California gets gay marriage and very hot weather

[Alcon]

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.

[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).

[??????????]

All those against gay marriage would be serving humanity better by trying to build a one-way time machine.  Getch'yo ass and your logic back to the 12th century, fools.

I thought liberals were for a society of free and open thought?

[Хahar 🤔]

All those against gay marriage would be serving humanity better by trying to build a one-way time machine.  Getch'yo ass and your logic back to the 12th century, fools.

I thought liberals were for a society of free and open thought?

He doesn't count.

[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.

[Emsworth]

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.

[jesmo]

No big deal.

[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!!!:)

[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.

[Alcon]

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.

[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.

[Emsworth]

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

The majority simply seems to have a moral revulsion toward certain forms of relationships (same-sex relationships, polygamous relationships, incestuous relationships, and so forth). You and I may not agree with them. We may call their views ignorant, bigoted, or XYZ. They are still the (deeply held) values of a society. Displacing them by judicial fiat still strikes me as inappropriate.

[Joe Republic]

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.

I really dislike the term "lifestyle choice".  The context in which it is so often used implies that homosexuality is a conscious decision, whereas any gay person would beg to differ with such a view.  It's about as much of a lifestyle choice as being left-handed.  Therefore, why should people have to live with the "consequences" of their supposed decision if they weren't consciously responsible for it, and can't do much to change it anyway?

[Alcon]

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.

To what extent does it need to be "proven"?  Don't you think there is rather substantial proof that it isn't a "lifestyle choice" at this point?  Although maybe there's environmental factors and behavioral conditioning involved, it still doesn't seem like there's much compelling evidence that it's much of a choice.  In fact, can you offer much of any evidence at all that it is?  I can offer plenty to the opposite effect.

And being that we not know, why not err on the side of moral conservativism?  Sure, maybe we aren't committing bigotry; maybe we are.  But when there is a chance, and a strong one, we are doing something bigoted, it is our moral responsibility to reduce that chance unless there is a significant negative impact on society.  Maybe you see one.  I do not.

Edit: Joe wins.

[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.

[Alcon]

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). 

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.

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.

Please offer any scientific proof that it is a conscious choice.  And while you're at it, please offer evidence that the burden upon society for allowing these rights/whatever-we're-calling-them is enough to justify committing what we may find out later is bigoted and wrong.  Not only may, in fact--by all appearances, probably will.

The majority has an ethical responsible to defend itself to the minority, lest it become complacent in its own traditions and societal dominance.  Once those defenses become rationalizations, there is too much potential for evil.

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.

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

[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?

[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.

[Sam Spade]

more appropriate thread title.

[afleitch]

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.

[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.

[Alcon]

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.

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 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.

Things that you cannot see, touch or feel cannot hurt you in an observable way.  If you cannot quantify the damage something causes, I do not feel that there is an ethical justification for limiting it.

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.

I'm not trying to be concrete about sexual orientation.  I know experimentation isn't really a form of sexual orientation, nor really is a sex act (as our friend Opebo would say, "a hole is a hole," it's mostly mental).  I don't really think there's much use in distinguishing experimentation, especially pre-pubescent and sexual orientation identity.

Coming from someone pretty close to the negatives on the Kinsey scale, I don't remember having much choice in the matter.  It just seemed self-evident.  Maybe you waited to pursue relationships until you were in your late 20s, when you said "being attracted to women sounds like fun," but you really had no sexual orientation beforehand?  Man, your teenage years must have been pretty pious...

But I do think your sample of friends is in the minority.  Study after study shows a constant:  people typically feel that they had little choice in sexual orientation, and the rates are pretty much similar to the statistical noise caused by "delusions of power" that people tend to feel over other phenomena in their lives.

I don't feel comfortable restricting minority rights based on little more than that statistical noise.  There would need to be much, much more.

[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.

[Tender Branson]

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