California's Proposition 8

[Saryctos]

...but they can't marry the person they love, or even visit them in the hospital. So no, they don't have exactly the same rights.

To the letter of the law it is the same. Which was the only reason for the comment. It is not an argument against gay marriage, it is an argument against the argument that the rights are being denied. There are no rights that currently exist. This is not to say that they shouldn't be, it's just pointing out that new laws need to be made.

 

Why does their lover's gender matter?

I don't see how this is relevant to the quote it was in response to.

 

Ok, fine let's play semantics. They are denying the creation of a right that they never had. That's even more absurd. So, next, let's pass an amendment saying that no one can drive a flying car except red heads.

If you wanted a more apt analogy, it would be that benefits were applied to blonds driving flying cars, then when red heads started driving flying cars they become upset that only their hair color is different and demand the same rights as blonds.

 

Doesn't change the fact that people are addressing this in an incorrect fashion. Do you want gay couples to have equal right? then stop treating them as though it's the same situation. Man + Woman = baby. Man+Man = baby? Woman+Woman = baby? Tell me an orange is an apple again, it'll change the taste this time...

 

Gay people deserve the same rights as any straight person, plenty of people can agree on this. Then why is it that people disagree about marriage? Because the principle purpose is the children. It is the only difference between the two situations, and it is NOT changeable no matter how many want it to be. In this case it is different, is that reason to deny gay marriage? No. It is however a very notable difference that people refuse to acknowledge.

Edited November 7, 2008 by Saryctos

[waitforufo]

Except, as NLN and others have already pointed out, nearly all scientific evidence indicates that it is NOT a choice, but it is genetic.

I was obviously talking about the choice of getting married. I don't believe gays choose to be homosexual. But if they did the same rule applies. How does that choice impact my liberty? It doesn't so choose away.

 

When did you choose to be a heterosexual? Do you still remember the day?

I think it was September 12, 1967. Something about the Mary Ann Summers (Dawn Wells) on Gilligan's Island.

 

Also, the "riding on Obama's coattails" thing is part of what is to blame for this. A large black population voted, larger than in many years past, and the predisposition for this group tends toward church attendance. I think a previous poster said that 67% of the votes in favor of Prop 8 came from the black community. In essence, their coming out to vote Obama meant they also came out to vote yes on prop 8.

I still think it is surprising that a population so familiar with discrimination would jump at the chance to do it themselves.

[CharonY]

Then why is it that people disagree about marriage? Because the principle purpose is the children.

 

So straight couples who decide not to or are unable to get children should not be allowed to marry either?

[ParanoiA]

So straight couples who decide not to or are unable to get children should not be allowed to marry either?

 

I think he's making the case that the reason why marriage has always garnered government privileges is due to the social engineering intent of "promoting" family. I think he's right there, at least that it was about promoting the family unit.

 

However, I think that promotion is somewhat insulting at this point, and arguably beyond the scope of government responsibility - and definitely exercised by subjective means. It's another example of moral legislation.

 

Doesn't change the fact that people are addressing this in an incorrect fashion. Do you want gay couples to have equal right? then stop treating them as though it's the same situation. Man + Woman = baby. Man+Man = baby? Woman+Woman = baby? Tell me an orange is an apple again, it'll change the taste this time...

 

Why does it HAVE to imply procreation? That's an arbitrary conclusion, actually. A baby may or may not happen with Man + Woman. And Man + Woman doesn't have to be married to have a baby either. It's an incidence, not a consequence.

 

And, IF you are advocating the promotion of the family unit, then I'd have to ask the advantage to that. If the government is going to "promote" anything, at this point, it ought to be the lack of procreation. We are threatened with overpopulation, and with no remedy in sight. If anything, gay couples should have more privilege than heterosexual ones, at least to be sensible when using coersive engineering techniques.

 

Once we have a resolution, then it would be sensible to promote family.

Edited November 7, 2008 by ParanoiA

[iNow]

I still think it is surprising that a population so familiar with discrimination would jump at the chance to do it themselves.

 

That exact point was raised last night on The Daily Show in this short 2-minute clip:

 

http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=209418&title=decision-2008-garygary-unmarried

 

 

FYI - Arizona and Florida, in addition to California, all passed bans on gay marriage on Tuesday.

[jackson33]

This idea that a society has no right to limit its taxes for purposes the majority feel unwarranted or needed in the society is really hard for me to understand. You are are attacking the voters as though they oppose the gay life style. This is not the story and no ballot suggested anything like that. The only thing denied are benefits or legal status to operate a household in certain areas and except for those few tax provided benefits those households already have equal status. Try the Welfare Program for RIGHTS. If a mother of three and not married can receive certain tax supported benefits, however if she were to marry a husband with a job those rights are then denied. If she owns a certain year car, those rights denied and if she takes a job those rights are reduced or again denied. You have to have a BASE for any tax provided entity. Again, if you provide those benefits for two people, that happen to be of the same sex, how are you going to deny any other two people those same benefits. The US is truly a diversified country, for religious, cultural or even some perverse reason folks live together and do all the things the 'so called' typical couple do.

 

bascule; Under law the 'Marriage License' affords you certain benefits/protections under common law. Its a contract acceptable to the State. Any two people who choose not to marry or prevented from legal status, regardless of sexual orientation, can and often do enter into a contract. I am not sure common law in all states doesn't already accept under law any of those two people certain additional right after living together for a certain period, regardless of sexual preference brother/sister atc....If two people live in a house or ten people and the one whose name the title is in dies, there are rights maintained for those others, even if not under contract. There are reasons, some people are pushing this issue, that go far beyond social acceptance of that one particular sexual orientation.

 

As for visiting a person in a hospital, I seriously doubt any person would TODAY be denied visitation rights because he/she is gay....

[Pangloss]

No, they'd be denied visitation rights because they're not a member of the family.

[iNow]

I agree, except there's no need for the "separate but equal" institutions. Just make "marriage" have no legal significance whatsoever. Under law, everyone has "civil unions," for which orientation doesn't enter into it. People are free to call it whatever they like.

 

It appears there may be more to it than just "calling it a civil union" instead.

 

 

http://www.factcheck.org/what_is_a_civil_union.html

When politicians say they support civil unions but not marriage for people of the same sex, what do they mean? We find three main differences between civil unions and marriage as it's traditionally viewed:

• The right to federal benefits. States that allow some type of same-sex union are able to grant only state rights. The Defense of Marriage Act passed in 1996 prohibits same-sex couples from receiving federal marriage rights and benefits.
  
  
• Portability. Because civil unions are not recognized by all states, such agreements are not always valid when couples cross state lines.
  
  
• Terminology. "Marriage" is a term that conveys societal and cultural meaning, important to both gay rights activists and those who don't believe gays should marry.
  
  

 

The Government Accountability Office

lists 1,138 federal laws

that pertain to married couples. Many in that long list may be minor or only relevant to small groups of citizens. However, a number of provisions are key to what constitutes a marriage legally in the United States:

 

Sure doesn't appear that everyone is being treated equally, if you ask me.

 

Others have already raised the issues of hospital visitation, the ability to add your "spouse" to your healthcare plan at work, or your 401K benefits, the ability open joint banking accounts, and all manner of things.

 

 

EDIT: This point wasn't really in response to Sisyphus. His position is clear, and my post seemed to be arguing against him by mistake. My post was more against those who truly think that marriage and civil unions are equitible. There are, in fact, at least 1138 differences between marriage and civil unions as evidenced in the link above.

Edited November 8, 2008 by iNow

[waitforufo]

The whole procreation argument has to do with survival of the clan or state. The ancient Greeks required all citizens to procreate regardless of their sexual orientation, and they had no problem with same sex orientation. So a citizen may have been married to an opposite sex spouse, they may also have had a same sex partner. Something our puritan culture would not accept.

 

Today our populations are big enough that heterosexuals within a state can easily sustain the clan or culture. Whether they choose to do so is a different matter. Some in Europe claim that they choose not to.

 

One argument I have heard from those apposed to gay marriage, is along the lines of opposition to political correctness. They argue that the word "marriage" has a meaning and that meaning should not be changed because some find offense in the definition. Everyone knows this meaning, and changing this meaning is nothing but Orwellian newspeak. Most of these people claim to have no problem with gays having legal "Domestic Partnerships" with rights defined identically to "Marriage." In fact, they claim that they would have no problem with a law that said the rights of legal domestic partners shall not be differentiated with those of legally married couples. I guess they don't understand that "separate but equal" never really works out.

[Sisyphus]

iNow, I was responding to the suggestion that civil unions and marriages be awarded exactly equal rights. My suggestion was to simply call everything "civil unions," and give that the same legal status that "marriage" has currently, and remove "marriage" as a legally significant term.

[iNow]

iNow, I was responding to the suggestion that civil unions and marriages be awarded exactly equal rights. My suggestion was to simply call everything "civil unions," and give that the same legal status that "marriage" has currently, and remove "marriage" as a legally significant term.

 

I know, and I apologize. I knew your larger point was that none of them should be more "special," and they should all just be the same.

 

While I quoted you, I was more responding to the tone of Jackson's post. It's been a long week, so hopefully you'll understand that my communication skills right now aren't as sharp as I'd like them to be.

 

Mea maxima culpa.

[jackson33]

No, they'd be denied visitation rights because they're not a member of the family.

 

You MAY still be asked if your a member (doubt) but would any gay person living in a union, say NO I am not. Then what authority (none) does the hospital have to check your statement. This is a ploy used by advocates....

[iNow]

You MAY still be asked if your a member (doubt) but would any gay person living in a union, say NO I am not. Then what authority (none) does the hospital have to check your statement. This is a ploy used by advocates....

 

How is that a "ploy?" It's not only a fact, but one based on evidence (as opposed to your "probably the hospital couldn't make you leave" argument).

 

Also, as my post above clearly shows, this is about MUCH more than just hospital visitation.

[Mr Skeptic]

I agree, except there's no need for the "separate but equal" institutions. Just make "marriage" have no legal significance whatsoever. Under law, everyone has "civil unions," for which orientation doesn't enter into it. People are free to call it whatever they like.

 

I like this idea. I like my words to retain their meanings regardless of attempts to change them. I'd say that there is some practical reason why the government could discriminate between the sexes of couples -- that of population growth and child rearing. On the other hand, there is a practical reason to encourage gay marriage -- lower rates of disease transmission, which will benefit all of us.

 

...but they can't marry the person they love, or even visit them in the hospital. So no, they don't have exactly the same rights.

 

What if you fall in love with your sister? You don't have the right to marry the person you love, even if you are heterosexual.

 

If homosexuality could be "cured" through genetics, why hasn't it happened in the thousands of years it has been around? Do homosexuals propogate in some manner I am un aware of?

 

Looks like it is because the gene in females results in their female relatives having more children.

[Realitycheck]

What if you fall in love with your sister? You don't have the right to marry the person you love, even if you are heterosexual.

.

 

Way to go. Sister is supposed to be fair game, right? Who says not? It's just taboo. Oh, wait, you get bad results with inbreeding. At least you can mate.

 

For nothing's sake, why can't we follow nature's lead? Just what is so hard to see in this picture? It's there in crystal clear hues and most of you are coming up with these ridiculous arguments that have nothing to do with science, but are all centered around how they love each other and on and on. So what? They love each other. They are boyfriends or whatever. What makes it so imperative to be so-called mates? Oh yeah, the tax advantages. Hello!!!! You have to marry across gender for it be considered a true marriage, in accordance with practically every animal that nature has ever come up with. You don't qualify. You are supposed to procreate. They give married people tax advantages because they are expected to endure hardships through the rearing of kids, or else they end up as d.i.n.k.'s and get rich and the little tax credit is inconsequential. You don't qualify. Any of these civil unions that do exist ... exist. Just because it is a precedent, don't expect the entire world to follow the lead. Not the entire world has their head mired in psychology over definition. Or maybe it is separation of state and marriage that we are looking so stridently for. LMFAO The state is supposed to oversee a number of things in life. You just cannot get around that. Hello!

 

If it is so imperative to be "married", then let them get married by whoever will marry them, and so be it! You say, "Well, we really want to separate the state from marriage," then let them get married and so be it. If the state does not recognize it, then who gives a flying flip? You just wanted to be married, right? You want it to be separated from the state, right? Then it is! Presto, you got exactly what you wanted! Oh yeah, but you want extra perks, right? Need I say more?

Edited November 8, 2008 by agentchange

[iNow]

What if you fall in love with your sister? You don't have the right to marry the person you love, even if you are heterosexual.

 

While I don't think you intended it as such, that's actually a false comparison.

 

There are explicit laws against incest, and the inability of siblings to legally wed is an application of those existing laws and legal codes.

 

It's not that siblings are not allowed to marry due to some constitutional amendment about marriage between brother and sister, and that's it. No. It's that there is another law specifically against incest which prevents marriage from being an option... from ever entering into the equation.

 

There is no law against being gay, or with a same sex partner, so the comparison is moot.

 

 

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laws_regarding_incest#United_States

Incest is sexual relations between closely related persons, and can be illegal depending on the jurisdiction. The exact definition, including the nature of the relationship between persons, and the types of sexual activity, vary by country, and by even individual states or provinces within a country. These laws can also extend to marriage between said individuals.

In the United States, every state and the District of Columbia have some form of codified incest prohibition. However, individual statutes vary widely. Rhode Island repealed its criminal incest statute in 1989, Ohio only targets parental figures, and New Jersey does not apply any penalties when both parties are over the age of 18. Yet Massachusetts issues a penalty of up to 20 years imprisonment for those engaging in "sexual activities" with relatives closer than first cousins and Hawaii up to 5 years in jail for "sexual penetration" with certain blood relatives and even in-laws.

 

In all states, close blood-relatives that fall under the incest statutes include father, mother, grandfather, grandmother, brother, sister, aunt, uncle, niece, nephew, and in some states, first cousins. Many states also apply incest laws to non-blood relations including stepparents, step-siblings, and in-laws.

[Pangloss]

You MAY still be asked if your a member (doubt) but would any gay person living in a union, say NO I am not. Then what authority (none) does the hospital have to check your statement. This is a ploy used by advocates....

 

Apf, now you expect people to lie just to see their loved ones in the hospital. Geez.

[bascule]

What if you fall in love with your sister?

 

I love slippery slope arguments! Progressives want gay marriage? Next thing you know they'll be sodomizing babies!

[john5746]

Marriage, or civil unions is one of the chief foundations of a society. I think many of the problems we have in America, especially minorities is due to the breakdown of the family unit. In the aggregate, the chief outcome of marriage is successful offspring and content couples. While homosexual coupling does not in itself create offspring, they can adopt or in the case of lesbians be inseminated. Marriage is more than rights, it is also responsibility. You become responsible for your partner and any offspring from the union.

 

In regards to incest and other possibilities, they should be argued on their own merits. Interracial marriage isn't a justification for homosexual marriage, etc. There are good REASONS not to have incest, beastiality or pedophilia, so they can be argued without regards to homosexual couplings.

 

I agree that marriage is a mix of church and state, so that they should be seperated. Civil unions should be governed by the state and marriage managed as an add-on option for the religious. Then, people could make all kinds of crazy rules for marriages and have no effect on civil rights.

[Mr Skeptic]

I love slippery slope arguments! Progressives want gay marriage? Next thing you know they'll be sodomizing babies!

 

I just found another slippery slope argument. I totally disprove your statement (that heterosexuals are allowed to marry the person they love), and next thing you know it's OK to strawman my proof.

[Cap'n Refsmmat]

Heterosexuals are allowed to marry the person they love the majority of the time, whereas homosexuals aren't.

 

Do we really have to get as technical as discussing incest? The point's the same either way.

[bascule]

I totally disprove your statement (that heterosexuals are allowed to marry the person they love)

 

Actually, my statement was:

 

(Gays) can't marry the person they love, or even visit them in the hospital. So no, they don't have exactly the same rights.

 

and next thing you know it's OK to strawman my proof.

 

Your slippery slope argument is fallacious. Why are incest and homosexuality related?

[Mr Skeptic]

Your slippery slope argument is fallacious. Why are incest and homosexuality related?

 

Both are not allowed to marry in California? Disproving your statement that heterosexuals are allowed to marry the person they love, since if they fall in love with their sister they can't marry her.

 

I'm not wrong, but as Cap'n Refsmmat says, I am being a bit of an ass.

[ParanoiA]

Why does the state have a right to deny union, or recognition of union between brother and sister? Mom and son? As long as both are of legal age of consent, it's none of their business.

 

I'm reading these pages and pages of excuses and moral conclusions that the government has no business legislating in the least. This is why I rail against subjective governing so much. Here you have a clear situation where everyone thinks differently, most have a valid point of some kind, yet they are in conflict.

 

Just like slavery, the government of california has passed a subjective law that passes moral judgement to deny rights from an american citizen. No objective harm can be realized. It requires inference to find fault. I don't care if it's outlawing bigotry or gay marriage - subjective governing centralizes, sanctifies, and prosecutes - and petrifies - moral codes, based solely on the majority's chosen code set.

 

And this is the egregious result. More people don't accept gay marriage than do - so no one gets to. Written into law, static and frozen. Way to go...

[Riogho]

The point of democracy is the will of the people, even if the will of the people isn't the right thing to do.