT TO PAY SPOUSAL BENEFITS TO GAY MARRIED COUPLE.  SEEKING $50 MILLION IN LAWSUIT JUST FILED.

And the sad part is it will probably be true.

That's well within her right to do that then.

[Sbane]

I really take a very libertarian position on this and many other social matters.  If it doesn't hurt anyone else....ok by me.

Here is going to be a headline very soon:

MARRIED GAY {WO}MAN DENIED EMPLOYMENT.  ALLEGES EMPLOYER DID NOT WANT TO PAY SPOUSAL BENEFITS TO GAY MARRIED COUPLE.  SEEKING $50 MILLION IN LAWSUIT JUST FILED.

And the sad part is it will probably be true.

A marriage is a marriage is a marriage. There should be nothing "special" about gay marriage. You just have the "choice" of marrying a woman or a man. The "choice" can be yours.

[Grumpier Than Uncle Joe]

I really take a very libertarian position on this and many other social matters.  If it doesn't hurt anyone else....ok by me.

Here is going to be a headline very soon:

MARRIED GAY {WO}MAN DENIED EMPLOYMENT.  ALLEGES EMPLOYER DID NOT WANT TO PAY SPOUSAL BENEFITS TO GAY MARRIED COUPLE.  SEEKING $50 MILLION IN LAWSUIT JUST FILED.

And the sad part is it will probably be true.

A marriage is a marriage is a marriage. There should be nothing "special" about gay marriage. You just have the "choice" of marrying a woman or a man. The "choice" can be yours.

Yes, I agree.  I just fear there's going to be a backlash with those who don't.

[Sbane]

I really take a very libertarian position on this and many other social matters.  If it doesn't hurt anyone else....ok by me.

Here is going to be a headline very soon:

MARRIED GAY {WO}MAN DENIED EMPLOYMENT.  ALLEGES EMPLOYER DID NOT WANT TO PAY SPOUSAL BENEFITS TO GAY MARRIED COUPLE.  SEEKING $50 MILLION IN LAWSUIT JUST FILED.

And the sad part is it will probably be true.

A marriage is a marriage is a marriage. There should be nothing "special" about gay marriage. You just have the "choice" of marrying a woman or a man. The "choice" can be yours.

Yes, I agree.  I just fear there's going to be a backlash with those who don't.

Hmm... yes that is true. There is going to be a backlash no matter what and I really do not see gay marriage being the law of america for at least a couple of decades. I am sure this kind of litigation will start in California soon though.