Gay Marriage

[Q]

Why do we need such a compromise for gay marriage, but not for other things...like slavery?

This comment reminds me of the Lincoln-Douglas debates. The debates were over slavery, of course, but just as importantly (to me at least) they were also concerned with popular sovereignty (Douglas) verses doing the right thing (Lincoln).

 

Kind of pertains to this situation, doesn't it?

[Rogue Nine]

The comparisons are uncanny. Thanks for pointing that out, Q.

[Q]

Well, when you take way all of the rhetoric, it basically comes down to a single question: "Should this group or any group of citizens be afforded equal rights under the law?"

 

As long as the group in question is law-abiding, then the answer is obviously "yes", it can't be anything but "yes", and it should always be "yes".

 

I don't believe that the matter can be addressed more simply than this, and it doesn't depend upon whether or not one approves of homosexuality to reach this conclusion when this approach is used.

[Tommycat]

Hopefully the fallout from it isn't as severe. Civil war and the death of one of the greatest presidents.

 

I don't understand why this is still an issue. Either both get marriage under tha law, or both get civil unions. Equal protection under the law.

[mimartin]

Let’s face it; the real reason Homosexual Marriage is not equally protection under the law is because a certain segment of the population still uses degrading terms towards homosexuals to justify discrimination. I really don’t know which is sadder, people degrading others, people believing the degradation to justify the status quo or that we have learned nothing in 150 years.

[Tommycat]

Let’s face it; the real reason Homosexual Marriage is not equal protection under the law because a certain segment of the population still uses degrade terms towards homosexuals to justify discrimination. I really don’t know which is sadder, people degrading others, people believing the degradation to justify the status quo or that we have learned nothing in 150 years.

 

I thought it was because a majority of people just find it "icky"

I do not agree that it is on par with slavery, unless you think it's the equivalent of being socially acceptable to beat, starve, work near to death GLBT persons. It is however along the lines of the discrimination of the 1960's. When it was not considdered acceptable to see an interracial couple. So it's 50 years rather than 150 years... Which doesn't make it all that much better, but it's more accurate.

 

On a side note, I have heard more gay men talking about their experiences... That's something I can do without. Then again, I don't want to hear about straight couples intimate moments either. And don't tell me I have to watch this movie or I'm homophobic. No, the movie was boring(I tried, it bored me to tears). It wasn't about what I wanted to see. I don't watch touchy feely movies either. No car chases, big action sequences, people getting disemboweled, and no gunfights.. NOT MY KIND OF MOVIE! Just because it has a story about gays does not mean that if I don't watch it I'm homophobic.

[mimartin]

I thought it was because a majority of people just find it "icky"[/Quote] Since this is a PG 13 forum, I really don't think it would be appropriate for me to link degrading remarks that puts down Homosexual. I understand some will not find surprising where many of these remarks are coming from, but it saddens me many are coming from my fellow Christians.

I do not agree that it is on par with slavery, [/Quote]I’d agree, but discrimination is discrimination and that we are still using the same arguments to attempt to justify it is on par with slavery.

 

I’d also suggest looking at FBI website for Statistics on Hate-Crimes.

[Tommycat]

Since this is a PG 13 forum, I really don't think it would be appropriate for me to link degrading remarks that puts down Homosexual. I understand some will not find surprising where many of these remarks are coming from, but it saddens me many are coming from my fellow Christians.

I’d agree, but discrimination is discrimination and that we are still using the same arguments to attempt to justify it is on par with slavery.

 

I’d also suggest looking at FBI website for Statistics on Hate-Crimes.

 

Good point. Many disagree on religious grounds and well that's about the most legitimate(though still wrong). And I know we're pretty well in agreement on the discrimination bit. I just think it hurts the argument when it's placed equivalent to slavery. It could however hold water as the equivalent of the civil rights movement as it more closely ties in with that. Burning crosses, lynchings, beatings, and of course not giving equal protections... so yeah it's about there.

[mimartin]

There may be some misunderstanding of the argument. In my opinion slavery and denial of Homosexual marriage are not equal, but the misrepresentations used to justify enslaving African-Americans or as you pointed out justifying discrimination against them since the end of slavery are comparable to people saying it is justifiable to discriminate against Homosexuals today. The opinion that one wrong is less severe than another has nothing to do with the argument.

[Tommycat]

There may be some misunderstanding of the argument. In my opinion slavery and denial of Homosexual marriage are not equal, but the misrepresentations used to justify enslaving African-Americans or as you pointed out justifying discrimination against them since the end of slavery are comparable to people saying it is justifiable to discriminate against Homosexuals today. The opinion that one wrong is less severe than another has nothing to do with the argument.

 

Ah, I get it.. you aren't talking so much about slavery as an equal to the unfairness given to homosexuality. You are saying that similar arguments are used between the two. And by extension how those arguments persisted through the years even after slavery was abolished to justify unfair civil rights protections.

 

I can agree to that. To be honest though. people justify a lot of things through whatever means is available.

 

Oh and I have to mention that it sickens me the most to see Christians doing this. They should not be the ones judging people as immoral. We are all sinners. You know, that whole, "let he who is without sin cast the first stone" thing... If you even believe that homosexuality is a sin(though there are passages that suggest that, but then so is casting your seed upon the ground). But at any rate, they are supposed to be accepting of all. turn the other cheek... turn a blind eye...

 

It's never my business to meddle in other people's business. Even if I myself find it gross. I'm sure there are things that I do that others would consider gross, weird, strange, or whatever(no specifics, too adult for PG13). Not my business. Definitely not the government's business. So restricting a relationship based on perceived normal behavior is just not right.

 

The majority of those opposed to gay marriage are hypocrites. Unless they strictly have intercourse for the purposes of procreation(I'm sure there are some... what boring people they must be)... they are hypocrites. Would all the women who oppose it appreciate if their husband left them because they could not have a child? Or how about the men if they are unable... Chances are they would be upset. Because they marry not for procreation, but love. That's all that the homosexual couples want. The ability to be hounded by their lover into getting married to prove that it's really love(hehe just kidding). They just want to be able to marry the one they love just like the rest of us. Just like the black man who wanted to marry a white woman he loved. Or the white man wanting to marry the black woman he loved.

[Achilles]

Maine becomes 5th state to allow same-sex marriage

[KinchyB]

Maine becomes 5th state to allow same-sex marriage

 

WOOT!

[Achilles]

Good times

[Qui-Gon Glenn]

Good times

Wow. What state is that for?

 

The appeals are becoming more and more desperate.

[Achilles]

New Hampshire.

 

Link to bill

[Rake]

The one thing I'd love to ask fundamentalists is, "Who made gay people?"

 

I mean seriously, if most of the people opposing gay marriage are creationists, did Satan create gay people while God wasn't looking or something?

[Achilles]

@off-topic: Did satan create himself while god wasn't looking? Hmmm...

 

if satan made evil and god made satan then...?

[Totenkopf]

speedbump:

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20090526/us_time/08599190100600

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_gay_marriage

[True_Avery]

Haha, so much for the most supposed "liberal, civil rights" state.

 

Besides, George wrote, Prop 8 - the initiative that reinstated the ban on same-sex marriages - hardly eviscerates the sweeping opinion he wrote last year. Gays, he said, are still entitled to the highest level of protection against discrimination afforded in the land, except in the instance of marriage.

Wow. So, "We'll protect them, but they aren't equal to everyone else".

 

Isn't that the exact definition of discrimination? This state is ticking me off.

[Tommycat]

Haha, so much for the most supposed "liberal, civil rights" state.

 

 

Wow. So, "We'll protect them, but they aren't equal to everyone else".

 

Isn't that the exact definition of discrimination? This state is ticking me off.

No.. its, "We'll treat them as equals.. Just not as EQUAL equals"

[True_Avery]

No.. its, "We'll treat them as equals.. Just not as EQUAL equals"

So, like some kind of theoretical super equal?

[Tommycat]

So, like some kind of theoretical super equal?

I guess... Not sure how he could think it's wrong not to treat them as equals yet still feel it's ok to not treat them as equals in all areas. Seems just flat out strange...

 

Only justification I can even think of to justify the anti marriage movement is that Marriage is also a religious notion. But so long as marriage is recognized by the government, that defense goes out the window(establishment clause).

 

It may just be how the argument for the unconstitutionality was phrased rather than as a discrimination case. Still... just hypocritical of him.

 

Note: I'm not gay. I do not like homosexuality. I actually find it disgusting and an abomination(sorry TA, that's just how I feel). But that doesn't mean that I think they should not be treated fairly under the law. We don't keep obscenely obese people from getting married. Just because it's "not right" doesn't mean that it should be used as a reason to discriminate against them.

[True_Avery]

Note: I'm not gay. I do not like homosexuality. I actually find it disgusting and an abomination(sorry TA, that's just how I feel).

I can't and wont try to convince you otherwise on the disgusting part. I find straight sex to be fairly disgusting (probably not at the level you dislike homosexuality, but up there), so it really comes down to orientation. You're straight, and trying to "convert" you or other nonsense would be naive and counter productive. I, personally, find the thought of male/male sex to be about as disgusting as straight sex, so I can at least relate to your feelings on the matter even though I have gay friends.

 

However, the abomination part I have a problem with depending on the definition. If by abomination you mean something disgusting and so on, then see above. If you mean abomination in the new age sense of "unnatural", then I'd have to point out that is happens naturally among many species.

 

Most animals are irrelevant (rats, dogs, and so on) as their sex is entirely instinct based and with lack of a mate will turn on their own gender to basically ease their hormones and programming. For social animals who have play/social sex (like humans, monkeys, apes, a few others) there is plenty of evidence to suggest that sexual orientation is not black and white in the make-up of our brains.

 

The Bonobo for example, our closest genetic relative:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bonobo

 

With just complete homosexuals (which, I will admit, are not all that common), you have bisexuals, bi-curious, transsexual, third gender (which I transcribe to over "lesbianism" as I neither truly identify with either gender to categorize myself on a gender level, as I can identify and sort of think as both and neither), asexual, omnisexual (a very interesting orientation that a friend of mine is), and the like, dozen or so others known and unknown.

 

While I cannot and will not try to convince you otherwise on the disgusting half, as that is how you were born and I respect that, I do hope that you would hopefully not see it as an abomination in the unnatural sense and hate people for something that is, often, out of their control (although that is arguable in some cases, but I'd save that for a PM if you'd be at all interested. Just a thought, as saying more would be off-topic a little).

 

I normally disagree heavily on the notion that Humans are not animals, but if I had to pick one idea that that put animals of higher intelligence (dolphins, great apes, humans, certain monkeys, etc) into a different category, it would be their ability to have social sex, and their ability to love. Love is, by all means, a new and interesting addition to the world of procreation and has opened a lot of doors for animals of higher development like humans, for better or for worse. Things aren't as strictly black and white as they are with animals of lower brain function, and in Humans its escalated into dozens of fetishes, orientations, and so on to the point that sex is more of a psychological undertaking than for procreation.

 

But that doesn't mean that I think they should not be treated fairly under the law. We don't keep obscenely obese people from getting married. Just because it's "not right" doesn't mean that it should be used as a reason to discriminate against them.

You find me disgusting, vile, and possibly bordering on hatred of my existence and yet you're still up for saying that.

 

Wish more people were like you. I respect your honesty, and respect that you didn't hide your genuine disgust with some religious excuse.

[Tommycat]

Just so you understand(without dragging this too far off topic) I think of homosexuality in the same sense as a mutation. While it occurs regularly, it is abnormal. Hence the abomination. BUT as with other mutations that occur, it is not your choice. There is no cure. There is no point in trying to "convert" you. In essence it is in my eyes no different than Cerebal Palsy. You're just wired different.

 

And the acts, quite frankly, are what I find disgusting. But then as a smoker(though trying to quit) I can't hate someone for doing what I find disgusting. I eat Sushi. Many people find that disgusting. There are a thousand things I may do that others find disgusting.

 

So... to sum up:

Icky is not a good reason to discriminate.

Abnormal is not a reason to discriminate.

 

Just because I don't like something is no good reason to treat that person any differently.

[Rake]

I'm extremely disappointed in my state. California really needs to get rid of elected judges, it's an injustice. And as for prop 8 hopefully the trend continues and it is overturned in 2010 or 2012, hopefully my generation is more tolerant of others.