California gets gay marriage and very hot weather

[Sbane]

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

[Sbane]

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

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

[Sbane]

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

[Sbane]

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.

[Sbane]

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.

[Sbane]

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.

[Sbane]

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).

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

[Sbane]

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.

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

[Sbane]

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?

[Sbane]

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?

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.

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.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[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.