Prop 8

[jrrrrrrr]

Someone please answer me this single question:

What is logical about gay marriage in and of itself?

But what is logical about gay marriage? At all. How do you reason "Two people have sex that by design offers nothing to anyone. Therefore they should get free government benefits."

What is logical about gay marriage? How about the fact that it is blatant sexual discrimination to not allow it? How about the part where sex is not what marriage is about? Or maybe because a relationship isnt about offering something to society, but instead offering something to your partner?

What is logical about not allowing incest? What is logical about not allowing men to have multiple wives? What is logical about not being able to capture wives so that we can reproduce at will? If your whole argument is based off of the fact that the ability to have have reproductive intercourse with your spouse is the qualification for being married (which it is), you should logically be in favor of these things too.

Speaking of which, what is stopping gays from reproducing? I'm not sure if youve opened your eyes in the last 150 years, Deck Knight, but there are perfectly legitimate ways for gays to reproduce, raise kids and be productive members of society. Artificial ensemination and adoption come to mind here. If the ability to raise kids is the only qualification to you, would you support those gay couples who wish to reproduce but still continue their disgusting perverted relationships? A huge number of straight couples that have kids are clearly not cut out for parenting, yet they still get benefits for being married. Would you support testing for things like this, so that we don't give out benefits to people who don't deserve them?

As a Massachusetts resident, I'll have to correct you on that.

Ever since the ruling, school administrators have told parents that what the school teaches about matters of sexual morality is none of their business. School administrators. Of public schools. Funded by parent taxpayer dollars.

Catholic adoption services here were sued when they did not allow gay couples to adopt. Gay couples presumably knew a Catholic agency would have no part of their decision. But instead of doing the logical thing and going to a more secular agency, they tied up resources that could have gone to giving kids homes that instead were spent feeding the narcissism of two holier-than-thou perverts [I have difficulty believing you "care for the children" when you choose litigation over an easier and more logical option]. Similar things have ocurred in Canada and Britain.

To argue that gay marriage never has any effect on anything else is demonstrably false. Where gay marriage occurs, litigation against Catholic agencies follows.

I am also a resident of Massachusetts, and I heard about that. I support the couple. Whether or not they were just in it for the money is irrelevant, since the means of discrimination that would allow them to get money for it were clearly in place. I hate to say it but when you blatantly discriminate against a group of people, there are obviously going to be consequences.

Rosa Parks knew when she got onto that bus that she was going to be asked to move. She knew that societal prejudice was going to stop her from doing something that doesn't affect anyone else.....But no, she decided to fight for her rights. Instead of doing the logical thing and just going to the black section or walking, she fought with that pesky Civil Rights movement and cost the bus system thousands of passengers, almost putting that bigoted organization out of business forever. I have difficulty believing that she cared about the buses when she chose to fight even though there was an easier and more logical option. Similar things occured in Mississippi and Georgia.

Where black people occur, bus litigation follows. We should ban black marriage.

You say "when gay marriage occurs, litigation against Catholic agencies follows" as if gay marriage is the problem....

 

[Murkrow]

Maybe some of those people just gave up because obviously their vote doesn't matter if the court can just overturn it at a moments notice?

So that convinced them to vote no? That doesn't make sense.

I mean, if you leave that proposition blank, which you would do if you "gave up," it doesn't get counted. When I say there were 4,870,010 "no" votes on Prop. 8, I mean that 4,870,010 people actually went out there and checked off "no."

Anyway, I think it's generally accepted that younger people are much more tolerant of gay marriage. So I think California's constitution will just get amended again in 20-30 years if not much sooner. I mean, think about how many famous out gay people there are, and how it has changed since 20-30 years ago. You can be gay and be a respected scientist, a TV show host, or a washed-up former boy band member.

69% of 18-29 year-old voters supported gay marriage or legal civil unions for gay and lesbian couples compared to 60% of 30-44 and 45-59 year-old voters, and 54% of those 60 and older. (2004 National Election Pool, exit poll.)

By six-to-one margins, American youth support gay rights and protections related to housing, employment, and hate crimes and those sentiments are held by all ideological, partisan, racial, geographic, and religious groups. One out of two respondents said they know someone who is gay; knowing a gay person has a significant impact on attitudes.

Those are tomorrow's voters...

Source

 

[Ancien Régime]

Well, first of all, you kinda have it backwards although it really doesn't matter. The first amendment isn't to protect churches from government, lol, its to protect people from churches.

It's more like "to protect the government to influencing churches, and to prevent laws based on particular religious statutes" - I don't think the idea was "churches are an evil entity that the citizens must be protected from"

Unlike the government, a church does not have a territorial monopoly on aggression.

You are very naive if you think that all of the money goes to charities and to help people. I'm not sure what it's like everywhere, but in my community the churches are extremely rich while their patrons are poor as fuck. If a church wants to be a charity, it should advertise itself as a charity and not as a church.

I don't know how to respond to this - because they're a church it somehow makes their charitable work less legitimate?

Incidentally charity can NOT fix poverty by itself so I don't see your argument.

Instead of doing the logical thing and just walking

Completely different. There is no difference between choosing a Catholic adoption agency and a secular one, where there is a difference between taking the bus and walking.

Of course, why should a Catholic agency be forced to do something that is against their religion?

I'm not sure that you understand the fact that there are lots of benefits that married couples get that are not granted to unmarried couples.

No, that's the problem. So drop the term marriage, give benefits to everyone. Or don't recognize private marital contracts, period. Easy choices imo.

All in all, the gay marriage issue is not about tolerance - it's about semantics. To the religious conservatives, "marriage" is a term loaded with deep spiritual meaning, and it is a deep insult to have that term assigned to relationships their religion finds abominable. To gay couples, it is a term signifying legal and societal equality with straight couples, and is thus a civil rights issue.

The problem is that both sides are just sniping at each other "abomination/pervert/sinner" v.s "homophobe/intolerant/bigot" instead of finding a legal compromise that can please both parties.

I already suggested that the solution is to get the government away from the issue - either drop the term marriage completely and give everyone civil unions, or don't recognize marriages between anyone. In that case, both sides get what they want (as gay marriage is no longer supported by evangelical taxpayer dollars and the gay couple is fully equal with the straight couple) or in the first case, governmental marriage is fully secular, thus solving the religious aspect of the conflict and allowing gay couples to get benefits from their relationship.

 

[maddog]

Prop 8 passed btw.

 

[GoldenRifle]

Prop 8 passed btw.

I keep banging my head to know why, I thought today society would get over this.

 

[Murkrow]

I think this article gives you kind of a sense of "why," at least in terms of California's demographics. We're not as left-leaning or liberal as everyone thinks, especially in the inland areas. I go to college in the Bay Area, though, and the article pretty much reflects what I've seen: young people and Bay Area dwellers in general were/are against the proposition.

The most pronounced divide over the same-sex marriage ban was between the state's youngest and oldest voters. Six in 10 voters under 30 were against the measure, and an equal number 65 and over were for it. Voters 30 to 64 made up most of the electorate and tilted slightly in favor of the ban.

Exit poll results also highlighted geographic splits in sentiment. In California's suburbs, where half the electorate lives, sixty percent of voters supported Proposition 8. City dwellers opposed the measure by a slightly smaller margin overall, though voters in Los Angeles were evenly divided.

More than half of voters in the largely conservative cities and suburbs south and east of Los Angeles backed the ban, as did about two-thirds of Central Valley voters.

About two-thirds of voters in the San Francisco Bay area and along the Northern California coast cast ballots against the measure.

Source: Exit poll: Black voters back Calif. marriage ban

 

[Synre]

I enjoy how foreign this result seems to a lot of the non-Americans I've talked to since it gives me some shred of hope back from what is a quickly fleeting quantity for humanity in general, but I don't find this surprising, really. The results are almost exactly what you'd expect - the older you are the more likely you are to be anti-gay. What annoys me, but doesn't surprise me, the most however is how high the Black and Latino numbers were in voting for this - you'd think that groups that have traditionally been segregated against would get a clue and help out what is essentially another minority. I talked to BDW for quite a while on IRC last night mostly in reference to gay rights kind of being the civil rights battle of our era, and while the situation obviously isn't as bad for us as it is for them I think the situations are pretty similar. It's convenient that most implications are that this will solve itself in a generation or two, but that's a generation of gay americans who kind of get hosed.

 

[gorm]

i'm glad you're looking at the big picture synre. what a drag though =(

 

[Firestorm]

A Muslim at my college (UC Irvine) was promoting terrorism. Basically saying terrorists were "good people" who needed to be supported, not put in jail or killed. The FBI began investigating him. My school defended him.

This is a member of the same Muslim student group who openly holds fundraisers to get money to help get known terrorists out of jail.

Well I believe the school and he are wrong in this case. I also think it's wrong to use this to support discriminating against other human beings.

I'm personally with jrrrrrrr on being afraid of what will happen if you have children and one or more of them turn out to be gay. It'd be devestating to be gay and have a mother so set against it. I find it disgusting that someone could even say that they don't want their children being taught about homosexuality.

 

[Kagster123]

Human rights took a big step backward today.

I'm embaressed to live here quite honestly.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

It's more like "to protect the government to influencing churches, and to prevent laws based on particular religious statutes" - I don't think the idea was "churches are an evil entity that the citizens must be protected from"

Unlike the government, a church does not have a territorial monopoly on aggression.

Well, when I said "protect people from churches", I meant it in the broader sense that you described here. What you said here doesn't disagree with what I said, you were just more specific.

I don't know how to respond to this - because they're a church it somehow makes their charitable work less legitimate?

No, I never said this. I was responding to the "churches do some charity work so they should be exempt from all taxes" argument". If a church wants to do charity work, that's great, but please don't act like the main goal of a church is charity work. I'm not saying their work is less legitimate, I am saying that the claim that a church = a charity is not legitimate.

Completely different. There is no difference between choosing a Catholic adoption agency and a secular one, where there is a difference between taking the bus and walking.

Of course, why should a Catholic agency be forced to do something that is against their religion?

Even if they are a little different (although the point of what I said is still solid), it is kinda funny how similar the two situations were, especially with the way DK worded it. The system where blatant discrimination exists, if anything these people should be praised as capitalists for taking advantage of the thousands of years of unimaginable hate directed at them by the Catholic Church.

No, that's the problem. So drop the term marriage, give benefits to everyone. Or don't recognize private marital contracts, period. Easy choices imo.

That sounds good to me. Any fair compromise would work to settle this IMO, but the key word is FAIR. What exists currently is not fair.

All in all, the gay marriage issue is not about tolerance - it's about semantics. To the religious conservatives, "marriage" is a term loaded with deep spiritual meaning, and it is a deep insult to have that term assigned to relationships their religion finds abominable. To gay couples, it is a term signifying legal and societal equality with straight couples, and is thus a civil rights issue.

The problem is that both sides are just sniping at each other "abomination/pervert/sinner" v.s "homophobe/intolerant/bigot" instead of finding a legal compromise that can please both parties.

Even though what you're trying to get across here is spot-on, I don't really think that "abomination/pervert/sinner" are really comparable to "homophobe/intolerant/bigot", since I dont think hate speech (abomination) = legitimate description of someone calling someone else an abomination (intolerant). I don't think that victimizing those who are anti-homosexuality to the point of harassment and violence is appropriate or legitimate.

 

[Ancien Régime]

No, I never said this. I was responding to the "churches do some charity work so they should be exempt from all taxes" argument". If a church wants to do charity work, that's great, but please don't act like the main goal of a church is charity work. I'm not saying their work is less legitimate, I am saying that the claim that a church = a charity is not legitimate.

Personally, tax-exemption is probably a condition of church-state seperation, as taxation gives the church a stake in the government and thus a stake in policy...the argument is "any charity work = tax-exempt" so yeah.

Even if they are a little different (although the point of what I said is still solid), it is kinda funny how similar the two situations were, especially with the way DK worded it. The system where blatant discrimination exists, if anything these people should be praised as capitalists for taking advantage of the thousands of years of unimaginable hate directed at them by the Catholic Church.

To be honest, I think that private institutions have the right to discriminate to some extent - we may think they're wrong for doing so, but I don't like the idea of the government literally telling people that they have to do business with people they do not want to. (of course, adoption is a state-run institution so well, the fact that churches are doing it at all is an issue as well)

Even though what you're trying to get across here is spot-on, I don't really think that "abomination/pervert/sinner" are really comparable to "homophobe/intolerant/bigot", since I dont think hate speech (abomination) = legitimate description of someone calling someone else an abomination (intolerant).

Remember, the evangelical does not think him/herself intolerant for simply following the dictates of his/her faith (which clearly says gay sex, and thus gay marriage (which implies sex) is a sin)

btw, it is important to note that the scripture only refers to gay sex, not homosexuality as such - I definitely can't say it would be sinful to have a non-sexual gay relationship (which iirc is the position of the episcopal church)

I don't think that victimizing those who are anti-homosexuality to the point of harassment and violence is appropriate or legitimate.

Obviously not, but we're just comparing rhetoric, not actions. As you noted, both sides are just shitting on each other, and not trying to find a legal compromise - that's the problem.

(of course I admit the evangelicals have been worse - it IS possible to follow the dictates of your religion without being fucktards about it (i.e. disowning family and so forth), but the evangelical leaders (like Dobson) are mostly power-hungry bastards who don't care about people, they care about power - the mainline churches have been better on this though)

 

[pkmn Trainer Zach]

Someone please answer me this single question:

What is logical about gay marriage in and of itself?

I hear constant analysis of "why do Christians do X" or "Equal Rights."

But what is logical about gay marriage? At all. How do you reason "Two people have sex that by design offers nothing to anyone. Therefore they should get free government benefits."

I'm sorry, but this outrages me. You are the biggest bigot on Smogon. Sex that offers nothing to anyone? Sex isn't about everyone else! It's between the two married individuals! Sex is personal, spiritual, emotional, and for you to go and say that makes any argument you could possibly come up with void, because you are SUCH a bigot.

 

[sanjay120]

I don't think this has been directly addressed with sources so here you go:

Churches will not lose tax exemption, parents can have their kids opt out of class, did they seriously use this New Jersey case as an example?

 

[mintyfresh7]

I think legally, gays/lesbians should be able to be married and get treated as a married couple. This would enable them to get the rights that a straight couple gets, whether they are married in a church or not. So No to Prop 8.

 

[COalex]

Completely different. There is no difference between choosing a Catholic adoption agency and a secular one, where there is a difference between taking the bus and walking.

There's no difference between sitting in the white section of the bus and the black section. In both cases, it costs neither the couple nor Parks nothing to compromise.

 

[Cynthia]

Well, on a positive note at least California gets the chance to vote on the issue, which is a step in the right direction. Here in states like Pennsylvania, that even voted for the more liberal candidate, the issue would be shot down so fast there wouldn't be a need for a vote.

The main problem is that the number of Christians vastly outnumber homosexuals and their allies, namely Christians who follow the hateful, prejudiced parts of the Bible (following a book for your life decisions is highly questionable IMO, but that's not the point here) This means that Christianity gets a big say in all civil rights matters, whether they deserve it or not. Many Americans are stupid enough to follow what their pastor says like witless cattle, logical arguments fail to penetrate their shield of Jesus-frenzy, and they vote Yes to things like Prop 8. At least the next generation should be moving in a less homophobi direction.

 

[Deck Knight]

I'm sorry, but this outrages me. You are the biggest bigot on Smogon. Sex that offers nothing to anyone? Sex isn't about everyone else! It's between the two married individuals! Sex is personal, spiritual, emotional, and for you to go and say that makes any argument you could possibly come up with void, because you are SUCH a bigot.

No one is suggesting that gay sex be banned, just the public recognition and de facto acceptance of gay marriage.

So I guess that no, you do not have a logical reason for why gay marriage should be given government benefits and therefore public legitimacy despite a complete lack of benefit to the government in both immediate and secondary instances.

Homosexual activists are the bigots. They have lots of money to blow and lots of religious agencies to sue because the ultimate purpose of gay marriage isn't "equal rights," it is to enable gay activists to attack religious institutions. Homosexuals didn't even talk about marriage 30-50 years ago, they were more than happy to just consummate with each other.

It's a pattern that consistently repeats itself. Your denial of it simply means that when it comes to your value system, open sex is higher up the food chain than charity.

Gay marriage ban initiatives have won in 30 out of 50 states. Sorry, a bitchy 2% of the population screeching about their "rights" should not override the sensibilities of 60%+ of the nation. Face the music: Homosexuality is still viewed as an abnormality and fetish that should not be discussed in public. You can screech BIGOT! at the top of your lungs, I don't care. You represent a tiny minority that has only ever been "discriminated against" when you decide to announce your personal, private fetishes to everyone else.

People really, really don't care if other people are gay. They'd just like them to stop spouting out TMI and being proud of it. Tyranny of the minority is still tyranny.

 

[jrrrrrrr]

There's no difference between sitting in the white section of the bus and the black section. In both cases, it costs neither the couple nor Parks nothing to compromise.

Yes, when I made the Rosa Parks analogy to describe how asinine Deck Knight's opinion is, I meant to compare sitting in black or white sections of the bus and not to compare the bus to walking. Thanks for the catch, its much better with that clarification.

Remember, the evangelical does not think him/herself intolerant for simply following the dictates of his/her faith (which clearly says gay sex, and thus gay marriage (which implies sex) is a sin)

Ignorance is not an excuse or justification for spreading hate.

It doesn't matter if they think they are doing the right thing, the fact is that they are doing the wrong thing and it is hurting everybody. Something needs to get done, and the more and more ignorant, hateful people get praised (and made out to look like the victims) the longer it is going to take for society to move forward.

No one is suggesting that gay sex be banned, just the public recognition and de facto acceptance of gay marriage.

and both suggestions are equally as absurd.

So I guess that no, you do not have a logical reason for why gay marriage should be given government benefits and therefore public legitimacy despite a complete lack of benefit to the government in both immediate and secondary instances.

Even though this part of your post was not addressed to me (obviously it isn't because I outlined several logical reasons why gay marriage should be allowed), I would like you to take the time and read most of this thread, which details why this "logic" you are using is misguided.

Most heterosexual marriages offer nothing in both immediate and secondary instances. I'm not sure where you are getting this data from, but since there is nothing preventing homosexual people from reproducing and/or raising families I don't see how you can use this as an argument against gay marriage.

Homosexual activists are the bigots. They have lots of money to blow and lots of religious agencies to sue because the ultimate purpose of gay marriage isn't "equal rights," it is to enable gay activists to attack religious institutions. Homosexuals didn't even talk about marriage 30-50 years ago, they were more than happy to just consummate with each other.

Suggesting that homosexual activists, after thousands of years of senseless hate and violence, are the bigots is so obscene that I am having difficulty finding words to refute your "point".

This paragraph basically says "sorry gay people but you should have asked for marriage 50 years ago, you know, back when it was still publicly acceptable to murder blacks and gays in a large part of this country". Why do you THINK gays are just asking now? Can you please try to use some common sense before suggesting that there is a gay conspiracy against heteroes?

Are you the voice of gay people 50 years ago? Do you even know what it was like for gay people 50 years ago? How can you say "gay people used to be happy without the same priveleges as heterosexuals so why cant they just stay happy without them?" as if you have any idea about the people you are speaking for?

Deck, your solution of just having gay people close their eyes and ears has already been in place for the last 2000 years and it quite obviously isn't working.

Gay marriage ban initiatives have won in 30 out of 50 states. Sorry, a bitchy 2% of the population screeching about their "rights" should not override the sensibilities of 60%+ of the nation. Face the music: Homosexuality is still viewed as an abnormality and fetish that should not be discussed in public. You can screech BIGOT! at the top of your lungs, I don't care. You represent a tiny minority that has only ever been "discriminated against" when you decide to announce your personal, private fetishes to everyone else.

AA's point about the Jim Crow laws comes into striking relevance here. Blacks could have screamed bigot! all they wanted, but the music they had to face was that being black was not to be done around white people. They represented a tiny minority, so what?

Your post is also assuming that all homosexuals are arrogant sex-driven lunatics with nothing on their mind but their cocks and their wallets. Obviously, this is not true.

Your "argument" that gays are only discriminated against when they decide to announce it is also blatantly false. Even if there were no gay people in California, the decision on prop 8 is still discriminatory. When I was still in the closet, I was discriminated against MORE than after I came out, the only difference is that I was too scared to do anything other than just go along with the crowd.

People really, really don't care if other people are gay. They'd just like them to stop spouting out TMI and being proud of it. Tyranny of the minority is still tyranny.

And I really dont care if people are straight, yet i get bombarded with heterosexual advertising all the time. In fact just 2 seconds ago I saw an Axe body spray advertisement where women were jumping on a man, yet I am not getting upset about them flaunting their heterosexuality. Could you imagine the response if there was a similar product marketed to gay men?

If you are going to make a ridiculous statement like this, I hope you will at least be consistent and agree that ALL sexual advertising is "spouting out TMI and being proud of it". If that is your stance, then I can't argue with it (since it is actually fair). Otherwise, I would suggest that you stop highlighting gay "problems" and ignoring the fact that heterosexuals are guilty of all the same things tenfold.

Gay people aren't asking for straight people to convert. We are asking for people to not think it's acceptable when a gay man is tied to a fence and brutally beaten to death by bigoted straight people. We are asking for the same privileges that are granted to heterosexual couples whose relationships are equally as valid. I wouldn't call that tyranny.

 

[evan]

No one is suggesting that gay sex be banned, just the public recognition and de facto acceptance of gay marriage.

Yeah. We aren't asking for African-Americans to stop being African-American; we just don't have to accept them in our society.

Homosexuals didn't even talk about marriage 30-50 years ago, they were more than happy to just consummate with each other.

Yeah. Before the Civil Rights revolution African-Americans were perfectly content to be black and unaccepted and shunned by society.

Gay marriage ban initiatives have won in 30 out of 50 states. Sorry, a bitchy 2% of the population screeching about their "rights" should not override the sensibilities of 60%+ of the nation. Face the music: Homosexuality is still viewed as an abnormality and fetish that should not be discussed in public. You can screech BIGOT! at the top of your lungs, I don't care. You represent a tiny minority that has only ever been "discriminated against" when you decide to announce your personal, private fetishes to everyone else.

Gay marriage bans have won in 30 of 50 states, but by increasingly smaller margins. The youth vote was overwhelmingly against Prop 8 in California and the others in Florida and Arizona (i think I have those right). While homosexuality is still marginalised and viewed as an abnormality by the population as a whole, the next generation of voters does not care and is opposed to banning gay marriage. Give it time. Social change doesn't happen overnight, it takes time.

Also, just to continue with my theme earlier: Yeah. Interracial dating was viewed as an abnormality and a fetish that should not be discussed in public (and often ended in lynchings!). You can screech BIGOT! at the top of your lungs at them but you're just a tiny minority.

Give it time. We'll get there.

 

[jamespicone]

Being forced to acknowledge that some other people are different is hardly a 'tyranny of the minority', Deck.

No one is suggesting that gay sex be banned, just the public recognition and de facto acceptance of gay marriage.

So, in short, you want to put homosexuals back in the closet? How nice. There's absolutely no reason to remove homosexuality from the public sphere. None.

So I guess that no, you do not have a logical reason for why gay marriage should be given government benefits and therefore public legitimacy despite a complete lack of benefit to the government in both immediate and secondary instances.

Here's a reason: We don't need a reason. You've got this ass-backwards. Marriage isn't a privilege, it's a right - the basic right to companionship. Perhaps marriage isn't the best term for it, but it's the current way it's legally described. As marriage is a right, you need a damned good reason to prevent homosexuals having it. Much the same way I don't need to demonstrate what the benefit to society of allowing black and white people to marry, or infertile people to marry is.

It's not a matter of what the benefit is, it's a matter of providing rights to all.

Homosexual activists are the bigots. They have lots of money to blow and lots of religious agencies to sue because the ultimate purpose of gay marriage isn't "equal rights," it is to enable gay activists to attack religious institutions. Homosexuals didn't even talk about marriage 30-50 years ago, they were more than happy to just consummate with each other.

This is just sheer paranoia. Oh noez, gay people are sueing religious institutions! Guess what, religious institutions have lots of money to defend themselves with. If you win the trial, congratulations, you can sue for your money back. If you lose, it's for a good reason - you were breaking the law.

I imagine black slaves didn't talk about one day becoming president, either. Small steps. Thirty to fifty years ago, not being thrown in prison was the right in contention. Now it's the right to get married.

Gay marriage ban initiatives have won in 30 out of 50 states. Sorry, a bitchy 2% of the population screeching about their "rights" should not override the sensibilities of 60%+ of the nation. Face the music: Homosexuality is still viewed as an abnormality and fetish that should not be discussed in public. You can screech BIGOT! at the top of your lungs, I don't care. You represent a tiny minority that has only ever been "discriminated against" when you decide to announce your personal, private fetishes to everyone else.

The entire damned reason you have a constitution is to stop the sensibilities of the majority infringing on the rights of minorities. Tyranny of the majority is a problem faced by all democracies, and specifying at the outset that everybody has inalienable rights is the counter.

I have a surprise for you, Deck. Studies have repeatedly shown that the younger someone is, the less likely they are to be prejudiced against gay people. The pendulum swings against you, in the direction of rights for everybody.

 

[Hipmonlee]

So I guess that no, you do not have a logical reason for why gay marriage should be given government benefits and therefore public legitimacy despite a complete lack of benefit to the government in both immediate and secondary instances.

Ok, the reason no one has responded to this is that it is so obvious we cant believe you need us to respond to it. But here goes:
Ok, its government by the people for the people, the gay people are people. Gay people want to be married, and there is no justifiable reason not to do it. That is pretty much good enough by itself, but I'll go on.

Married people earn more than unmarried. There are health benefits including lower stress levels. Married people are less likely to have promiscuous sex which is going to reduce the spread of STDs. You know all this crap already.

Tyranny of the minority is still tyranny.

What tyranny? The tyranny of forcing you to not discriminate against me based on my sexuality? Kinda like the tyranny of black people forcing the poor defenceless whites into allowing them to vote.. This is just absurd.

Have a nice day.

 

[Firestorm]

Face the music: Homosexuality is still viewed as an abnormality and fetish that should not be discussed in public.

Maybe they wouldn't have to bring it up if you weren't treating them like trash. Guess what, Black people wouldn't have brought up the fact that they were Black when trying to get the right to vote if BEING BLACK wasn't stopping them from gaining that right. Gay people wouldn't need to bring up the fact that they're gay if people stopped denying rights just because they're gay.

 

[lilyhollow]

Homosexuals didn't even talk about marriage 30-50 years ago, they were more than happy to just consummate with each other.

holy fuck

"women didn't even talk about CEO positions in 1920, they were more than happy to just vote!"

I also hear that blacks were pretty down with the whole "segregated schooling" thing, after all they should have just been happy with slavery abolished right? fucking ingrates

 

[omni]

I'm stunned and pissed about this, really. This state is retarded. We are supposedly liberal in many ways, but we degenerate ourselves to elect Arnold for two terms. As Synre pointed out also, I am even disgraced to see the Hispanic community here supporting YES for 8 after they themselves want rights. I have to hear my own family members talk about marriage under the Book, completely ignoring what I have to say.

I am really annoyed with such ignorant people. It's sad to say but we cannot change what old people, especially old brown and black people, think about homosexuals. The distinguishing of generations has heightened in this election, especially here in California. I just hope there is a chance to overturn it.

Oh and yeah, I don't like the Mormons either with their support and putting a massive effort for voting YES. As stereotypical as this sounds, they should be as far from the marriage issues as possible to even donate money for the campaign, let alone have a say in this.