Proposition 8

Quote:

Originally posted by rocknthefreeworld

...

You make it sound like there is a ton of evidence that homosexuals are going to be better at marriage than heterosexuals. I doubt that will be true. Gays are human beings just like straights, with the same flaws and weaknesses. Do I think they will be any worse than straights at staying together? Nope. But no better either. Once gay marriage becomes "normal", for lack of a better word, you will see more societal pressure on gays to get married just like straight people get and you will see more BS marriages just like straight people. Gays are not immune to the same BS straight have.

That was purely a hypothetical thought exercise. I'm fairly sure that any union of people, man or woman, straight or gay, is going to be subject to the same stresses and trials as any other two people, on average. I would thus expect similar statistics from gay marriages as I would straight marriages.

Quote:

Originally posted by Great_Schlep

I find it so interesting that citizens are always complaining that Government is telling them what they can, and cannot do. But with California Proposition 8, the Government smartly decided to let the voters (you know, your peers??) decide, and now that the voters have decided AGAINST gay marriage, the citizens are upset? WTF. [

I don't find that interesting at all. I find it a silly, logically unsound argument that only strengthens the power of the government while rhetorically trying to make it sound as if this is somehow less government interference in the lives of the people when, in fact, it is the opposite.

Prior to the Civil Rights Act of 1964 being passed, the voters (you know, your peers....but certainly not mine) found it fit to segregate one portion of the populace that they felt were inferior to themselves. Now, I'm sure there were dissenters, but because they weren't in the minority, they were wrong and segregation was right?

Because that's the argument you're using.

I find it disturbing that people think that they have the right impinge their belief system on others and that by doing so in a group of like-minded lemmings somehow makes it legal and justified.

The government has no right whatsoever to tell people who they can and cannot fall in love with. A human being is a human being and all should be entitled to the same rights as everyone else.

Florida also had a vote on banning "gay marriage". It passed with over 65%. These dumbasses don't realize that this encompasses civil unions and common law marriages. Hows that for they're sanctity of marriage and family.Being from Florida myself and a US citizen, I would just like to tell all the self righteous biggits who passed these amendments to have suck my dick and leave people alone.

Quote:

Originally posted by orloxian2

Florida also had a vote on banning "gay marriage". It passed with over 65%. These dumbasses don't realize that this encompasses civil unions and common law marriages. Hows that for they're sanctity of marriage and family.Being from Florida myself and a US citizen, I would just like to tell all the self righteous biggits who passed these amendments to have suck my dick and leave people alone.

Whatever, but the ballot initiatives are merely a correction of decisions made by activist judges. Just wait though, you'll probably get what you want within the next 4 years.

Quote:

Originally posted by thegame14

not allowed to get into the religious part of this, but it can never be allowed, woman was made to be man's only companion, Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve

Maybe it was Adam and Steve but someone who said it was known for having a lisp. So they were like oh their saying Adam and eve.

first of all let me congratulate you all for 13 pages of well sustained and intelligent discussion.
kuddos to everyone

Quote:

Originally posted by brownell

Just curious

If same sex couples were given the option to file taxes jointly, share insurance, death benefits, and have all the other benefits as "traditional" married couples, but a name other than "marriage" was assigned to this type of union, would that be agreeable, or does it have to be referred to as "marriage"?

brownell
this has been discussed a lot too.
I believe minorities (activist belonging to minorities at least) fight for rights recognition.
They say "I am the same as you are" hence if you have a marriage, i want a marriage too. Sure not by church (not catholic church at least) because that is a private organization with it's own rules and I have no power over it.
But when it comes to my government, I want it to be as close to my ideal government as possible.
Having the possibility of being gay and married is, to me, a right to every adult in the world.

If you call something else, despite having the same legal, economical, judicial, etc. rights you are still making a difference.

Hetero has marriages, Homosexuals have "unions"
by that logic (and i am not trying to do a reductio to absurdity but just follow my point) hetero could have houses but homosexuals would live in "chumbis"
hetero drive cars, homosexuals drives "tututtus"

see my point? We are all the same, despite who we fuck and on what sphincter.
to me the only difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals is whether they fuck and love their same gender or not. It might sound stupid to say so but to many people being gay means not only that but also speaking on a higher tone of voice, being promiscuous, unable to raise children, unable to fight a war, sick, unnatural, and so many more misconceptions.

And fighting for that to be know and accepted by the general population means that we all get to get married by our governements under the same terms and with the same "titles".

Quote:

Originally posted by brownell

Just curious

If same sex couples were given the option to file taxes jointly, share insurance, death benefits, and have all the other benefits as "traditional" married couples, but a name other than "marriage" was assigned to this type of union, would that be agreeable, or does it have to be referred to as "marriage"?

A different term or name implys that it isn't the same...for me personally I would feel like, "so, I'm good enough to have all the same benefits, but not good enough for your precious marriage?" Just my opinion.

also very happy to see that 2/3 of people voting here suppoerted gay marriage

wish the world was a bit more like WBW: full of ppl supporting gay marriage and tons of naked hot women walking around. And trolls would banned too!

I am thrilled to see 2/3 of the people support gay marriage, it is honestly higher than I thought it would be, and I want to thank every one who voted, both for and against.

It has been the government's (State & Federal)position to inject its control over a legal designation ever since it was founded. Marriage is two things: (look up the changes Utah had to make to become a state "abolish polygamy"

one a union sanctioned by the church (we all know where the church stands on gay marriage)

two a legal contract endorsed by the state, this is why you have a marriage license and not just a letter from the church. Since it's the state government that is sanctioning this contract (the reason they sanction it is because they also grant the benefits and restrictions of the contract i.e. tax breaks and divorce payments, child support, alimony,...etc) they get to say who qualifies.

Now the state is a representation of the populate, so if the populate decides (in the majority) to recognize male-male and female-female as a legal marriage then so be it. Until that happens you can't point a finger at the state government and say they have no right or business getting involved. They are the only ones that have the right and business.

The states originally defined marriage between a man and a woman because the laws were originally based on regions teachings. They thought of gay marriage with the same regard as polygamy("the practice of multiple marriage" and bestiality. Things have changed but I dare anyone to tell me that if they hadn't defined in the original text of the law that some wacko would have married his 15 goats and then tried to take the tax deduction and then taken it to the courts saying that there isn't anything that says marriage has to be between a man and a woman. I can even make the argument for them that they full support their 15 spouses and under the tax code should be entitled to list them as deductions.

for the record I'm not against gay marriage. I just look at it from a why is it the way it is perspective.

Quote:

Originally posted by budokan

first of all let me congratulate you all for 13 pages of well sustained and intelligent discussion.
kuddos to everyone


...
brownell
this has been discussed a lot too.
I believe minorities (activist belonging to minorities at least) fight for rights recognition.
They say "I am the same as you are" hence if you have a marriage, i want a marriage too. Sure not by church (not catholic church at least) because that is a private organization with it's own rules and I have no power over it.
But when it comes to my government, I want it to be as close to my ideal government as possible.
Having the possibility of being gay and married is, to me, a right to every adult in the world.

If you call something else, despite having the same legal, economical, judicial, etc. rights you are still making a difference.

Hetero has marriages, Homosexuals have "unions"
by that logic (and i am not trying to do a reductio to absurdity but just follow my point) hetero could have houses but homosexuals would live in "chumbis"
hetero drive cars, homosexuals drives "tututtus"

see my point? We are all the same, despite who we fuck and on what sphincter.
to me the only difference between heterosexuals and homosexuals is whether they fuck and love their same gender or not. It might sound stupid to say so but to many people being gay means not only that but also speaking on a higher tone of voice, being promiscuous, unable to raise children, unable to fight a war, sick, unnatural, and so many more misconceptions.

And fighting for that to be know and accepted by the general population means that we all get to get married by our governements under the same terms and with the same "titles".

I don't have time to expand on the reason I asked the question, but I will respond to the houses and cars thing, because it's absolutely not a legitimate comparison. Cars and houses don't typically have features that are specifically designed to "accommodate" the biological differences between men and women. If a car had an artificial vagina incorporated into the seat as standard equipment, it would certainly not be marketed to the same demographic, nor named the same, as car that had an appendage protruding upward and permanently attached to the middle of the lower seat cushion.

Can we leave inanimate objects, dogs, farm animals, and everything else that's not capable of being a partner in a mutual relationship out of it, and just concentrate on the relevant topic of gay marriage.

Tax benefits for marriage by government, both federal and state, were introduced for one reason. They were used as incentives to increase population. Benefits and credits for having children were implemented for the same reason. As population grows, the tax base grows. The greater the tax base, the greater the service of government(ideally). Until it is proven that same-sex marriage is beneficial to a nation or state, and does not further burden its tax payers, it(same-sex marriage) will have a hard time being recognized by that nation or state.

So, for those of you calling anyone who voted yes on Prop 8 religious freaks or bigots, please take that into consideration.

Quote:

Originally posted by hornithologist

Tax benefits for marriage by government, both federal and state, were introduced for one reason. They were used as incentives to increase population. Benefits and credits for having children were implemented for the same reason. As population grows, the tax base grows. The greater the tax base, the greater the service of government(ideally).

That's interesting, but I'm not sure I've got enough conspiricist in my blood to believe that. Any chance of getting a link to a credible source?

For the record, I don't think there should be any tax benefits for married couples. I do support tax benefits for people with children.

Quote:

Originally posted by brownell

...

That's interesting, but I'm not sure I've got enough conspiricist in my blood to believe that. Any chance of getting a link to a credible source?

I'm not thinking of a conspiricy. I guess I'm assuming the first time any civilization granted tax breaks for marriage would have been for that reason. A tax break is a reward basically. Why would a government reward somebody for getting married or having kids? To reward those taxpayers stregthening a society by increasing population. That is the only reason I can think of.

I may be totally dropping the ball on this one though. I can't find anything to back up my theory, or to suggest a different reason for the tax benefits.

This might be a little off topic but the wording the person that started the thread got me thinking. I've heard it said that Prop 8 won by a narrow margin and Obama won a landslide. Prop 8 the vote was 52.2% Yes to 47.8% No. The presidential race was 53% Obama to 46% McCain. Obama got 0.8% more then the Yes for Prop 8 and McCain got 1.8% less then the No for Prop 8. I know the real numbers are much different but I'm talking percentage, funny how the press spins things. Anyway just an observation, please carry on.

Quote:

Originally posted by hornithologist

Tax benefits for marriage by government, both federal and state, were introduced for one reason. They were used as incentives to increase population. Benefits and credits for having children were implemented for the same reason. As population grows, the tax base grows. The greater the tax base, the greater the service of government(ideally). Until it is proven that same-sex marriage is beneficial to a nation or state, and does not further burden its tax payers, it(same-sex marriage) will have a hard time being recognized by that nation or state.

So, for those of you calling anyone who voted yes on Prop 8 religious freaks or bigots, please take that into consideration.

Are you honestly saying that even though gays would still be paying their taxes if married...the minor tax benefit they would get from being married, would be a reason to prevent gay marriage from becoming law? So by that logic...I could say that gays should stop paying their taxes, because clearly the tax laws were never intended to apply to them.

The company I work for offers benefits for "partners". That's the way to do it you can get the benefits without getting married and then you don't have to worry about losing half your shit if you catch your boyfriend fuckin' some other guy in the ass, you can just send him packing.

Quote:

Originally posted by ArtieLange

The company I work for offers benefits for "partners". That's the way to do it you can get the benefits without getting married and then you don't have to worry about losing half your shit if you catch your boyfriend fuckin' some other guy in the ass, you can just send him packing.

I hear what you're saying...but honestly, for me anyway...its not about the tax breaks, or the benefits, or even the piece of paper saying that I'm married. Its simply being acknowledged as an equal. Acknowledgment from my government that the laws of the country that I obey, the taxes that I pay, the wars that I fight in (not me per'se) actually mean something, and actually entitle me to be treated just like everyone else.

I'm not surprised that you said it isn't as much about equal treatment as it is about acceptance, but the problem is that heterosexual couples are not the "same" as a homosexual couples. It is quite obvious that men and women are designed to be with each other sexually. Beyond the sexual aspect, their bodies are obviously designed to have a different purpose in the life cycle. The human race can not exist without heterosexuals, while the human race does not "need" homosexuals. I'm not trying to be mean, but if it's "normal" to be heterosexual, then being gay is something other than "normal" That doesn't mean it's bad, it just means different. Short people certainly have obstacles in life not endured by people of average height. Did you ever tease a redhead when you were in school.... someone with freckles, curly hair maybe? What about the stigma of "bachelors" and "old maids" that never partner up or get married. Where's their tax break, who do they share insurance and death benefits with? Surely there is something "wrong" with them since they never had a partner? .... Or maybe they're just built different.

Men and women belong together because it must be that way. There is no ambiguity about why a male has a penis, where it's located, and what happens at the height of sexual arousal, just as there is no ambiguity about why a female has a vagina, where it's located, and why that thing happens every month during her sexually prime years. Gay couples can never "fit together" as heteros can. There's no denying that men and women are "supposed to" have sexual contact with each other, it's obviously "normal", and the same can not be said of gay couples.

No matter how much you want it to be, it can never be the same type of relationship that a man and a woman can have. Gay couple can never complete the most basic human instinct on their own... reproduction. At a minimum they'll still need the assistance of a 3rd party of the opposite sex (and probably a 4th party if they're monogamous) The only other option is adoption, in which case neither would a direct connection to the creation of a new life.

Re-defining marriage will not make homosexuality more acceptable, anymore than redefining "short" will make someone taller. IMO, the best any of us can do make them most of what we have, demand fair treatment, and not be concerned about what others do unless it directly impacts our lives.

I love the I want to be equal argument, it is such crap. I want to be equal than too, I want affirmative action, EOF, affordable housing, and the NAACP, oh wait those are only for black people, that means I am not equal!! I am a second class citizen, so until I get those rights, I want to protest too!!!!

The problem is no one wants to be equal, the want to be equal in terms of laws, but then get additional benefits on top of it.

Here is a good question for you.... You want to be truely equal, would you trade for being able to be married, your entire gay culture, the marches, the rainbows,the lisps and the entire gay community??? Because if you are equal you cant have both. No more rainbow flags, and gathering in gay commuintites like SF, or Privincetown, you have to assimilate evenly, and give up your entire culture, then you will truely be equal.

But I bet you don't want that, you want to be equal, but still be unique and special and have your special groups and symbols, so it isn't true equality, you want all the equal beneifits, plus your special benefits.