California Gay Marriage Ban Lifted

[crazypsyko666]

are you seriously planning to respond your way piece-by-piece through 20 pages of discussions that are now concluded?

-m

You know, you may just be my favorite person in these forums.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

With everyones conscent, I would like to spin this topical tangent your way.

Given:that same sex mariage is legal and accepted
Given:that arguements for tradional mariage (male/female) are void

What forms of mariage would not be permissible?

I'm not tring to flame bait but provoke a conversation. I'm using the "group mariage" from the book "Friday" as my reference point.

Any kind that cause harm, or infringe on rights. So child marriages are out, as are animals. I would consider arranged marriages problematic, but they're probably defended under religious fredom. Marrying inanimates violates the basest legal requirements to even be considered actually marriage. marrying Relatives has potential health consequenses for offspring, so that's a no-go. Bigamy and polygamy have consequenses that harm family cohesion, and which circumvent the economic intent of stat regulated marriage.

So pretty much 'marriage between two consenting adults' is about as far as the need to allow marriages extends.

-m

I'll play Devil's Advocate. How does marrying an animal cause harm or infringe on rights? Unless you're fucking a small animal which would be animal cruelty. I also fail to see how polgamy would mess with the economy, it worked for the Mormons and some Arab cultures for quite some time.

The point to the animal or inanimate object thing is that they cannot consent and they obviously cannot voice their "love" for you. Any human being can, with enough knowledge and maturity to do so, though in case of sex and marriage we are talking about adult individuals. We are talking about those individuals here simply wanting the rights that have been forced away from them by a bigoted majority, and on the path to hopefully succeeding.

In a nutshell.

 

[ShadowsofHope]

Call me a bigot, but I'm not really so sure about the lifting of this ban. Many people have misconceptions about gay people and would not prefer living next to them. Gays always were an oppressed minority, mainly because parents care for their children and want to make sure that they know the correct place the wee wee should go in.
I had 1 gay friend in high school, and we was a pretty cool guy to hang around. But not all people see it that way. Mr and Mrs. Doe, being white middle class Christians may not feel very comfortable of Mr. and Mr. Smith, who is moving in next door. Little Timmy may see Mr. and Mr. Smith being "happy" together after all.
I think it would be better to educate the general public about gays and gay culture before making such a big change.

Society does not have to give a shit about the personal preferences about a select few individuals. If they feel uncomfortable about a gay man living near them.. so the fuck what? No one has the right to tell someone else in this situation they cannot love the same way, or commit to someone the same way anyone else can in society. They are being a bigot, in this case.

Also, the fundamentals of being gay are already known by society in the States. These people just have irrational hate for anything "different" than them, or challenges the "traditions" they grew up on. End of story.

 

[aquailiz]

In conclusion, I would have to remind (and thank) any kind reader who actually finished reading my post, that this is my opinion. I think it is an educated opinion due to the amount of background that I have personally studied and dealt with. I would also like to say that this is an issue that deals with more areas than the ones presently discussed. I would also encourage people to educate themselves and study this subject further and deeper before formulating opinions of their own, and to search the truth within this topic rather than listen to the media and society and generate opinions from it.

Irrelevant. The point at hand is that gay people are discriminated against by the law. Treated as lesser people, in effect. Whether or not being gay is natural, or abnormal, is beside the point. The government and its policy-makers are not gods, who are they to dispense judgement on who should be allowed to marry or not? That is the agenda here.

True, Irrelevant. However, homosexuality was first treated as a psychological issue before it was treated as a political one.

 

[aquailiz]

Article 16.

(1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.
(2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.
(3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.

Which has been recently worsened by society. Just because they are gay they should not receive any spotlight or special attention. They should be as good members of society as everyone else is.

What about the far more obvious sexuality expressed by the ancient civilisations like the Greeks? Perhaps it has not been worsened, just allowed to return to its normal level?

And on the second point- yes, they shouldn't receive special treatment. Surely that should encompass negativity as well as positivity, and so advocate gay marriage? It's not special treatment, it's equal treatment, no?[/quote]

I have not studied ancient civilizations and the expression of homosexuality within them. I cannot argument to your first point.

On your second point on equal treatment. I will use the excerpt from your quote. Recall that laws and rulings can be understood literally, liberally, or "in the spirit of their meaning". The original spirit of the excerpt of the Article 16 that you used, intended that the marriage would be between men AND women, not men OR women, although it can be interpreted literally both ways due to the wording of the rest. If equality is to be duly applied, the original intended definition of marriage should be used without the recent alterations to it that have risen mostly due to civil rights activists and pro-gay movements. If the original definition is used, gay marriage would be impossible. Good point though, I must admit it can be interpreted in many ways and there are other points to explicitly define (such as the mention of the foundation of a family). I also have to say I am no expert in laws, especially of the USA.

 

[aquailiz]

This is exactly the view I have on the subject. Personal opinions aside, I believe gay people go out of their way to draw attention on themselves sometimes.

Personal opinions now... I'm also sickened by the many other people who title themselves as superior because their views agree with the current progressive thinking. Not only so, many other people even undermine and denigrate the idea of rejecting gay marriage. Surely, rulings such as these determine progress towards certain viewpoints, however, these viewpoints are not necessarily the most beneficial. Progress towards a direction does not always mean progress towards the correct direction. I believe many people here that post would receive a great deal of moderation if they even dared to call a "bigot" someone who openly supported gay marriage. Nevertheless, gay marriage supporters put down negative comments like these against the "public" that does not support their ideas. I don't believe in conservative and liberal ideologies, certainly, all differing ideas are just that, different.

I am a person who has studied and even given hour-long talks and informational sessions about the concept of homosexuality. I'll have to admit it is quite easy for the public to speculate and generate opinion about the matter by listening to what the media says and what "leading" opinion-makers discourse, gay people included. I would even say the general public does not a concrete, solid idea on what the matter really deals with. I have read probably too many scientific articles and research papers on the matter. I have spoken and conversed with gay people, I have dealt with them and even recently had a gay roommate. I read and studied the works of psychologists, sociologists, and doctors who specialized in defining what homosexuality really is, and I'll have to admit it is easy to spot others who do not have a broad depth of knowledge on the subject.

What I intended with the previous paragraph was to show that I am not just blabbering off with my opinion. I try to keep my thoughts as unbiased as possible on this matter, mostly because some people can be sensitive towards it, and because in order to fully understand a debatable subject, you have to know both sides of the story.

Homosexuality, in my opinion, is not normal. It is natural, if by natural you mean that nature "allows it" and that it occurs in nature. In addition, it is not close to being the majority. From what I have studied, it is a deeply intricate problem of the human psyche; which has been recently worsened by society. Do note that even though a problem does not interfere with a person's ability to perform well in society, this does not mean the problem itself is not there. Of course the APA declared it was not a mental disorder, but the circumstances and history surrounding that council are sketchy at best. In recent times, numerous sociological processes began to exacerbate the condition. It became a statement to be gay. Gay people were persecuted, incriminated, and martyred. However, during the modern era of telecommunications and globalization, these processes were not controlled in the least, but rather exaggerated. It is through society that being gay has become a problem, and because of the kind of society that we live in, it has become a problem to even try to revert it. Now gay people who try to become straight are persecuted! Gay people now hear that they must embrace their condition and accept it; they must flaunt it, even if it is discreetly. If they have homosexual urges, they must be true to themselves and choose to follow them. Of course there is a lot more to this, but that is the main idea.

Basically, to me, someone who considers himself a homosexual is no different as a person as someone who has ADD.

I also find it pointless to declare that gay people are more successful, productive, competitive, safe, open, intelligent, and more beneficial to society. Why? Because nothing less is expected. Just because they are gay they should not receive any spotlight or special attention. They should be as good members of society as everyone else is. They are not crippled in any way, they are not physically ill in any way, they are not handicapped in any way (from being homosexuals), and thus, they should perform as well or better than any other member of society. Many people approach the issue and set up "Gay vs. Straight" comparisons, but I'm sure if they had looked far enough, they would have found even more straight people that perform just as well or better than gay people.

In conclusion, I would have to remind (and thank) any kind reader who actually finished reading my post, that this is my opinion. I think it is an educated opinion due to the amount of background that I have personally studied and dealt with. I would also like to say that this is an issue that deals with more areas than the ones presently discussed. I would also encourage people to educate themselves and study this subject further and deeper before formulating opinions of their own, and to search the truth within this topic rather than listen to the media and society and generate opinions from it.

I think the fundamental problem with this is that you're reducing people's relationships to an academic analysis. Aside from a few vague references to 'conversing' or rooming with gay people, it doesn't appear to me as though you really know or understand any. Your statements about flaunting suggest a predisposition to homosexuality as it is presented by cable news networks; ie, reduced to colorful shots of parades with the underlying menace of an agenda out to draw ever more people into its web.

This post... it almost reminds me early and rudimentary exercises in anthropology where European scholars would analyze 'native tribes' and such from afar, exoticising them and feeling unduly dazzled/threatened/impressed/uncomfortable with any perceived difference. Then, once in a while, one would go off and 'live' with these tribes for a year to understand their ways, oblivious to the fact that they really didn't know the first thing about them.

From the outside looking in, anything can seem strange. Some gay people might 'flaunt', most will not. But beneath such veneers are... ordinary people. Ordinary, boring, wonderful people.

In part it is possible to say that I reduced people's relationships to an academic analysis. However, remember I took these ideas from experts in their field of society and psychology (I do not cite because it has been over 2 years since I did the work and I have forgotten all the names.) and they themselves have dedicated their lives to the academic study of human relationships, amongst other things.

On your second point, if you do think that I view homosexuality "from afar" and fear from delving into the human aspect of it, I would have to argue that you do the same thing yourself when you do not consider the other possibility that homosexuality could be a psychological issue. I have to admit I cannot say I understand completely homosexuality, I would have to be a homosexual or have to deal extensively with them. However, if you do not consider the other possibility and understand it and study it completely, then you cannot thoroughly dismiss it altogether, lest you incur in the same mistake you claim I reflected on my post. Surely, the idea that homosexuality is a mental disorder may seem strange, looking from the outside in...

 

[AcacianLeaves]

The point to the animal or inanimate object thing is that they cannot consent and they obviously cannot voice their "love" for you. Any human being can, with enough knowledge and maturity to do so, though in case of sex and marriage we are talking about adult individuals. We are talking about those individuals here simply wanting the rights that have been forced away from them by a bigoted majority, and on the path to hopefully succeeding.

In a nutshell.

Also note that marriage is a LEGAL contract, and animals can't enter a legal contract (whether or not they have the ability to consent). The same goes for minors or inanimate objects or imaginary creatures or whatever other smokescreens are put up as 'slippery slope' fallacies.

Here, a helpful guide (sorry if this has been posted but I'm not about to go through 20 pages of THIS topic):

Spoiler: Helpful chart about the gay marriage debate

 

[Varrdy]

Wow this is a long thread and while there's no way I'm reading it all, I'd like to add my own 2 cents.

Whilst as a boring old heterosexual who couldn't give two shits about getting married personally, I think that the over-ruling is the right thing to do but also that the can of worms is well and truly open now...sadly.

I've many gay friends (I'm a fur...as a straight guy, IM in the minority!) and pretty much all are rejoicing at the news. This joy prompted me to read the news article and see what went down.

Let me make it plain that I cannot STAND bigotry and the notion that anyone could say "YOU can't get married because WE don't you to!" makes my teeth itch. I will also come out and admit, with great shame, that I used to be rather put off by homosexuality because it was "the norm". Then I actually became friends with a gay guy and fuck me did I realise what a tit I was being.

Anyway, I have seen the complaints that the judge over-ruled a majority vote in favour of the ban and I'm generally a beliver in majority rule. Mind you that's probably because I lived in the UK under 13 years of Labour government where it was minority rule apparently. In this case though, I am glad someone's seen sense and over-turned it because forcing your views on someone else is just bullshit.

Personally I think it's a joke that all this was necessary to get to where we are now. I've heard so many arguments as to why gay/lesbian couples can't get married and NOT ONE has been convincing.

"It will destroy the sanctity of marriage!" - Oh good one! Half the people who get married find it SO sacred they get divorced! Also, doesn't the USA (and I imagine several other countries) have DRIVE-THROUGH wedding chapels? From what I can gather the sanctity of marriage was screwed up a long time ago. I don't wish for a second to denegrate anyone who IS happily married - all power to you - but the point remains.

"It's not NATURAL!" - What? Marriage or homosexuality? Well, marriage ISN'T natural because ir's a man-made concept. Homosexuality IS natural and although you wont see it in any US nature documentary, it happens in the wild.

The other major humdinger is the religious aspect and that's just great...telling someone they can't get married because a God (Who doesn't exist!) that they (The couple) MIGHT NOT BELIEVE IN says it's bad. Yeah great, where's that anti-stupid hammer?

As much as I can't get my head around it, people will still be against Gay marriage for whatever reason and that can't really be changed. Sometimes things are just too deep-rooted to be altered and that's why this is never going to go away quietly. Yes it's become a political issue and to be honest, a bloody great farce!

I could go on but I've gotta be at a job interview in a bit!

Wardy

 

[aquailiz]

Personal opinions now... I'm also sickened by the many other people who title themselves as superior because their views agree with the current progressive thinking. Not only so, many other people even undermine and denigrate the idea of rejecting gay marriage. Surely, rulings such as these determine progress towards certain viewpoints, however, these viewpoints are not necessarily the most beneficial. Progress towards a direction does not always mean progress towards the correct direction. I believe many people here that post would receive a great deal of moderation if they even dared to call a "bigot" someone who openly supported gay marriage. Nevertheless, gay marriage supporters put down negative comments like these against the "public" that does not support their ideas. I don't believe in conservative and liberal ideologies, certainly, all differing ideas are just that, different.

I am a person who has studied and even given hour-long talks and informational sessions about the concept of homosexuality. I'll have to admit it is quite easy for the public to speculate and generate opinion about the matter by listening to what the media says and what "leading" opinion-makers discourse, gay people included. I would even say the general public does not a concrete, solid idea on what the matter really deals with. I have read probably too many scientific articles and research papers on the matter. I have spoken and conversed with gay people, I have dealt with them and even recently had a gay roommate. I read and studied the works of psychologists, sociologists, and doctors who specialized in defining what homosexuality really is, and I'll have to admit it is easy to spot others who do not have a broad depth of knowledge on the subject.

What I intended with the previous paragraph was to show that I am not just blabbering off with my opinion. I try to keep my thoughts as unbiased as possible on this matter, mostly because some people can be sensitive towards it, and because in order to fully understand a debatable subject, you have to know both sides of the story.

Homosexuality, in my opinion, is not normal. It is natural, if by natural you mean that nature "allows it" and that it occurs in nature. In addition, it is not close to being the majority. From what I have studied, it is a deeply intricate problem of the human psyche; which has been recently worsened by society. Do note that even though a problem does not interfere with a person's ability to perform well in society, this does not mean the problem itself is not there. Of course the APA declared it was not a mental disorder, but the circumstances and history surrounding that council are sketchy at best. In recent times, numerous sociological processes began to exacerbate the condition. It became a statement to be gay. Gay people were persecuted, incriminated, and martyred. However, during the modern era of telecommunications and globalization, these processes were not controlled in the least, but rather exaggerated. It is through society that being gay has become a problem, and because of the kind of society that we live in, it has become a problem to even try to revert it. Now gay people who try to become straight are persecuted! Gay people now hear that they must embrace their condition and accept it; they must flaunt it, even if it is discreetly. If they have homosexual urges, they must be true to themselves and choose to follow them. Of course there is a lot more to this, but that is the main idea.

Basically, to me, someone who considers himself a homosexual is no different as a person as someone who has ADD.

I also find it pointless to declare that gay people are more successful, productive, competitive, safe, open, intelligent, and more beneficial to society. Why? Because nothing less is expected. Just because they are gay they should not receive any spotlight or special attention. They should be as good members of society as everyone else is. They are not crippled in any way, they are not physically ill in any way, they are not handicapped in any way (from being homosexuals), and thus, they should perform as well or better than any other member of society. Many people approach the issue and set up "Gay vs. Straight" comparisons, but I'm sure if they had looked far enough, they would have found even more straight people that perform just as well or better than gay people.

In conclusion, I would have to remind (and thank) any kind reader who actually finished reading my post, that this is my opinion. I think it is an educated opinion due to the amount of background that I have personally studied and dealt with. I would also like to say that this is an issue that deals with more areas than the ones presently discussed. I would also encourage people to educate themselves and study this subject further and deeper before formulating opinions of their own, and to search the truth within this topic rather than listen to the media and society and generate opinions from it.

The problem with this is that no matter how much you study, observe, research homosexuals and homosexuality, you will never be able to define what homosexuality is because your thoughts and findings are inherently biased if you are heterosexual. So I'm sorry but your opinions are in no way objective or factual.

Good point. However the same can be applied to homosexuals, they cannot give an unbiased opinion either. It would be even harder to deem bi-sexuals as an unbiased voice. Since they are both homosexuals and heterosexuals, they cannot express what it means to be either one or the other uniquely. Then, according to your argument, no one could give an objective or factual opinion.