Gay marriage ban upheld in California

[Devilman88]

I support Gay Marriage, but I don't want to push it on people. The will come around sooner or later. People in California voted to not have it, so they shouldn't have it.

Well, this will probably be on the June or Nov. 2010 ballot.

That all good and if they vote to have good for them.

[Joe Biden 2020]

Wow, for once I agree with Vander!!

So, you see no moral issue with segregated schooling or busing?

Or, if homosexuality isn't actively chosen, you might as well say that blacks had the same rights -- to not be enslaved if they had white skin.  The only difference in the analogy is that one might be able to suppress their sexuality, but not skin color.  Otherwise, the moral parallel is pretty pure.

There is one BIG difference.  I firmly believe that being gay is a choice, not genetic.  I don't think I'm wrong, either.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Wow, for once I agree with Vander!!

So, you see no moral issue with segregated schooling or busing?

Well, you stupid liberal.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Wow, for once I agree with Vander!!

So, you see no moral issue with segregated schooling or busing?

Or, if homosexuality isn't actively chosen, you might as well say that blacks had the same rights -- to not be enslaved if they had white skin.  The only difference in the analogy is that one might be able to suppress their sexuality, but not skin color.  Otherwise, the moral parallel is pretty pure.

There is one BIG difference.  I firmly believe that being gay is a choice, not genetic.  I don't think I'm wrong, either.

Yeah, it's one hell of a ride. Who WOULDN'T want to be gay?

[War on Want]

I am pleased with the decision.  Its a victory for the anti-gay marriage camp.  I am warming to gay marriage, but SLOWLY.  We've had 5 states ratify gay marriage in the last 3 months and, to me, that is too much too fast.  We need to slow it down a little bit.  This country needs time to soak in and get used to it after each state, rather than have the entire steak shoved down its throat at one time.  The country could choke on it if it is done too fast.  I think a slow, methodical approach to the ratification would be ideal.  I don't prescribe a regular interval, but a slower, again more methodical, approach.  To me, its like a child learning to eat meat.  If you try to shove the entire sirloin steak down its throat at one time, the child's liable to choke on it.  Rather, if you take it slow and easy, the child is more apt to accept it without major repercussions.  They may spit a bite back up every now and then, but eventually, he'll eat the entire steak.

Can I just say that your position is retarded?

Yes, I can. Clearly, gay marriage doesn't affect you at all, and you've realized that. Yet, for your own selfish discomfort, you would tell hundreds of thousands of people to wait on equal protection under the law, to wait on equal right of contract, to wait on equal taxation to wait on equal recognition. Equality must wait because we're queasy.

At the risk of sounding hysterical (because it is hyperbole), would you tell slaves in 1865 to wait a few decades to be freed because we're not sure if we want to let you go, we're just warming to the idea? Would you tell women in 1920 to wait a few decades for the right to vote because we want to take our time? Would it not have been better if slavery were abolished in 1855 rather than 1865, or in 1845 instead of 1855; would it not have been better if women received the right to vote in 1910 rather than 1920, or in 1900 rather than 1910? Why is it then better for gay marriage to happen in 2020 than in 2010, or in 2030 than in 2020? Rights don't have anything to do with how you feel about them. They're only about the people they affect.

Another sophist comparing gay marriage to slavery, segregation, women's right to vote, et cetera.  These are in NO WAY comparable to gay marriage.  Gays have the SAME RIGHTS as everyone else.  That they cannot marry each other is not relevant.  I cannot marry a man of the same sex either.  Gay people can vote, they can receive an education, they can purchase property and they can own businesses.  Gay people are not being oppressed.  When the vast majority of Americans are told that an age-old institution, the bedrock of our society, must be changed because of political reasons, don't be surprised when we get angry, and don't cry "Discrimination!" when there is none.

It doesn't change the fact you are a selfish asshole for going against gay marriage. Yeah I said it, there is absolutley no basis for going against it except disliking gays. Get over it, it obviously matters to them as it affects how the law treats them, how they pay taxes, and how they have contracts. Besides that, why does the wording matter to you? I can guess the answer: CUZ GOD SAID SO IN THE BIBLE!! Well I don't give a fuck. We are a secular nation, and we don't have to have a values system based off of Judaism. Why do I say Judaism? Because there is really no Christian basis for going against gay marriage. Jesus even says that for eunuchs who were born eunuchs, there is nothing immoral about them not marrying and Jesus never brings up the "immorality" of gays in the Bible, even though it was very common in ancient times.

Or watch this video, for my casual position I don't care about politics position:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6p_aESYqtg

Also at the same time segregation/slavery was a bedrock of our society along with the women having unequal rights. Sometimes the foundations of society can be immoral and with marriage this is true.

[Alcon]

Oh please.  Are you seriously comparing gays to slaves?  Are gays being treated as property?  Is it illegal to educate them?  Is it routine for them to be whipped and beaten?  Gays can keep on claiming that they are a 'persecuted minority', nobody cares because they aren't being discriminated against.

What about "analogies do not have to be completely identical to be analogies, otherwise they wouldn't be analogies" is unclear?

Yes or no -- Is "separate but equal" a moral offense to you, or not?  Is it morally acceptable to exclude someone from equivalency, even if you can't prove that giving them equivalency would cause harm?

That was the extent of the analogy.  That is how analogies work.

Most gays do not even care about marriage.  Gays have an enormous rate of sexual partners outside of marriage compared to their heterosexual counterparts.  Gays cannot have children, so there is no need for them to be bound to each other.  I could understand if it was illegal to have sex outside of marriage, but that just isn't the case.  Hilariously, I hear of gays getting married 'because of the benefits'.  So basically, they're getting married for purely political reasons.  This is why I call them selfish and hedonistic, because they are willing to destroy the bedrock of Western civilization - all civilization - for their own selfish needs.  Selfish, hedonistic, overly dramatic, worthless individuals who crucify themselves on a political cross.  I think this point has been exhausted.

I'm curious to see what studies have shown that a supermajority of gays have "an enormous rate [sic] of sexual partners."  Or does the different just have to be disproportionate?  'Cause you know how likely blacks are to commit crimes, etc. etc.  Or men, for that matter.  You clearly should be denied rights on the basis of your demographics' disproportionate tendency toward given behaviors.  Exhausted no, certainly exhausting. 

[Joe Republic]

I firmly believe that being gay is a choice, not genetic.  I don't think I'm wrong, either.

Oh, not this shit again.  You can't just deny facts and logic because you don't understand them.

[Alcon]

There is one BIG difference.  I firmly believe that being gay is a choice, not genetic.  I don't think I'm wrong, either.

On what grounds do you believe this?  I doubt it's purely genetic, either, any more than any other behavior.  Depression isn't purely genetic.  Does that mean that people actively choose to have clinical depression?  You probably see where I'm going with this.  It makes very little sense.

I'm open to hearing why you think someone would actively choose to be gay, though.  And unless sexuality is an active choice (did you choose to like women?  I didn't) then the point still stands.

[War on Want]

I am pleased with the decision.  Its a victory for the anti-gay marriage camp.  I am warming to gay marriage, but SLOWLY.  We've had 5 states ratify gay marriage in the last 3 months and, to me, that is too much too fast.  We need to slow it down a little bit.  This country needs time to soak in and get used to it after each state, rather than have the entire steak shoved down its throat at one time.  The country could choke on it if it is done too fast.  I think a slow, methodical approach to the ratification would be ideal.  I don't prescribe a regular interval, but a slower, again more methodical, approach.  To me, its like a child learning to eat meat.  If you try to shove the entire sirloin steak down its throat at one time, the child's liable to choke on it.  Rather, if you take it slow and easy, the child is more apt to accept it without major repercussions.  They may spit a bite back up every now and then, but eventually, he'll eat the entire steak.

Can I just say that your position is retarded?

Yes, I can. Clearly, gay marriage doesn't affect you at all, and you've realized that. Yet, for your own selfish discomfort, you would tell hundreds of thousands of people to wait on equal protection under the law, to wait on equal right of contract, to wait on equal taxation to wait on equal recognition. Equality must wait because we're queasy.

At the risk of sounding hysterical (because it is hyperbole), would you tell slaves in 1865 to wait a few decades to be freed because we're not sure if we want to let you go, we're just warming to the idea? Would you tell women in 1920 to wait a few decades for the right to vote because we want to take our time? Would it not have been better if slavery were abolished in 1855 rather than 1865, or in 1845 instead of 1855; would it not have been better if women received the right to vote in 1910 rather than 1920, or in 1900 rather than 1910? Why is it then better for gay marriage to happen in 2020 than in 2010, or in 2030 than in 2020? Rights don't have anything to do with how you feel about them. They're only about the people they affect.

Another sophist comparing gay marriage to slavery, segregation, women's right to vote, et cetera.  These are in NO WAY comparable to gay marriage.  Gays have the SAME RIGHTS as everyone else.  That they cannot marry each other is not relevant.  I cannot marry a man of the same sex either.  Gay people can vote, they can receive an education, they can purchase property and they can own businesses.  Gay people are not being oppressed.  When the vast majority of Americans are told that an age-old institution, the bedrock of our society, must be changed because of political reasons, don't be surprised when we get angry, and don't cry "Discrimination!" when there is none.

It doesn't change the fact you are a selfish asshole for going against gay marriage. Yeah I said it, there is absolutley no basis for going against it except disliking gays. Get over it, it obviously matters to them as it affects how the law treats them, how they pay taxes, and how they have contracts. Besides that, why does the wording matter to you? I can guess the answer: CUZ GOD SAID SO IN THE BIBLE!! Well I don't give a fuck. We are a secular nation, and we don't have to have a values system based off of Judaism. Why do I say Judaism? Because there is really no Christian basis for going against gay marriage. Jesus even says that for eunuchs who were born eunuchs, there is nothing immoral about them not marrying and Jesus never brings up the "immorality" of gays in the Bible, even though it was very common in ancient times.

Or watch this video, for my casual position I don't care about politics position:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6p_aESYqtg

Also at the same time segregation/slavery was a bedrock of our society along with the women having unequal rights. Sometimes the foundations of society can be immoral and with marriage this is true.

So any opposition to gays getting married is based in hatred?  With arguments like these, it's no wonder that gay marriage is widely accepted across the nation.  It's stupid for gays to compare their "movement" to the Civil Rights movement (and I use quotations because I find their movement of gay pride parades, homo rallies, and Queer-a-Thons to be asinine and stupid).  If I were you, I'd keep with the "Gays are people too" rhetoric instead of insulting Western society, Judeo-Christian values, et cetera (it's best if gays are not associated with those types).  

If gays can get married, I wonder what other "persecuted" minority will throw themselves before the legislative palace, demanding equal rights when equal rights are already extended to them.  What will liberals do when they will not have another persecuted minority to protect?

The argument that gays should be married because this is a secular nation is just about as insulting an argument as you can get.  Obviously, we all oppose gays because we're hate-filled rednecks who cling to guns and religion.  What I find puzzling is how gay people marched into what used to be a sacred bond and DEMANDED that they receive the same benefits as married couples, refuse to compromise on anything other than complete marriage, ignore statistics that show gays are much much more promiscuous than the average straight person, ignore statistics that show gay marriage breeds illegitamacy and further erodes real marriage, and fail to read up on their history to appreciate that every society that has endorsed homosexuality has collapsed, refuse to even consider any argument that would prove detrimental to their position, all the while calling everyone who disagrees with them hate-filled bigots.

Now that is TRUE hatred.

There is no argument here, just you saying that people oppose gay marriage because people dislike the Gay Rights movement. By the way there are no statistics on any of those things that you posted at the bottom, try again. Some of those points were inherently stupid anyway(come on seriously the one on ancient societies accepting gays?)

[Alcon]

Vander,

I'm impressed that you've read diligently into these peer-reviewed studies of marriage rates, etc.  Which ones did you find most convincing?  And what do you feel is the best way of establishing a causation and controlling for incidental correlation?  You seem very passionate about an objective, statistical analysis.  I look forward to engaging you on those terms, since it's something I've looked into in pretty great detail.  We have vastly different conclusions but I look forward to reading your interpretations of the raw data

Sidebar: What does promiscuity have to do with this?  Gays should be punished for having a lot of sex by being disallowed to settle down?  Err...

[Joe Biden 2020]

I know all liberals will stop their ears when I mention a Bible verse, but I'm going to mention it anyway.

Genesis 1 says "And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness."

The verse tells me that, since no one believes God to be gay, that neither is man created gay.

You're right, Joe, i cannot deny the FACTS.  The Bible is 100% FACT.

[War on Want]

I know all liberals will stop their ears when I mention a Bible verse, but I'm going to mention it anyway.

Genesis 1 says "And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness."

The verse tells me that, since no one believes God to be gay, that neither is man created gay.

You're right, Joe, i cannot deny the FACTS.  The Bible is 100% FACT.

God has no gender, no sexual orientation and is really not comparable to humans in anyway...

[Alcon]

I know all liberals will stop their ears when I mention a Bible verse, but I'm going to mention it anyway.

Genesis 1 says "And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness."

The verse tells me that, since no one believes God to be gay, that neither is man created gay.

You're right, Joe, i cannot deny the FACTS.  The Bible is 100% FACT.

By your interpretation of that verse, everyone would have to choose all of their behaviors, personality characteristics and physical appearance.  You don't believe that, do you?

[Queen Mum Inks.LWC]

A very sound legal opinion.  I'm pleased with the entire thing - the upholding of Prop. 8 as well as the upholding of the 18,000 marriages.

[Nutmeg]

I know all liberals will stop their ears when I mention a Bible verse, but I'm going to mention it anyway.

Genesis 1 says "And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness."

The verse tells me that, since no one believes God to be gay, that neither is man created gay.

You're right, Joe, i cannot deny the FACTS.  The Bible is 100% FACT.

Our country is not based on the Bible, but the Constitution.  Sorry.

[Marokai Backbeat]

I know all liberals will stop their ears when I mention a Bible verse, but I'm going to mention it anyway.

Genesis 1 says "And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness."

The verse tells me that, since no one believes God to be gay, that neither is man created gay.

You're right, Joe, i cannot deny the FACTS.  The Bible is 100% FACT.

My god, jmfcst has hacked into BushOklahoma's account. Someone get a moderator.

[Alcon]

Alcon, there are many studies on the topic.  A simple Google search will bring up a number of results.

Feel free to look them up.

I'm aware that gay men are more promiscuous.  It's not exactly a surprise, considering the low emphasis on long-term commitment...something which you're effectively championing in this topic.

However, I find the evidence extremely unconvincing that there is an effect on marriages.  I have done more than Google the topic.  I have looked at peer-reviewed papers, rebuttals, criticisms, checked author histories and affiliations, etc.  If you're encouraging me to Google to find papers that support your opinion, and ignores those that don't...why is that not a complete and total waste of my time, and why wasn't it a waste of yours?

My argument, however, is ultimately not that gays should be denied marriage because they have numerous partners, my argument is that they are not interested in marriage to begin with.  My argument is that gays should be denied marriage because it would lead to a further erosion in the state of that institution.  Ideally, government would not involve itself in marriage so there would not be so many political entanglements.  I do not think gays are interested in getting married; I think they are interested in political recognition, and I don't think that's a good motive.  If marriage was left to the people, I very much doubt that gays would be marrying in any significant numbers.

And I suppose you have evidence from countries with gay marriage to back this up?  Because I've read plenty to the contrary, but maybe you have different statistics than me or something

Besides, it's a curious argument.  "Gays don't want marriage anyway"?  Maybe 80% of them don't.  Does that make the 20% moral violation acceptable?  No.  The burden is still on you to prove that there is sufficient harm to marriage to justify denying gays inclusion in the institution.  Still waiting.

[Scam of God]

I support Gay Marriage, but I don't want to push it on people. The will come around sooner or later. People in California voted to not have it, so they shouldn't have it.

You aren't "pushing it on people"; the anti-marriage activists are pushing it on you. According to the theory of negative liberty - which is the overriding libertarian ethical system of rights - all liberties are assumed from the outside; government regulations simply take away what already exists. You already had the right to marry outside of the artificial construct that is Proposition 8 -- that Proposition removed from you a pre-existing right.

[Scam of God]

Wow, for once I agree with Vander!!

So, you see no moral issue with segregated schooling or busing?

Or, if homosexuality isn't actively chosen, you might as well say that blacks had the same rights -- to not be enslaved if they had white skin.  The only difference in the analogy is that one might be able to suppress their sexuality, but not skin color.  Otherwise, the moral parallel is pretty pure.

There is one BIG difference.  I firmly believe that being gay is a choice, not genetic.  I don't think I'm wrong, either.

What if it is? You have no authority to contravene the negative liberty of the individual in pursuit of the application of your own positive tyranny. The same freedom that keeps you from being shackled to the Church in Rome - the presupposition that all men are possessing of a freedom of religious - is the selfsame liberty that guarantees to homosexuals their right to marry outside of any collectivistic-traditionallistic setting.

[Lincoln Republican]

I am going to say this again, in case anyone still does not understand

Opposition to gay marriage does not equate to issues of race!

So quit insulting people's intelligence by trying to brainwash them into believing that the issue of gay marriage equates to issues to race.

An analogy does not imply complete equity

An analogy requires that two objects be similar in a way of some profundity

If everything is identical in an analogy, it is comparing something to itself, and is a tautology

grahhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!

On the other hand, I think the idea that gay people want to "debase and demean" marriage is pretty bigoted, myself -- or, at minimum, incredibly ignorant.

Defense of real marriage is neither bigoted nor ignorant.

What gay marriage does in fact do is debase, demean and trivialize real marriage.  Therefore, if gay marriage becomes law, what the gay community has accomplished is in fact to debase, demean, and trivialize real marriage.

[Joe Republic]

I know all liberals will stop their ears when I mention a Bible verse, but I'm going to mention it anyway.

Genesis 1 says "And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness."

The verse tells me that, since no one believes God to be gay, that neither is man created gay.

You're right, Joe, i cannot deny the FACTS.  The Bible is 100% FACT.

I believe God is bisexual, and I challenge you to prove me wrong.

But I notice that my assertion was correct, i.e. you obviously haven't read or understood the empirical evidence on the causes of homosexuality, so you rely on the writings of some random people thousands of years ago instead.  It's probably better if you stay out of discussions on gay marriage until you can understand the broader concepts first.

[Reluctant Republican]

I know all liberals will stop their ears when I mention a Bible verse, but I'm going to mention it anyway.

Genesis 1 says "And God said, let us make man in our image, after our likeness."

The verse tells me that, since no one believes God to be gay, that neither is man created gay.

You're right, Joe, i cannot deny the FACTS.  The Bible is 100% FACT.

I really hate to get involved here, but people are born with all kinds of traits. Some are born blind, some are born deaf, some are born with mental illnesses such as schizophrenia . I’d hardly think that anyone would think that anyone chose to be blind or deaf or schizophrenic, and no one believes God possesses these qualities either. So if they didn’t come from God, where did they come from? If those sort of traits can show up, I certainly think that people could be born gay. By this example, it seems like mankind is not just created with the exact qualities that God itself possesses.

I apologize for linking homosexuality to mental and physical illness. I’m gay myself, so I don’t consider it to be this negative quality. My intent with my crappy analogies is to point out that just because God is not considered gay this does not mean that those he creates cannot be so. Besides, isn’t he supposed to be the only one of his kind? If that’s the case, I don’t think he can really be considered to be straight either, or to have any capacity for romantic love. It could be that, heterosexuals are just as removed from his nature as the gays.

I’m really hoping my argument is not quite as cringe worthy as I believe it to be.

[Marokai Backbeat]

Another gay Atlas member I never knew of before.

[Devilman88]

I support Gay Marriage, but I don't want to push it on people. The will come around sooner or later. People in California voted to not have it, so they shouldn't have it.

You aren't "pushing it on people"; the anti-marriage activists are pushing it on you. According to the theory of negative liberty - which is the overriding libertarian ethical system of rights - all liberties are assumed from the outside; government regulations simply take away what already exists. You already had the right to marry outside of the artificial construct that is Proposition 8 -- that Proposition removed from you a pre-existing right.

But if the majority of the people in CA, voted against it and the court over turned it wouldn't that be pushing it on a state that did want it in the first place? I may be wrong here, but that is how I look at it.

[Lincoln Republican]

I believe God is bisexual, and I challenge you to prove me wrong.

But I notice that my assertion was correct, i.e. you obviously haven't read or understood the empirical evidence on the causes of homosexuality, so you rely on the writings of some random people thousands of years ago instead.  It's probably better if you stay out of discussions on gay marriage until you can understand the broader concepts first.

With such a statement as you have just made, it's definitely better that you stay out of discussions about God until you can understand the broader concepts first.