California Proposition Poll

[Heylel Teomim]

Originally Posted by Torvon

My answer to that would depend on your definition of equal rights. Obviously I'm against marriage being anything other than one man and one woman. However as far as everything else goes such as hospitalization, medical care, fair housing, employment rights, or probate rights, then yes I think they should receive the same rights.

So wait, they should be treated *completely the same* but called something else?

Why do we need two words for what is essentially the same thing? Or more to the point, what in the essential nature of marriage would make it any different were we to allow homosexuals the right to marry one another?

[Fammaden]

Originally Posted by chu

Why don't you just outright admit that you hate queers and go off on being a bigot rather than just an incomprehensible imbecile?

I'd much prefer that too. The closest anyone comes is talking about natural laws, or inability to bear children. Dude up above called it a deviant behavior. That's more the spirit. This is FoH, why sugar coat it? If you think homosexuality is a disgusting selfish hedonistic abomination just say so! Incoming 50 people justifying how they don't have a problem with gays, just with allowing them to join in the eyes of the law for many convoluted reasons.

And Torvon, all that stuff about "no one else having the right to marry same sex partners"? Uh.....

Originally Posted by http://www.now.org/issues/marriage/global.html

The United Kingdom

The Civil Partnership Act was approved by the House of Lords on November 17, 2004 by a vote of 251 to 136. On December 5, 2005 the new law went into effect after a cooling off period. The law allows same-sex couples the same property and inheritance rights as married heterosexual couples and entitles them to the same pension, immigration and tax benefits. Unlike those in Belgium, the Netherlands, Spain and Canada, Britain's civil partnership is not a marriage. Civil partnerships allow LGBT couples to sign certain documents in an exclusively civil procedure, yet religious institutions are not legally required to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies. It is estimated that 4,500 same-sex couples will take advantage of the law by the end of 2006. Beyond that ministers think between 11,000 and 22,000 same-sex couples will benefit from the law by 2010.

The Netherlands

The Netherlands legalized same-sex marriage in 2001 when their Parliament voted 107-33 to eliminate discrimination from their marriage laws. Today what seems revolutionary in the United States is almost mundane for the Dutch. Anne-Marie Thus, a Dutch lesbian who married in 2001, explains, "It's really become less of something that you need to explain. We're totally ordinary. We take our children to preschool every day. People know they don't have to be afraid of us.

Belgium

Belgium became the second country to legalize equal marriage in 2003. Without fanfare, 91 of the 122 deputies in the Belgian Parliament voted for the change. Currently, 3% of all Belgian marriages are between homosexuals.2 Unlike in the Netherlands, however, gay and lesbian couples are not allowed to adopt children, although the Parliament is considering changing the law in the near future.

Spain

After the unexpected victory of the Spanish Socialist Party in 2004, the newly elected Prime Minister, Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, moved to legalize same-sex marriage in the country. Despite serious opposition from the Catholic Church, a majority of Spaniards supported the measure and the Parliament voted 187 to 147 in favor of the law. It is by far the most liberal legislation for LGBT couples in Europe, including full marriage and adoption rights. Zapatero's words of should encourage feminist activists around the globe: "We were not the first, but I am sure we will not be the last. After us will come many other countries, driven ... by two unstoppable forces: freedom and equality.

Canada

On July 20, 2005, Canada became the fourth nation to legalize gay marriage. The national legislation passed after more than three quarters of Canadian provinces and territories legalized same-sex unions. Canadian leaders supported full marriage, as opposed to civil union legislation that exists in some European countries (e.g. Denmark and Sweden). Canadian politicians recognized the importance of full equality. Canada's Prime Minister at the time, Paul Martin, explained, "We've come to the realization that instituting civil unions — adopting a 'separate but equal' approach — would violate the equality provisions of the [Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms]. We've confirmed that extending the right of civil marriage to gays and lesbians will not in any way infringe on religious freedoms.

Civil Unions Elsewhere

Countries that offer most or all spousal rights to same-sex couples, but stop short of marriage, include Denmark, Finland, Germany, Iceland, Norway, and Sweden. Countries that offer some spousal rights to same-sex couples, which are far from full marriage equality, include: Brazil, Croatia, France, Hungary, Israel, New Zealand, Portugal, South Africa, and Switzerland."

[Torvon]

Originally Posted by Fammaden

I'd much prefer that too. The closest anyone comes is talking about natural laws, or inability to bear children. Dude up above called it a deviant behavior. That's more the spirit. This is FoH, why sugar coat it? If you think homosexuality is a disgusting selfish hedonistic abomination just say so! Incoming 50 people justifying how they don't have a problem with gays, just with allowing them to join in the eyes of the law for many convoluted reasons.

And Torvon, all that stuff about "no one else having the right to marry same sex partners"? Uh.....

First of all, I find it rather hilarious you think the only way you could vote for proposition 8 is if you are a bigot. You see this is what happens, the argument goes logically until one side gives up and resorts to name calling.

Obviously, Fammaden when I said no one else had those rights I was talking about in California. Correct me if I am wrong, but this thread is about California propositions right? Further, California is under the jurisdiction of the United States Constitution and the decisions of the United States Supreme Court. So obviously when I say "no one" I am referring to within the United States.

Keep reaching those guys, this is getting really good.

[Fammaden]

So if 49 other states allowed it but California did not then a great argument would still be, "no one else in California can marry within their gender, why should gays be allowed?" That is a pretty paper thin excuse. If it was already allowed then it wouldn't be an issue in the first place. How does this change the basic tenets of what sort of struggle this issue represents?

"They are not being denied anything that straight people can do because straight people don't want to marry gay people." That's the basis of your argument. Read that aloud to yourself and tell yourself it sounds really intelligent and sensible. If you can convincingly achieve this, great. Your opinions are fully your own, and no one can shake them off of you.

[Lithose]

Originally Posted by Fammaden

I'd much prefer that too. The closest anyone comes is talking about natural laws, or inability to bear children. Dude up above called it a deviant behavior. That's more the spirit. This is FoH, why sugar coat it? If you think homosexuality is a disgusting selfish hedonistic abomination just say so! Incoming 50 people justifying how they don't have a problem with gays, just with allowing them to join in the eyes of the law for many convoluted reasons.

And Torvon, all that stuff about "no one else having the right to marry same sex partners"? Uh.....

Deviancy is the proper term for a sexual orientation that doesn't confirm to the norm. People who enjoy S&M are sexually deviant to, its you who is putting the "bad" spin on the word. Just because someone shows they like a little cock, and there for are deviant, doesn't make them bad, you homophobe.

As far as "not allowing them", I was against proposition 8, and its not because I "support gays", I could really give a rats ass if you think I hate a bunch of cock suckers. I was against it because its a trivial expenditure of state resources when there are far bigger problems for us to tackle. If "I ran things" I would support the abolition of marriage as a secular institution and change them all into "civil unions", leaving "marriage" as a religious institution and I would do it in a heart beat.

However, my views on marriage, gay or otherwise, don't change how the law views groups in regards to the 14th amendment. Enjoying dick, or carpet munching (Whatever your flavor is) does not entitile you to the same "group status" as someone who is black, sorry if that offends you, take it up with the court that defined it.

[Fammaden]

Originally Posted by Lithose

Deviancy is the proper term for a sexual orientation that doesn't confirm to the norm. People who enjoy S&M are sexually deviant to, its you who is putting the "bad" spin on the word. Just because someone shows they like a little cock, and there for are deviant, doesn't make them bad, you homophobe.

Actually, I consider their behavior normal. For them it would be abnormal to have sex with the opposite gender. There are just a lot less of them in the world than there are heterosexuals. S&M is deviant more because it introduces practices that are not purely sexual in nature, thus outside the norm of human sexuality. I can't consider homosexuality abnormal anymore than I can call oral sex outside of the norm.

[Mimirswell]

A good paradigm is one that is determinant upon other primate species as a definition for what is "natural". Homosexuality does occur in numerous primate species as does oral and anal. The former two are very prevalent (male-to-male oral sex is a way to end arguments among several monkey species).

[Lithose]

Originally Posted by Fammaden

Actually, I consider their behavior normal. For them it would be abnormal to have sex with the opposite gender. There are just a lot less of them in the world than there are heterosexuals. S&M is deviant more because it introduces practices that are not purely sexual in nature, thus outside the norm of human sexuality. I can't consider homosexuality abnormal anymore than I can call oral sex outside of the norm.

Deviance doesn't change based on perspective. Deviance is doing something that is outside the social or cultural norms. The majority of people have "normal" heterosexual relations, if you don't, no matter what your flavor is, its deviant.

The perception of "bad" to that word is purely the observers. Being deviant doesn't make someone bad, being standard doesn't make someone good. It simple describes a behavior on a level that is good for judging public policy assessments.

Simply being different is not enough to declare this law discriminatory, according to the law. Now it can be argued that the state can't legislate on morality issues, which is the first prong of the 14th amendment test, but we had that discussion pages and pages ago.

The problem is marriage has become two things, something which is important for the state/private contracts and something for religious institutions. Yet it has kept one name. California has opted to clarify the way the state sees it, which probably wasn't ideal, but it is what it is. If you want to help out, political activism is a good way, or you can call Obama, I hear he is going to be tossing out some mandates soon :P.

[Fammaden]

Originally Posted by Mimirswell

A good paradigm is one that is determinant upon other primate species as a definition for what is "natural". Homosexuality does occur in numerous primate species as does oral and anal. The former two are very prevalent (male-to-male oral sex is a way to end arguments among several monkey species).

Oh Jesus Christ, now you are going to say we are related to monkeys? I guess we need a proposition to overturn Epperson v. Arkansas as well.

[Lithose]

Originally Posted by Mimirswell

A good paradigm is one that is determinant upon other primate species as a definition for what is "natural". Homosexuality does occur in numerous primate species as does oral and anal. The former two are very prevalent (male-to-male oral sex is a way to end arguments among several monkey species).

"Natural"=/="Normal". Homosexuality is prevalent in many species, and regardless of what they say, its prevalent among "straight" humans to. Experimentation is perfectly natural, hopefully someday people won't be so hung up about it.

However, its not the status quo sexual behavior and its not a reason to be protected under the 14th amendment unless a law specifically states that sexual preference and has no value to the state.

[Torvon]

Originally Posted by Fammaden

So if 49 other states allowed it but California did not then a great argument would still be, "no one else in California can marry within their gender, why should gays be allowed?" That is a pretty paper thin excuse. If it was already allowed then it wouldn't be an issue in the first place. How does this change the basic tenets of what sort of struggle this issue represents?

"They are not being denied anything that straight people can do because straight people don't want to marry gay people." That's the basis of your argument. Read that aloud to yourself and tell yourself it sounds really intelligent and sensible. If you can convincingly achieve this, great. Your opinions are fully your own, and no one can shake them off of you.

You obviously are not understanding my argument as you can't even sum it up correctly. Were you going to use any logic in your arguments or ridicule what you think are my arguments because of the way they sound when read aloud?

The whole argument you are failing miserably to summarize isn't even about homosexual marriage itself. That argument is against the false notion that homosexual marriage is a civil rights issue. That we are somehow depriving them of a basic right.

[Fammaden]

And women shouldn't have complained about not having the right to vote since no other women could vote. I mean, you aren't denying them anything, its a right of men, they want a totally new right to be created just for them!!!! I know you will say it is different just like you said interracial marriage was different. It is no different unless you don't think homosexuals are essentially equivalent to but different from heterosexuals. I happen to think they are equivalent and that they are being treated differently. From my standpoint there is no excuse for failing to notice the discrepancy in treatment under the law.

[Mimirswell]

Originally Posted by Lithose

"Natural"=/="Normal". Homosexuality is prevalent in many species, and regardless of what they say, its prevalent among "straight" humans to. Experimentation is perfectly natural, hopefully someday people won't be so hung up about it.

I was postulating a reasonable model that was non-arbitrary and could be validated. "Normal" is an ambiguous term that is not easily validated.

[Torvon]

Originally Posted by Fammaden

And women shouldn't have complained about not having the right to vote since no other women could vote. I mean, you aren't denying them anything, its a right of men, they want a totally new right to be created just for them!!!! I know you will say it is different just like you said interracial marriage was different. It is no different unless you don't think homosexuals are essentially equivalent to but different from heterosexuals. I happen to think they are equivalent and that they are being treated differently. From my standpoint there is no excuse for failing to notice the discrepancy in treatment under the law.

There is a huge difference between the two issues. Women were fighting for the right to vote. A right that men enjoyed at the time, but women did not only because they were women.

Homosexuals are fighting for the right to marry someone of the same gender. No race, gender, or nationality has that right in the state of California. NO ONE has that right in the state of California.

Women were fighting for a right being denied them simply because of their gender. Homosexuals are fighting for a "right" being denied to everybody. Therefore women were not trying to form a new right, they were trying to obtain a right that already existed. Homosexuals are seeking a new right, a right that no one currently possess in the state of California.

This is the perfect example of the argument against those who voted yes on proposition 8. You find anyway you possibly can to link it to an obvious injustice in the past, hoping that then people will think this as an obvious injustice.

[Fammaden]

You aren't saying to dispute my previous complaints. The fact that it is "denied" to people who don't even want to engage in it is a completely ridiculous point. Of course it isn't denied, no one used to even consider bothering to ask for it. That's more like saying men weren't allowed to vote as a woman, so its a different right to vote as a man than to vote as a woman, even though men have the right to vote as a man. Marriage already exists, just like voting did. They aren't asking to create a special marriage, they want the same one everyone else gets. Once again, this is only a valid concept if you see homosexual relationships as fundamentally different than heterosexual relationships.