California gets gay marriage and very hot weather

[MODU]

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

[MODU]

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.

[MODU]

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.

[MODU]

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.

[MODU]

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. 

[MODU]

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).

[MODU]

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.

[MODU]

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.

[MODU]

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.

[MODU]

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.

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. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

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

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.

[MODU]

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.

[MODU]

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.

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.)

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

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.

[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.