Jump to content


Photo

Gay marriage


  • Please log in to reply
253 replies to this topic

Poll: Gay marriage

Simple question, simple answer.

You cannot see the results of the poll until you have voted. Please login and cast your vote to see the results of this poll.
Vote Guests cannot vote

#181 arkin

arkin

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 2663 posts

Posted 15 May 2008 - 02:53 PM

So as of today, the State of California's Constitution, Legislation, Court, and Governor all agree on marriage equality. The only people not on board yet? California's citizens. Due to a petition, it looks like an initiative will be put on the November ballot to amend the state constitution and over rule the court.

:(


In 2004 (I'm sure there have been others but I haven't looked into it) the LA Times conducted a poll that found that 51% of Californians would oppose an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I can only imagine the numbers have gone up a little since then.

I'm not saying that it'll never pass, but compared to the rest of the country (several states having already banned gay marriage), California has more promise.

#182 brainstorm

brainstorm

    Hipster

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 2241 posts

Posted 15 May 2008 - 02:57 PM

So as of today, the State of California's Constitution, Legislation, Court, and Governor all agree on marriage equality. The only people not on board yet? California's citizens. Due to a petition, it looks like an initiative will be put on the November ballot to amend the state constitution and over rule the court.

:(


In 2004 (I'm sure there have been others but I haven't looked into it) the LA Times conducted a poll that found that 51% of Californians would oppose an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman. I can only imagine the numbers have gone up a little since then.

I'm not saying that it'll never pass, but compared to the rest of the country (several states having already banned gay marriage), California has more promise.


California - most Republican delegates in the US. Not an easy win.

I gave up talking politics w/ Californians after two or three seemingly normal people went on rants against public education apropos of nothing we were even discussing.

It's true a lot of crazy people live there, but not all of 'em are cool crazy people.
"So?" - Dick Cheney

#183 arkin

arkin

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 2663 posts

Posted 15 May 2008 - 03:20 PM

California - most Republican delegates in the US. Not an easy win.

I gave up talking politics w/ Californians after two or three seemingly normal people went on rants against public education apropos of nothing we were even discussing.

It's true a lot of crazy people live there, but not all of 'em are cool crazy people.


California's such a huge state, though, that you can't easily lump everyone into the same category. The point is, if this initiative is on the ballot, it's not like it has overwhelming support.

For what it's worth, I live in California, love the gays, favor public education, and didn't vote for Schwarzenegger.

#184 pong

pong

    Rockist

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9208 posts

Posted 15 May 2008 - 06:12 PM

It's a free country. Whether or not you or I think gay marriage is right or wrong should not even enter the discussion. Any adult who chooses to get married should be allowed to, regardless of sexual preference. Because, let's face: "the moral standard is all a dirty lie". Whether or not gay people should be able to adopt is an entirely different issue, and the reason for this is that the child does not get a say, being a child at the time of adoption. So, when you adopt, the dynamic changes from two consenting adults: who should be able to marry legally; to an entirely different situation where a third party is involved. A third party that might be against the situation when coming of age, and a person that is legally forced into this situation that may be otherwise un-desirable to this person. And, to many people, this is an un-desirable situation to grow up in: which is entirely independent of whether or not the gay parents are better parents than bad heterosexual parents. This argument of heterosexuals being faulty is hollow, really has nothing to do with the argument at all, and should not be used as a means to validate the adoption.

#185 theminimumcircus

theminimumcircus

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 2124 posts

Posted 15 May 2008 - 06:18 PM

If I didn't love pussy so much, I'd totally be an ass-porker.
Wtf @ theminimuncircus retardly interjecting.

#186 red

red

    bored

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9490 posts

Posted 15 May 2008 - 06:21 PM

This thread reminds me that at my new job your domestic partner can be a recipient of your benefits/insurance. They define domestic partner as someone you've been living with for 1 or more years I thought that was pretty cool.

Red is right


#187 stphone

stphone

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 1312 posts

Posted 15 May 2008 - 06:28 PM

It's a free country. Whether or not you or I think gay marriage is right or wrong should not even enter the discussion. Any adult who chooses to get married should be allowed to, regardless of sexual preference. Because, let's face: "the moral standard is all a dirty lie".

Whether or not gay people should be able to adopt is an entirely different issue, and the reason for this is that the child does not get a say, being a child at the time of adoption. So, when you adopt, the dynamic changes from two consenting adults: who should be able to marry legally; to an entirely different situation where a third party is involved. A third party that might be against the situation when coming of age, and a person that is legally forced into this situation that may be otherwise un-desirable to this person. And, to many people, this is an un-desirable situation to grow up in: which is entirely independent of whether or not the gay parents are better parents than bad heterosexual parents. This argument of heterosexuals being faulty is hollow, really has nothing to do with the argument at all, and should not be used as a means to validate the adoption.


Your argument makes no sense. Adopted children have no choice over who their legal parents are. Neither do children who are naturally born. No child gets a say in who their parents are. Likewise, children don't get a say in how they are brought up or in what their parents believe. Whether their parents are Muslim or Atheists or Russian or Homosexual, they have ZERO say in the matter. They may disagree with their parents choices when they grow older, and many do, but that doesn't change the fact that children, plain and simply, have no say.

Also, people aren't born with predilections against homosexual couples. That is taught. Your argument may as well be, black parents can't adopt a white kid.

#188 pong

pong

    Rockist

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 9208 posts

Posted 15 May 2008 - 06:32 PM

It's a free country. Whether or not you or I think gay marriage is right or wrong should not even enter the discussion. Any adult who chooses to get married should be allowed to, regardless of sexual preference. Because, let's face: "the moral standard is all a dirty lie".

Whether or not gay people should be able to adopt is an entirely different issue, and the reason for this is that the child does not get a say, being a child at the time of adoption. So, when you adopt, the dynamic changes from two consenting adults: who should be able to marry legally; to an entirely different situation where a third party is involved. A third party that might be against the situation when coming of age, and a person that is legally forced into this situation that may be otherwise un-desirable to this person. And, to many people, this is an un-desirable situation to grow up in: which is entirely independent of whether or not the gay parents are better parents than bad heterosexual parents. This argument of heterosexuals being faulty is hollow, really has nothing to do with the argument at all, and should not be used as a means to validate the adoption.


Your argument makes no sense. Adopted children have no choice over who their legal parents are. Neither do children who are naturally born. No child gets a say in who their parents are. Likewise, children don't get a say in how they are brought up or in what their parents believe. Whether their parents are Muslim or Atheists or Russian or Homosexual, they have ZERO say in the matter. They may disagree with their parents choices when they grow older, and many do, but that doesn't change the fact that children, plain and simply, have no say.

Also, people aren't born with predilections against homosexual couples. That is taught. Your argument may as well be, black parents can't adopt a white kid.


I agree with you. I never said I thought it should be banned, I just said it's a different issue altogether. I don't have an opinion on the subject. I am neither for or against gay adoption, the subject is too complicated. I think that gay parents could be fine, fabulous parents. But, I also realize that society can be cruel and it's a dodgy issue. You make some outstanding points that cause one to pause and think.

#189 brainstorm

brainstorm

    Hipster

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 2241 posts

Posted 15 May 2008 - 08:16 PM

California - most Republican delegates in the US. Not an easy win.

I gave up talking politics w/ Californians after two or three seemingly normal people went on rants against public education apropos of nothing we were even discussing.

It's true a lot of crazy people live there, but not all of 'em are cool crazy people.


California's such a huge state, though, that you can't easily lump everyone into the same category. The point is, if this initiative is on the ballot, it's not like it has overwhelming support.

For what it's worth, I live in California, love the gays, favor public education, and didn't vote for Schwarzenegger.


The more I think about it, the more I think I agree with you. Many of my friends in California are deeply Libertarian and, to a person, they don't give a fuck about gay marriage. (Not in the "It's the end of the Republic!" way.)
"So?" - Dick Cheney

#190 Meldrick Lewis

Meldrick Lewis

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 1407 posts

Posted 15 May 2008 - 08:53 PM

Can the law be tweaked so that you have to look more like Adrian Paul from Highlander and a little less like Bruce Vilanch before you can show anything past discreet intimacy in public places? I'm mean if I'm gonna be all progressive and everything I should be able to somewhat dictate what sort of gayness will be in my view. Also a gay couple, friends of mine, were by far the best babysitters for my kids because one of the dudes is exactly like a gay Zonker Doonesbury and the other dude is Grant from Ghosthunters. But gay.

#191 brainstorm

brainstorm

    Hipster

  • Banned
  • PipPipPip
  • 2241 posts

Posted 15 May 2008 - 08:55 PM

Can the law be tweaked so that you have to look more like Adrian Paul from Highlander and a little less like Bruce Vilanch before you can show anything past discreet intimacy in public places? I'm mean if I'm gonna be all progressive and everything I should be able to somewhat dictate what sort of gayness will be in my view.

Also a gay couple, friends of mine, were by far the best babysitters for my kids because one of the dudes is exactly like a gay Zonker Doonesbury and the other dude is Grant from Ghosthunters. But gay.


Point one extends to hetero couples, as well, I think.

I've never been entirely convinced Zonker isn't gay, himself. heeewack.
"So?" - Dick Cheney

#192 arkin

arkin

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 2663 posts

Posted 16 May 2008 - 11:49 AM

The more I think about it, the more I think I agree with you. Many of my friends in California are deeply Libertarian and, to a person, they don't give a fuck about gay marriage. (Not in the "It's the end of the Republic!" way.)


I would think that a true libertarian shouldn't care about who marries who, just so long as there's no tax on it.

#193 velocity

velocity

    Chanel No. ♪♫

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10088 posts

Posted 16 May 2008 - 07:41 PM

This is one of those increasingly rare opportunities to feel proud of being a Californian.

That is, until the weird amendment zealots get their measure on the ballot and overturn this :(

Great news in the meantime.


So Vivian, does this mean that the imputed income aspect of medical benefits will go out the window? The feds (or the IRS at least) would be forced to recognize gay marriages then, no?

So as of today, the State of California's Constitution, Legislation, Court, and Governor all agree on marriage equality. The only people not on board yet? California's citizens. Due to a petition, it looks like an initiative will be put on the November ballot to amend the state constitution and over rule the court.

:(


According to the report I heard, only 1million zealots have signed the petition to get the constitutional amendment on the ballot. Which I doubt would pass in CA. And unless the court forestalls implementation until after the elections, it will go into effect within a month so that question may be moot.

California - most Republican delegates in the US. Not an easy win.

I gave up talking politics w/ Californians after two or three seemingly normal people went on rants against public education apropos of nothing we were even discussing.

It's true a lot of crazy people live there, but not all of 'em are cool crazy people.


California's such a huge state, though, that you can't easily lump everyone into the same category. The point is, if this initiative is on the ballot, it's not like it has overwhelming support.

For what it's worth, I live in California, love the gays, favor public education, and didn't vote for Schwarzenegger.


I live in California, love the gays, am on the fence re: public education as implemented in CA thanks to the absurd Education Code which should be abolished, and did vote for Schwarzenegger. His workers' comp reforms have been nothing short of stupendous for the state.

#194 fabulous muscles

fabulous muscles

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 3764 posts

Posted 02 June 2008 - 12:21 PM

CRANK IT UP!
No Homo.

#195 Guy

Guy

    Newbie

  • Sombie
  • PipPip
  • 317 posts

Posted 11 November 2008 - 10:53 AM

I caught Olberman's commentary, last night, regarding Prop. 8 in California. If you could get through his melodrama, he raised some good points about how denying homosexuals the right to get married is denying happiness to others. Millions of people went out and cast a vote with the express purpose of denying rights to their fellow citizens. I will let someone else post the obligitory youtube link. We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
Let me take you to McDonald's and order nothing but coffee.

#196 velocity

velocity

    Chanel No. ♪♫

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 10088 posts

Posted 11 November 2008 - 01:05 PM

I've been bummed and incredulous since over half of my state proved to be bigots. Posted this in the election thread a couple of weeks ago--SF mayor Gavin Newsom does a good job of encapsulating the issues. He does draw the parallel between barring gay marriage and Jim Crow laws, and points out that immediately following the Supreme's Brown v Board of Education decision (which gave equal rights to blacks), 71% of US citizens were opposed to interracial marriage. I'm hoping there's a way to stop this stupid constitutional amendment.

#197 HandBanana

HandBanana

    Rockist

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPipPip
  • 5760 posts

Posted 11 November 2008 - 07:31 PM

http://www.reddit.co..._ive_ever_read/

"The entire point of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments is that minority groups in the United States are entitled to equal treatment by the state, even if they're out-voted by a majority. One would think that a Mormon who claims to despise racism would understand that doubly.
Card's concern for the future of civilization is not only hyperbolic, but indicative of a deep misunderstanding of the likely nature of sexuality. Homosexuals are something like left-handers -- they're likely to make up a little less than 10% of the population, and they're likely to do that whether or not they are allowed to live freely.
To get a little Freudian, I suspect Card may be generalizing from some repressed homosexuality, mistakenly believing that, since most people must have the same internal experience he does, most people would abandon heterosexuality if given the social liberty to do so. That just isn't the case. I'm not a heterosexual because the government demands it, or makes it easier (though it does make it easier); I'm a heterosexual because I was born heterosexual. Card's mistake, I believe, is the mistake at the root of the Mark Foleys and Larry Craigs of the world -- those likely homosexuals who become moral crusaders against homosexuality. To come to the sincere belief that state-sanctioned social repression is all that stands between structured society and Gomorrah, one must himself wish for the sexual freedom he fears."
[color="#FF0000"][size=3]I made some rock posters.
For the world.
That give worms to ex-girlfriends: [url="http://www.gigposter...tp://www.gigpos

#198 Mitchell

Mitchell

    dirty old man

  • Administrators
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 20691 posts

Posted 11 November 2008 - 08:07 PM

"Endowed"
Nice bowl of Crunchy Nut you got here, pretty expensive as I recall.

#199 w. josh

w. josh

    Newbie

  • Sombie
  • PipPip
  • 147 posts

Posted 11 November 2008 - 10:00 PM

A heartfelt commentary from Olbermann:



#200 dice

dice

    Hipster

  • Sombie
  • PipPipPip
  • 4074 posts

Posted 12 November 2008 - 11:48 AM

A heartfelt commentary from Olbermann:

i like olbermann, but does the guy really think his shameless emoting is going to win anybody over?

he raised some good points about how denying homosexuals the right to get married is denying happiness to others

i'm not sure it's a point that holds up. you could say the same thing about polygamy, etc.
http://www.kiva.org

make a difference
99% repayment!