New Study: 52.1% Of Californians Homophobic.

[TheScotsman]

One of the problems with elections, and a state with a voter referendum is that majority rules (to one degree or another). The majority in Cali, whomever is in that group, don't want same sex marriage at this point. They don't want polygamist Mormons, or some crazy chick married to her German shepherd. It would seem the majority wants to reserve the use of the word "marriage" to apply to heterosexual couples. That would seem the right of the majority under the constitution.<br/><br/>

It's all about the ability to legally use the word marriage. Saying anyone can't visit in the hospital, can't inherit an estate, can't make med decisions, nor file a joint tax return in california is just misinformation, or blatant propaganda, or just plain BS. So which is it, either you are uninformed of which you speak, you are up to your flannel collar in propaganda-BS, or you think someone has a right to beat-down 19yo missionary chicks over the "right" to label themselves with a word. Talk about your insecurities! When the only thing that will make you "happy" is to have the state validate your sex life with a particular word, you got some problems!

<br/><br/>

California:<br/><br/>


California has passed three pieces of legislation that provide rights and responsibilities to registered domestic partners (same-sex couples and opposite-sex couples over the age of 62 are eligible to register). Assembly Bill 26 passed in 1999 established the statewide domestic partner registry and conferred a handful of rights which included hospital visitation and the right of state and local employers the ability to offer health care coverage to the domestic partners of their employees. Assembly Bill 25 was passed in 2001 and extended the rights of domestic partners to include the right to make medical decisions, the right to inherit when partner dies without a will, the right to use state step-parent adoption procedures, the right to use sick leave to care for a domestic partner and the right to be appointed as administrator of estate. In 2003 Assembly Bill 205 was passed, basically extending all of the state-level rights and responsibilities of marriage to domestic partners. The rights and responsibilities associated with Assembly Bill 205 went into effect on Jan. 1, 2005. <br/><br/>
The feminists have already stated over and over, that ANY male is a potential rapist, Wonder if they make any distinction for gays<br/><br/>
<br/><br/>
If it were genetic, one would expect to find 100% of monozygotic twins to be homosexual if either was, and that is clearly not the case. So you are saying this genetic abnormality (for lack of a better word I use abnormality, don't go get your toboggan in a twist) manages to occur in less than 100% of the twins raised together, yet other genetic conditions are extremely rare to the point of being unreported in only 1/2 of the pair. {Disregard Kallman's 1952 study. The use of a sliding homosexuality scale, and rather bizarre criteria make the study useless. After reading it, I feel Kallman violated all neutrality in the bugger, it appears he wanted to find a connection, and built the study around that goal} <br/><br/> In the end, it's just a word. If I were to think of a word to get offended over the lack thereof it would be something other than "marriage".

[gaia.plateau]

It's all about the ability to legally use the word marriage. Saying anyone can't visit in the hospital, can't inherit an estate, can't make med decisions, nor file a joint tax return in california is just misinformation, or blatant propaganda, or just plain BS.

It's possible that I'm misinformed, but if it's just about semantics then why are so many people talking about the taxation implications? That doesn't make any sense.

and if you actually thought that this was a meaningless issue, you wouldn't have expressed so much support for proposition 8, which cost hundreds of millions of dollars merely to, by your preceding argument, make an absolutely redundant semantic adjustment. Edited November 27, 2008 by gaia.plateau

[Sonthert]

Hello. I have a few opinions.

For those of you who don't have a scorecard, I am an atheist, an anti-federalist in the Jeffersonian tradition, a registered democrat who has never voted for a republican (go O!), but have a number of highly conservative viewpoints, I several college degrees and can have a discussion about anything.

First, the question of genetic vs. social conditioning is irrelevant. Its entirely possible, just to fuck with us, that homosexuality is partially each genetic and social conditioning like blindness (sorry its a negative connotation...the only one that came to mind). Some people are born blind, some people become blind from other factors outside of genetics. What is important is that homosexuality is a preference, like whether you like blue or yellow better. Only when you assume that there's something wrong with liking blue do you start looking for the cause of it. +1 to the conservative guy who pointed out that identical twins have differing personality traits, including homosexuality. An interesting example is Chang and Ang Bunker...conjoined twins, yet different personalities.

Second, As long as I don't have to hear about the details, I don't care where your tallywhacker goes. I have a lesbian friend who married a guy so he could get to become an American citizen. Her girlfriend lives with her and her husband. Thats obviously a much better situation than letting her marry her girlfriend (although she did vote in favor of Proposition 8). Why anybody cares who anybody else marries is beyond me...if people's choices don't affect you...why do you care? The only reason, of course, is either you are perfect and your of way of life is the best way for all humans to live or you are a meddler.

Third, the idea that civil unions are acceptable as a replacement for gay marriage is as reasonable as saying seats in the back of the bus are good enough for Negroes. They get to have the same rights as the majority, but in a specific fashion which still separates them and reminds them on a daily basis that they are not the same and not considered with equal regard.

Fourth, I predominantly agree with the idea that democracy is the cure for all things, so the majority rules idea is quite compelling. However, there are different majorities, an overwhelming majority (>66 2/3%), a simple majority (>50%) and a plurality (The most votes, but less than 50%) however I quibble with the odd and absurd rule in California that a simple majority vote is sufficient to make a constitutional amendment. It is standard that the constitutions of societies can only be changed on an overwhelming majority to prevent the "tyranny of the majority". It is entirely possible for 50% of Californians to outlaw Asians from living in California. If it is a "Constitutional Amendment" then it could only be stopped by the U.S. Supreme Court...how can the Supreme Court of California question a Constitutional Amendment? Why wouldn't we just pass amendment after amendment (at 50+%) rather than passing laws (at 50+%)?

I should also point out that a majority of people in the U.S. (not to mention an overwhelming majority of people in several states) were opposed to desegregation of public schools...schools might still be segregated without the leadership of Chief Justice Earl Warren which led the U.S. Supreme Court to end segregation of public schools. The reasoning of the court in the majority opinions was that separate institutions of colored and white schools caused damage to colored children. Why would it be different for gay children?

Fifth, in Loving v. The Commonwealth of Virginia, the U.S. Supreme Court held:

"Marriage is one of the 'basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival.... To deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes, classifications so directly subversive of the principle of equality at the heart of the Fourteenth Amendment, is surely to deprive all the State's citizens of liberty without due process of law. The Fourteenth Amendment requires that the freedom of choice to marry not be restricted by invidious racial discrimination. Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, a person of another race resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State."

Further, the Supreme Court held that the Anti-Miscegenation Laws were merely the products of racism and white-supremacy. Put more simply, the "majority" of people (white) felt that their way of life was the best and shouldn't be contaminated by people who were different. The Supreme Court of course said these views were invalid.

Sounds familiar...doesn't it? Replace the words race with gender...

Sixth, "Gay Marriage" is a misnomer. Its same-sex marriage. Two people might want to get married who weren't gay, even though they were the same gender. Marriage is about lots of things other than sex. Thats the problem, everyone is focusing on gays humping each others butts. If you think that marriage is simply about sex, you missed the point!

Seventh, children of parents who became gay after their children were born should be entitled to custody of those children without prejudice to their sexual orientation.

Eighth, on the other hand, I'm not sure I agree with same-sex couples adopting children. I'm kinda indifferent. Mr. Moodz assures me that the most important factor is stability in the home and there are more children that need adopting than there are people to adopt them. So gays adopting children is preferable to letting children go without homes. Somehow, I feel like the stigma attached with being gay would be borne by the adopted children of gays, so why put a stranger with no connection to the situation in that situation? If they are the biological offspring of the homosexual parent(s)...it really shouldn't matter. If you see the distinction.

Ninth, I am 100% opposed to allowing genetic splicing of people's sex cells (including gays) to form viable children. Until they can demonstrate why Chang and Ang were different, yet presumably identical conjoined twins, they don't have any business splicing shit. There are factors going on here that defy all rationale...are we sowing the seeds of future genetic failure?

Tenth, I think you guys are equivocating the word "Choice". One group says being gay is a choice another group says its not a choice. The group who says its not a choice is referring to sexual attraction saying they can't help whom they're attracted to. The group who says it is a choice is saying that they believe the choice to have gay sex is a choice. To both groups, I agree. It is a choice when it comes to having sex, but your attractions are not a matter of personal choice. Put a different way, painting your walls orange is a choice, liking the color orange better than other colors isn't really a choice. Thats where you guys are arguing two points using the same word (with different implications).

Eleventh, the preference aspect is kind of nebulous as well, some gays prefer to be in Hetero (heterosexual) relationships, but homo sexual relationships. Some are reversed. Some only like to have hetero sex when they get wasted, preferring gay sex when they're sober. Some people are exclusively homo in every aspect, some are exclusively hetero. Some people just waver back and forth. I am of the opinion that gay or straight shouldn't be a permanent label, they should only apply in regards to your most recent sex partner. Some people, although having nothing but gay fantasies carry on heterosexual relationships, get married and have kids...should they be called gay? Expressing the label in terms of your most recent sex partner is the only objective (assuming honest answers) method of determining sexuality. I've seen pairs of married couples who are actually married for convenience, that is the men were sex partners and the women were sex partners, but they were married in the heterosexual manner...whats the point? Is preserving this holy "marriage" title for men and women benefited by this example? Certainly not. So the next step is...banning gay sex...to prevent these types of marriages...which is absurd.

Twelfth, The argument that marriage should be reserved for men and women is a thinly veiled religious attempt to dictate laws according to religious superstitions. As an atheist, I find it mildly amusing. Nobody is saying that churches have to allow gay members, let alone marry them, we're talking about legal marriages down at the courthouse...how does that affect you? If some weirdo tried to pass a law that marriages could only be same-sex "This is against god." would rain down from every pulpit. There are two people involved in a marriage, not the "majority" of America.

I would say overall, I feel the same way about abortion and legalizing drugs as I do about same-sex marriage. It makes me slightly nauseous thinking about it too much. They need to be legal and I don't believe the American people have the right to dictate to other American people the conditions and terms on how they can live their life because of their views on morality. Continuing on down this road where the majority feels morally right and proper enough to make a law restricting the minority flies (In my opinion) in the face of the principles of the United States of America. If we continue down the road of governance to avoid moral offense by other people, our democracy is fated to fail, replaced by an authoritarian apparatus or a religious oligarchy.

P.S. Scotsman. I think medical decisions can only be made by your spouse or a member of your immediate family. Additionally, I'm pretty sure that you can only file a joint tax return if you are married. Other than that, those other two examples are misinterpretations or just falsehoods. I agree.

[gaia.plateau]

As long as I don't have to hear about the details, I don't care where your tallywhacker goes.

I put mine in my Kashmir Peach. It's that bloody good.

[zeppyrkr]

i was unable to read everyones post just had to vent,

i feel this is the work of Christians and other religions alike. I am not homosexual but one of my best friends is and she was very very religious until she finally came out and her church denied her and tried telling her that it was in her head and something was wrong with her. I think this is the biggest reason i chose not to follow my families religious steps. Im not trying to say that every religious person is like this but the trues Christians are so far from being equal rights its not funny.

peace from you atheist equal rights friend.

[Bulldog_916]

To Sonthert, I agree with about 80% of that. Well put.

[Sonthert]

Thirteenth, I'm gay for you guys.

Not gay in the bad way, but the good way: two men sharing hot sweaty sex. Licking each others arm pits...sharing a towel in the shower room.



See? Do it, don't tell me about it. The details are too...yeah.

I'm straight. Real straight. Miller High Life and Biker bar straight.

[TheScotsman]

[popcornkid06]

......what is your point?

[TheScotsman]

They are on their way to the biker bar!

[Johnny_D]

I'm a lesbian. That is all

/Snigger loudly with a norty grin

But seriously. I've said it before I'll say it yet again.
Do what you like with your dingleberry or your strapon's. Tis fine.

But I don't wanna see it.

Cheers,

JD

[gaia.plateau]

I'm a lesbian. That is all

I have long hair. Want to make out?