Talk Elections

The California Supreme Court is 6-1 Republican.

:)

Well, not about the weather.  It's going to be 90 tomorrow.  Screw that.

It's already 90 in the bay area.

That heat is coming to Oklahoma and the central and southern plains.  We're supposed to get into the lower to mid 90s early next week.  Its going to feel like a lot like mid-June.  Hot and Humid.  Thankfully, no severe weather until late next week.

Well, good for the gay people living in California. I just hope we don't get another wave of state constitutional amendments banning gay marriage because of this.

what

how could arnold let this happen

now our families will be destroyed beyond all repair

this is the end

next people will want to marry their beagles

Hello sailor, is that a dachshund I see in your pocket?

Personally, I'm far more worried about people marrying their poodles.

Aizen -- you sound like Rick Santorum (gasp!).  Next thing, you'll be against people wanting to marry their motorcycle or having multiple marriage partners!

Good for them.

I can almost feel the bonds of my marriage weakening as we speak!

Poodles are strangely reminiscent of sexual organs... I mean, just look at all that curly hair.

Well, Arnold got his wish that a court got to legalize it instead of the legislature. 3 of the 4 justices who supported this were appointed by Republicans (not Arnold). However, a ban on gay marriage will most likely be on the November ballot.

I love activist judges!

Terribly disappointing but not so surprising.

Yeah, I was really disappointed that the weather suddenly became so intolerable. Right during final exams, too.

Heat wave: God's way of expressing disapproval?

Yeah, court decisions that are backed by the legislature and have no opposition from the Governor are awful, aren't they?

You know, California's state legislature passed a law legalizing gay marriage a couple of years ago. Schwarzenegger vetoed it--not because he opposed it, but because he said, "Let the courts decide." (Imagine him in his ridiculous accent saying it. It sounds much more convincing that way.) So they did.

Hmm, I’m sort of mixed on this decision. As a gay male, I of course believe this is a great step forward. On the other hand, if the voters did approve a ban on it, I really don’t know if judges should be making the decision to overturn what the voters want. This just gives ample ammo to the conservative Christians who argue about the “activist courts”, and the ruling will likely be defeated in a landslide sadly if it makes it on the ballot.  But again, we do have courts for a reason, and we might have still had segregated schools if we left it up to the folks, so, who knows.

Still though, as mixed as I feel about the way the court went about it, I’m heartened that its another battle that has been won, so to speak. Once again California lives up to its reputation as being a freethinking state.

/win.

Remembering Daniel Patrick Moynihan.

I read the decision. It was another Robe activist thing about fundamental liberties, bootstrapping  off a decision about miscegenation. I favor gay marriage, but not this way. By the way, the entire issue was about the label. Domestic partners in California have all of the rights and duties that married couples do, both as to the rights and duties. It that sense, it was quite odd. It was all about the deprivation of a word.

Jeez I really do not understand why this is a big deal. Can any republicans please explain to me how this harms their marriage? Or are they already half out the closet??? LOL

Well, Arnold already blocked the activist legislators from legislating from the legislature.

"Christian" opposition to gay marriage is on the same level of dumbness as the Xenu story of Scientology.

OMG, gay marriage is being legalized in California. Run! Get to the chopper!!!

No it's not.  Xenu is all kinds of stupid.  Opposing gay marriage is dumb in the same way forced public schooling is.  You can make halfassed arguments for both, but at the end of the day the people arguing for either one just come across looking stupid and irrational to everybody that hasn't had that particular flavor of koolaid.

As go Cal so go the rest of the nation. 

Sometimes, not always.  (thank God)

Oh, I see. Judges that issue rulings with which you don't agree are activists. Good to know for future reference.

This is how it will play out, They said last night on the news that anyone in the Untied States can go to Cal and get married. So a gay couple from Ohio can go to Cal get married and then turn around and take it to their state court trying to get them to up-hold the stauts of the marrage.

YEAH!

DAMN THOSE REPUBLICAN ACTIVIST JUDGES!

The Defense of Marriage Act (from our dear friends in the Clinton Administration) states that states don't have to recognize other states' gay marriages.

If DOMA didn't exist, this decision would be irrelevant, because as long as Massachusetts had marriage equality, people from other states could just go to Boston for the wedding and have it recognized back home.

You have to live in MA to get a gay marriage, but I was saying people will go back to their home state taking it to the courts. I believe some state will follow CA and let gay marriages happen.

I used to feel that way, but there have been such persistent and irritating problems with the implementation of civil unions as equivalent to marriage in New Jersey and Connecticut that they functionally weren't. And given the comparative scarcity of same-sex couples in the total population, the average individual working in his or her job isn't going to have many opportunities to learn that civil unions are the same as marriage without getting it wrong many times, inadvertently or deliberately.

The law isn't observed in Massachusetts and lots of couples did get married here and took their marriages back to other states. Most places don't recognize them, New York as of this year being a huge and prominent exception.

The reason no one has taken a Massachusetts marriage to Alabama or Indiana and tried to start an anti-DOMA test case is because the gay rights organizations recognize this would be a strategic mistake at this moment in history and only trigger a constitutional amendment if successful. Better to let several states have same-sex marriage for a while before moving forward.

There is some very open-ended language in the (might I say rather poorly drafted) California Constitution that could, I suppose, be interpreted to require legal recognition of same-sex marriage. Thus, I won't comment on the correctness of the actual holding, implausible though it may be.

It is interesting to note, however, that the California Supreme Court expressly declared that its opinion would not compel legal recognition of incestuous or polygamous relationships because "our nation’s culture has considered [such] relationships inimical to the mutually supportive and healthy family relationships." To be fair, however, the nation's culture has historically believed--and for that matter, a large segment of the nation's culture today still believes--that same-sex relationships are harmful to families and to society. Whether those beliefs are right or wrong is quite immaterial. The point is that the very same logic that allows the California Supreme Court to retain the ban on polygamy seems to force the Court to retain the ban on same-sex marriage as well.

Come to think of it, let us disregard constitutions and laws for a moment. I would be interested to hear a single robust philosophical argument (as opposed to a merely practical one like "there are a lot of same-sex couples, and it would be more efficient to allow them to have visitation rights, etc.") that anyone can make for allowing same-sex marriage that is not also an argument for allowing polygamous marriage.

The only arguments against gay marriage boil down to bigotry.  As least the Xenu story isn't inherently bigoted.

One that isn't entirely theological, axiomatic or tradition-based?  Can you give one for heterosexual marriage that isn't, and isn't rather tortured?

Sure, but you won't like it, because it relies on fuzzy cultural markers instead of absolutes.

The California Supreme Court recognized a legal space for same-sex couples because there are hundreds of thousands of such couples across the country, setting up households, many of us raising children, and interacting with the institutions of government in a normalizing way.

There are lots of individuals who don't like gays and try not to think about our relationships, but it has become a matter of legal stature not to harass or outlaw same-sex couples setting up households and a question of professionalism to at least defer to our relationships in many forms where it is not a legal question, certainly in California. There are hundreds of thousands of us with mortgages, children, health care arrangements, and other totems of couplehood that are legally recognized and bind us publicly and privately as couples in dedicated, loving relationships. 

You see, this issue is one for dorm-room philosophizing (or better, nursing-home philosophizing) only if same-sex couples are an abstraction or a rarity, like an animal with two heads. For many Americans, we are. Others deal with us on a daily basis, but some of them lack imagination or are just mean when it comes to viewing us as equals. (Ha, won't that statement get a response.) However, in the aggregate, we aren't, which is why decades after gay couples started coming out of the closet and adopting conservative forms of living, we are being recognized.

Not only does my partner have legal rights stemming from our relationship, even pre-marriage, but he has a social identity as my partner that we would never have if we were in an incestuous or polygamous relationship. He comes to social events with me at work. Our families introduce us to others. We go to charity benefits together. I've got a picture up at work. Not all gay relationships can do this, but no incestuous relationship can.

If polygamous families, let alone incestous families, ever achieved the numbers, diversity, and public visibility in their relationships that same-sex couples had, they might be in a place where they could make that argument. Suffice to say, though, just as the Supreme Court could uphold sodomy laws in 1986, they could argue there is no compelling reason to recognize relationships that do not exist in the eyes of the vast majority of Americans and which have no tolerated legal standing or place in our society. As opposed to same-sex couples, who may not be in leadership positions in Southern Baptist Churches or leading national tickets, but who have achieved a degree of visibility and integration that people deny only from a position of ignorance or limited experience.

I did not mean to exclude arguments based on tradition. A very strong philosophical argument could be made that in a democracy, the government is bound to respect the traditions and values of the society from which it derives its power. And as it so happens, the traditions of the American society, as well as the current values held by a majority of the people, oppose the notion that two members of the same sex can be "married." This argument, although it is not one that I personally accept, is at the very least reasonable, but I cannot really conceive of an equally reasonable philosophical argument for allowing same-sex marriage while prohibiting other unconventional marital relationships that people want to have.

So you recognize that social identity, or to be more precise, the extent to which society is prepared to recognize a relationship, is relevant? If so, then I don't see how you're getting anywhere. Sure, society is more prepared to recognize same-sex couples than it is to recognize incestuous ones, and this might justify giving same-sex couples a higher level of government sanction. But society is even more prepared to recognize heterosexual couples. Why, then, does your argument not allow society to give marriage rights only to heterosexual couples, and create domestic partnerships for homosexual ones?

If there is a tradition that heterosexual marriage is an axiom in this nation, there is an even stronger tradition that 1:1 marriage is.  Unless you reject one argument solely on the basis that it is traditional, there's no requirement to simultaneously reject the other, so it stands on its own.

Emsworth!

Sure, there is a hierarchy of traditions. Nevertheless, one cannot really deny that the tradition of heterosexual marriage is an extremely strong one. But for judges in two states, it would still prevail today across the entire nation. So one can still make a plausible philosophical argument that supports conventional marriage, but that does not support any other type of marriage. On the other hand, I am still unable to find an even remotely convincing philosophical argument that would reject the majority's definition of marriage, compel same-sex marriage, but not compel polygamous marriage. After all, the polyamorous are probably just as incapable of controlling their sexual orientation as the homosexual.

I suppose it could, but in my understanding, America aspires to not work that way and has done so since the Declaration of Independence. We often fall short of that ideal, but we don't seek to do so with pride.

Long over due IMO.

There is nothing philosophically unsound with "everyone should have the right to marry the one person they love."  Yes, it is somewhat arbitrary.  I'd argue that I can't find a convincing argument for it being more arbitrary than "everyone should have the right to marry the one person they love, as long as they are of the opposite sex."

You don't have to argue that somewhat arbitrary "lines" are unacceptable to advocate for pushing the line in a certain direction (if you consider something "pushing" because it goes against tradition).  So, yes, there id as philosophically salient of an argument for gay marriage/against polygamous marriage.  It's philosophically arbitrary but, accepting that one man/one woman is too, I don't see any demand to argue against arbitrary philosophy when arguing for gay marriage.

And I'd argue that there are more practical repercussions, bureaucratic and otherwise, for polygamous marriage.  Honestly I believe it should all be a matter of contract.  The government should not be in the business of bestowing emotional value upon contracts.

Yes! Next comes Washington, New Jersey, and more!

Rhode Island and New Mexico also recognize Massachusetts (and foreign) same-sex marriages.

Good, good.

The last CA poll I saw on this issue was by SurveyUSA, conducted in January 2008:

Support - 46%
Oppose - 47%

This will be interesting in November.

That's precisely my point: There really is no philosophically sound argument for simply allowing same-sex marriage. It's really just an utterly arbitrary personal preference. At that point, I really don't see why the arbitrary preferences of a minority should be imposed, judicially or otherwise, on the majority.

I've looked at it every way and I cannot see a single way in which gay marriage is an imposition on heterosexual marriage.

And it is no less of an 'utterly arbitrary personal preference' than straight marriage.

Good.

Sometimes the mob is wrong.

Haven't you been listening?  The queers will steal our sons and teach them to play with dolls and kiss boys.  LOL

It's funny -- they make the same argument against gays in the military.  Somehow, a gay marine is going to force his lifestyle on the 31 other heterosexual marines in his platoon.  And before you know it, they'll all be listening to Bette Midler and singing Broadway show tunes. 

What a load of crap.

If you dont like gay marriage....dont marry one then. Its THAT easy I promise..;)

Down to 80. It's been real bad the last few days.

We are still getting roasted in the southland. Those damn gays.

Don't worry, guys.. you'll be having a chilly summer along the coast. 

And this is why (look at the west coast)

()

I see a yellow spot near LA. Ha!

HAHa I see that spot too lol. Must be why it got so humid last night. damn gays.

All those against gay marriage would be serving humanity better by trying to build a one-way time machine.  Getch'yo ass and your logic back to the 12th century, fools.

Are you an american? Did you know that this country was founded on the majority not being able to impose it's will on the minority? Nothing is being imposed by the minority in this case anyway. It only affects them, not the majority. Also, you need to keep on your James Madison.

No.

I did not "know" that the United States was founded on so implausible a principle, because, as it turns out, it was not.

The Constitution of the United States is ultimately a majoritarian document. It allows the majority, through its elected representatives, to enact such laws as it may desire, subject to only a handful of exceptions and limitations. And who adopted those exceptions? Who authorized those limitations? It was "We the People," that is to say, the majority. The majority decided to limit itself, but only in some cases. It did not set up the courts as super-legislatures, responsible for reviewing the wisdom of every single enactment. When judges stray beyond the words of the Constitution, they usurp power that the people never delegated to them; they take away authority that the people retained for themselves.

Now, of course, it is very convenient for leftists to praise judicial intrusion when that intrusion expands so-called "social rights"--abortion, same-sex marriage, and so forth. Needless to say, most of them would oppose the same judicial intrusion if it were designed to protect "economic rights" such as the liberty of contract. I doubt you would be very happy if the Supreme Court revived the doctrine of Adkins v. Children's Hospital (which held that minimum wage laws were unconstitutional because they violate the "right" of the employer and employee to negotiate with one another). In that case, too, the Supreme Court claimed that it was preventing the majority from infringing individual rights. Philosophically, I see no difference between those types of cases, and the case decided by the Supreme Court of California this month. The only distinction is that Adkins, decided in the 1920s, was favored by the right wing of the time, while the Marriage Cases are favored by the left. Each is a result-oriented expedient with no basis in the law.

But leave aside, for a moment, the issue of judging. You say that the majority should not have the power to impose its will on a minority. What alternative do you propose? Who shall decide the limits to the majority's ability to make laws--who shall decide what rights the minorities have?

These cases require the government of California to do something, to grant a particular type of official recognition to a particular type of union. Marriage is a civil institution, and any change to that institution not adopted by the people themselves is an imposition.

I'll admit that, in practical terms, I think you're right.  I do however feel that it's immoral to not extend this right.  I think it should be allowed for the polygamous too.  The only reason I'm more passionate about the former is that it affects fewer people and the bureaucratic changes involved present a better technocratic argument.

I don't really think that something being arbitrary makes it "philosophically unsound," because pretty much any philosophy is based on some arbitrary axioms derived from some sort of observation or feeling, but whatever, that's a separate argument.

I love how everytime this thread pops up, the index shows it as "California gets gay."  hahaha . . . it says a lot!

I guess you haven't learned about American history or constitutional law.

The constitution gives people their rights. Also, there is a reason we don't have national referendums Our founders didn't have trust in the masses, people like yourself, to make certain policy.  You're argument that gays achieving equal rights is imposing on the majority is just silly.

Really? I guess one finds out something new about oneself everyday.

I must disagree with your decision to characterize me as a member of the "masses." But I digress. You're right: The Framers of the United States Constitution did not trust the people to make political decisions. But the Framers of the California Constitution certainly did. That's why California allows laws to be made by referendum, but the United States does not. California's system is perfectly consistent with the federal Constitution, whose Tenth Amendment provides that undelegated powers "are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people." And the decision that same-sex unions should not be called marriages in the state of California was, as it so happens, made by those very same people.

But let's get back to the federal constitution for a moment. The general power to make policy, although not lodged in the people directly, was lodged in their elected representatives, the Congress. It was not granted to the courts of law. Of course, the courts should exercise the power of judicial review, and strike down any law that offends the text of the Constitution. But the manner in which California's refusal to designate same-sex unions as marriage violates either the state or the federal constitution completely escapes me.

Let's say that a court decided that, if individuals wanted to work for less than the minimum wage, they should be allowed to do so, and that minimum wage laws are invalid. Would such a decision be an imposition on the majority? (Surely, it would not be an imposition under your standard, because no-one but the worker and the employer would be directly affected.)

Conan,

Emsworth makes most of us look like idiot children when it comes to Constitutional law.  I trust his analysis on this stuff more than even the talking heads on tv, and he's still a kid (no offense, Ems).  I can't wait until he makes this his career.

Jeez read through the whole thread and could not find a legitimate reason to hate gays. cAn anyone let me know why I should vote against gay marriage this november? Hmm... the weather is turning nicer too. Maybe they gays arent so bad after all.

Hating gays has nothing to do with it, so you aren't going to find that in the thread.

LOL so what does it have to do with? Tradition? Please complete your answer without the phrase "sanctity of marriage". IF it has anything to do with that then I say we outlaw divorce first and then move on to gay marriage.

I've yet to provide an answer on this thread.  I was just pointing out how you aren't going to find a "legitimate reason to hate gays" on here.  Other than the 1% of the cooks on the forum, no one here "hates" gays.

Look I was just trying to say that I have heard no good arguments against gay marriage and I know 99% of the people here do not support it. I just want to see why the dissenters are against gay marriage and how this ruling will affect them, even if they are in California. I was just kidding about the hating part but a lot of the arguments I hear against it is just plain bigotry. I think one of the reasons I read was because heterosexual marriage was the accepted tradition of society so it should not be changed. That is the same argument that was made against interracial marriage or civil rights in general. See this ruling does not say that we MUST marry gays. It just lets gay people have their rights and it does not impose anything upon churches or upon individuals.

This is the catch.  Marriage is not "a right."  States can deny marriage for many things, including medical issues.  It is, for the lack of a better example, a business contract. 

There are two senses of the word right, one being something afforded by law or a body of authority, and one being something obligated by either moral or concrete guidelines.  I assume he meant it in the first sense.  The middle sense is arguable; I guess the last isn't to most people.

But there's nothing wrong with calling it a "right," and I don't see how that's "the catch," or why that specific verbage has any practical effect whatsoever.

In an instance like this, I view it as the term is used in law, where something is "owed" to the individual.  As stated before, the state has the ability to deny marriage between individuals for various reasons, including medical or a preexisting "contract" (ie already married) with a third party.  As is with California, they had legislation passed expressing that the legal joining between two parties be stipulated on the fact that one individual was male and the other female.  So instead of "right," they should be using the terms privilege or opportunity, since those are applicable when dealing with legal agreements with the state.  Should they be allowed to marry?  That's up to the state to decide (though I view it as a national issue that needs to be resolved by the Federal Government since the legal status can limit the ability of the couple to have legal status depending on what state they move to or work in).

I thought liberals were for a society of free and open thought?

He doesn't count.

OK fine marriage is a "privilege". But why should gays also not get that privilege? What is the reason for this apparent discrimination.

A majority of the people simply do not want to allow same-sex marriage. They view homosexuality as an immoral lifestyle choice, and do not believe that the government should officially sanction it. One may certainly believe that the people are wrong in this view. But one must still acknowledge that it is the view of the majority. Philosophically, it is no different from the view that polygamous relationships are harmful, and should not be recognized either. Both views have been written into the law; if one is acceptable, I don't see why the other isn't.

No big deal.

So the majority holds that view out of ignorance and bigotry? Ok!!!:)

It isn't ignorance nor bigotry, but it is how a Republic works.  The public votes ... the majority opinion wins.

That does not at all preclude it from being ignorance or bigotry.

Well, you are now getting into the part of the issue of, is "being gay" biological or a lifestyle choice.  Where as interracial marriages deal with biological issues (people can't choose what color they are born as), if "being gay" is a lifestyle choice, then the choice comes with consequences.  Just as the choice of polygamy doesn't mean multiple partners can be married under the law, the choice of "being gay" would also stand as not being allowed.  Now if it ever comes around to be proven that "being gay" is biologic, then it isn't something that a person can change because it is the way they are born.  It is at that point where the law would definitely needed to be changed to allow homosexual marriages or the legal practice of marriage be removed from the system all together.  But we are not at that point yet.  So it isn't bigotry, and it will only be ignorance due to lack of scientific knowledge.

The majority simply seems to have a moral revulsion toward certain forms of relationships (same-sex relationships, polygamous relationships, incestuous relationships, and so forth). You and I may not agree with them. We may call their views ignorant, bigoted, or XYZ. They are still the (deeply held) values of a society. Displacing them by judicial fiat still strikes me as inappropriate.

I really dislike the term "lifestyle choice".  The context in which it is so often used implies that homosexuality is a conscious decision, whereas any gay person would beg to differ with such a view.  It's about as much of a lifestyle choice as being left-handed.  Therefore, why should people have to live with the "consequences" of their supposed decision if they weren't consciously responsible for it, and can't do much to change it anyway?

To what extent does it need to be "proven"?  Don't you think there is rather substantial proof that it isn't a "lifestyle choice" at this point?  Although maybe there's environmental factors and behavioral conditioning involved, it still doesn't seem like there's much compelling evidence that it's much of a choice.  In fact, can you offer much of any evidence at all that it is?  I can offer plenty to the opposite effect.

And being that we not know, why not err on the side of moral conservativism?  Sure, maybe we aren't committing bigotry; maybe we are.  But when there is a chance, and a strong one, we are doing something bigoted, it is our moral responsibility to reduce that chance unless there is a significant negative impact on society.  Maybe you see one.  I do not.

Edit: Joe wins.

I'm not saying it is right or wrong.  I'm just saying that's the way it is.  I know people hate the comparison, but what is the difference between a genetic predisposition towards homosexuality and pedophilia?  Can people help not being gay?  Can people help not being pedophiles?  How do we give legal standing to one but not the other?  Neither group can help what they feel, yet we welcome one group with open arms while punish the other  (not talking about the criminal act of pedophilia, but the attraction). 

This is the problem with emotional topics like this, especially when we don't really understand what causes the attraction.  Is it social engineering?  Is it genetic predisposition?  Is it merely rebellion?  It could easily be a bit of all three, but until we determine what does qualify as a choice and not a choice, and from there, what choices we view as legal behaviour and what doesn't, jumping the gun on making something legal because it is popular with one group or another is merely an attempt to ignore an issue.  And as we know, it is never that simple in our society.

Which also takes me back to my earlier comment about what is a states decision and what is a federal one.  Ideally, issues like this would be resolved at the state level, but since this has implications on other legal contracts across the nation, including employment, health care, guardianship, and so on, this isn't going to be resolved any time soon without some sort of supermajority backing by federal level politicians to make it a national law ... and then be prepared for the local outcry.  Lord knows from our history, changes like this tend to be met with street violence.

One involves a sexual attraction that involves two mutually consenting people, and one involves an urge to use an innocent child and traumatize him.  There's your difference.

How could you not apply the exact same argument to a heterosexual relationship, anyway?  The only difference is a tradition of acceptance of one, and non-acceptance of another.


Please offer any scientific proof that it is a conscious choice.  And while you're at it, please offer evidence that the burden upon society for allowing these rights/whatever-we're-calling-them is enough to justify committing what we may find out later is bigoted and wrong.  Not only may, in fact--by all appearances, probably will.

The majority has an ethical responsible to defend itself to the minority, lest it become complacent in its own traditions and societal dominance.  Once those defenses become rationalizations, there is too much potential for evil.


I hope my generation is decent enough to change this without resorting to street violence.

I think talking to any gay person you can find out whether it was a "choice" for them. MODU when did you "choose" to like girls over boys?

As I said, I'm talking about the attraction of, not the criminal act.  The difference between a minor and an adult is an arbitrary age that we've selected as a society.  In some countries it is higher, in others it is lower. 


I don't have to offer it.  It isn't my argument.  I'm just explaining the complexity of an emotional issue based on subjection.  Racial and gender issues are only skin deep and easily understood that discrimination was occurring based on genetic predisposition.  But how do you handle something that cannot be seen nor touched?  This is what society has to determine.


Believe me, I hope not only yours, but your children's as well.  Unfortunately, we're still dealing with racism today (and we tackled our own demons of racism decades ago), and it is showing up in your generation as well as lingering in my own.  I don't put much faith in the hearts and minds of society in general.  The ugly beast exists out there, always looking for an excuse to come out.

I chose to like girls, and rather late in life (if you want to consider your 20s late in life in relationship to this issue) if you want to know the truth.  Before then, my feelings towards boys and girls were the same (that being, they were only friends).  I do recall two of my guy friends "getting it on" once back in 3rd grade, but it was out of experimentation and mimicking what they had seen in a magazine.  I highly doubt they actually had any physical attraction to one another at that stage in their lives (being pre-puberty and all).  As far as talking to gay individuals, my friends are split.  Some of them say they've always been attracted to the same sex while others say it was their choice, except for one, who said she did it out of rebellion and ended up falling in love.

more appropriate thread title.

From what you're saying it seems you 'acted upon' rather than chose. I know gay men who were broadly asexual until their mid 20's when they chose to act upon feelings they had. I also know some who say they 'chose' simply to seem more in control and assertive about their sexuality. When pressed they admit there was no real choice and there was no alternative. There is a big difference from choosing to be and choosing to act. As for the physical aspect, I have yet to meet anyone who said they consciously chose to become sexually aroused by men exclusively. And this isn't necessarily a penis driven thing - people find attraction in all parts of the human body, from the smile to the torso, to the legs. Even scent. I knew I was gay long before I saw or was interested in what men had between their legs it was the face, or the smile, or the way they acted that caused a mental and physical reaction.

Yeah like I knew I was straight since middle school. I did not need to see any private parts to make that decision. It was just natural.

But pedophiles are ostracized because of the urge to commit the criminal act.  The danger results in fear, and fear results in societal rejection.  Unless you're working backwards from fear -> danger on homosexuality, I do not follow your logic.  What level are you trying to equate pedophilia to homosexuality on that doesn't also apply to heterosexuality?  Bringing age of consent into this is just making this comparison more perplexing to me.


Things that you cannot see, touch or feel cannot hurt you in an observable way.  If you cannot quantify the damage something causes, I do not feel that there is an ethical justification for limiting it.


I'm not trying to be concrete about sexual orientation.  I know experimentation isn't really a form of sexual orientation, nor really is a sex act (as our friend Opebo would say, "a hole is a hole," it's mostly mental).  I don't really think there's much use in distinguishing experimentation, especially pre-pubescent and sexual orientation identity.

Coming from someone pretty close to the negatives on the Kinsey scale, I don't remember having much choice in the matter.  It just seemed self-evident.  Maybe you waited to pursue relationships until you were in your late 20s, when you said "being attracted to women sounds like fun," but you really had no sexual orientation beforehand?  Man, your teenage years must have been pretty pious...

But I do think your sample of friends is in the minority.  Study after study shows a constant:  people typically feel that they had little choice in sexual orientation, and the rates are pretty much similar to the statistical noise caused by "delusions of power" that people tend to feel over other phenomena in their lives.

I don't feel comfortable restricting minority rights based on little more than that statistical noise.  There would need to be much, much more.

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.)


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


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.


Neither do I, but I don't feel comfortable about giving our "rights" to for the wrong reasons either.  This is why I'm against things like drivers license for illegal aliens just because they know how to drive, for example.  Once you give something to someone, it is hard to take it back if you made a mistake.  It might not be "fair," but I've always found that taking your time and doing it right the first time was the best policy.  As for California, I think they've taken the correct actions so far.  They've had a debate in the public, then in their legislature, then they had a public referendum, then action in the legislature, then review in the courts, and now sent back down to the legislature.  Let the states follow the practice and then take their arguments to the federal level.  After all, if this is going to be a civil rights issue, then it's going to have to be resolved in Congress and the ruling enacted across the whole country.



Hopefully I've provided enough of a bigger picture for people to consider on this issue.  This is going to be one of the bigger issues facing your time, and it will take decades to resolve; including not only the passing legislation (be it for or against), but also dealing with the aftermath.  Anyway, that's about all I've got to add to this without going back and repeating myself over and over again.

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.

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.

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?


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?


Huh.  OK, then.


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."

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.


Give me some time to think on that.


"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.

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.


Sure.


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.

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.

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.