70 percent of voting black Californians should be ashamed of themselves.

[DanGarion]

Originally Posted by Edward64

If you argument is "using more resources" than the child returns, I disagree.

In general, the short term investment (18-22 yrs?) will be outweighed by the longer return on investment and the perpetuity it brings (grand children etc). Yes, there are exceptions (80-20 rule maybe?) and probably not valid in some societies/countries (ex. Somalia?).

I may be misreading you, but it seems strange that you do not understand society has a self intest to help itself in this manner, especially because this is a case of parenting/nuturing a child.

Lets agree to disagree.

Regardless if there is a self interest, there should be no reward. But yeah whatever I agree to disagree. Just seems silly that people that have children get tax breaks.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by Apathetic Lurker

White people never been oppressed? Give me a fucking break!

Alright...let me amend my statment. White people in this country have never been oppressed. At least, they haven't been oppressed for being white.

This is concerning America, and American issues. The crusades, the Holocaust, the Irish Civil war, Chechnya. I realize all of these things have happened, but I'm talking American events here. I may not have made that clear.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by QuikSand

I'm not asking you to do shit.

All I'm suggesting is that the tax system's "recognition" of married people is borne of practical reasons, not religious or partisan ones. The "no doubt" assertion that marriage is a tax-favored status is simply not as obvious as you make it out to be. By and large, the income tax system is designed to make a pretty fair translation from the simple single earner to the two-adult family unit without a material bias toward one or the other..

Your monolithic 'tax system' is missing the underlying personal elements:

1. The 'tax system' is definitely borne of practical reasons. No doubt.
2. The 'tax system' derived today is passed by individual legislators, supported by their parties.
3. Many of legislators/parties had promoting and supporting marriage/family in mind while casting their votes (this was the reference to looking up news clippings and congressional registers).

Originally Posted by QuikSand

Yes, there are a number of ways that the current tax structure provides support for children. In that sense,it encourages people to do so. And rather than refute my point -- that helps to make my point. My point is that if you want to make raising kids more affordable -- give tax credit for child care, or greater deductions/exemptions for dependent children. There's no reason to build all the pro-child incentives into the mundane act of retrieving a marriage license (or by doing so only with the government-approved type of person) in hopes that some of those people will follow through and have babies. Just reward the actual having of the babies. Seriously -- the logic in this whole argument is just inescapably weak.

I agree with the latter part of your statement, makes sense to me. IMO, your argument is 'what should be' vs 'what is', hence we draw different conclusions from our reality of the current system.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

Alright...let me amend my statment. White people in this country have never been oppressed. At least, they haven't been oppressed for being white.

Maybe not for being white, but DEFINITELY for being from "somewhere else." Apparently you aren't descended from Irish stock. At one time, being Irish definitely fell somewhere between being White and being Black.

[SFL Cat]

Based on the back-and-forth, I think this issue goes far beyond the simple matter of homosexual couples wanting the same civil / legal rights as traditional marriages. If this were the case, I think most of Cam's proposals are reasonable, and while there would be many on both sides not satisfied, it's a compromise that would address, at least on the surface, what most homosexuals say they want.

I think homosexuals ultimately want the government to establish a "moral" equivalency to same sex unions. Mainstream religions will continue to teach that homosexuality is a "sin," like adultery and fornication, and that marriage is an institution ordained by God between a man and a woman. If the government establishes that same-sex unions are essentially no different than traditional man-woman marriages, that would open the door for homosexual advocates to prosecute religious individuals and/or churches that refer to same sexs unions in a negative way for "hate speech." At the very least, it would open the door to all kinds of civil actions and lawsuits, with the ultimate goal of silencing all religious groups that would present homosexuality in anything but a positive light.

While I find the idea of a couple of guys butt-banging absolutely retch-worthy, I'm not opposed to civil protections for same-sex partners. In their private lives, I'm a firm believer that people have the right to do as they please. However, I can understand the reasoning of those who stand resolute against any kind of change. It's back to the slippery slope argument. One side gives an inch, the other side takes a foot and demands another yard.

[Fidatelo]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

One side gives an inch, the other side takes a foot and demands another yard.

This actually sounds like a good night for a gay couple, so maybe you're not too far off!

[Bonegavel]

Originally Posted by Fidatelo

I'm not sure where Bonegavel is going, but I think consent should have to be a part of marriage. A sheep can't consent, so you shouldn't be able to marry it.

Of course, if that's not where he's going then I'm totally lost to his point.

Where does consent come into play? If you don't think that the government should be able to tell two people of the same sex they can't get married what about any other type of arrangement?

So now you are an anti-ruminant?

Again, I am totally for gay marriage and I think they need to open it up even further so others out there get what they want too. How do you know the sheep isn't consenting? I don't speak sheep. Maaaaybe they are in their own way.

I read where this guy in Japan wants to marry a Comic book character. I love this sort of shit. Go for it buddy! I love when traditional stuff is challenged like this --- it makes people think and that is always good.

I used to be like all the other conservatives. Then I really thought long and hard about it and I asked myself, "what is the fucking harm in letting two people get married that are of the same sex?" I couldn't think of one logical reason why this shouldn't be allowed. It has nothing to do with reproduction; if it did sterile heteros shouldn't be allowed to marry. I'm not religious so that has no bearing for me nor should it since it is a legal issue. Has nothing to do with love.

Which I then take a step further and say anything should go. What is the harm? Polygamy, sheep, rakes, comic book characters, whatever. What does it matter? Think about it. It doesn't matter.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Based on the back-and-forth, I think this issue goes far beyond the simple matter of homosexual couples wanting the same civil / legal rights as traditional marriages. If this were the case, I think most of Cam's proposals are reasonable, and while there would be many on both sides not satisfied, it's a compromise that would address, at least on the surface, what most homosexuals say they want.

I think homosexuals ultimately want the government to establish a "moral" equivalency to same sex unions. Mainstream religions will continue to teach that homosexuality is a "sin," like adultery and fornication, and that marriage is an institution ordained by God between a man and a woman. If the government establishes that same-sex unions are essentially no different than traditional man-woman marriages, that would open the door for homosexual advocates to prosecute religious individuals and/or churches that refer to same sexs unions in a negative way for "hate speech." At the very least, it would open the door to all kinds of civil actions and lawsuits, with the ultimate goal of silencing all religious groups that would present homosexuality in anything but a positive light.

While I find the idea of a couple of guys butt-banging absolutely retch-worthy, I'm not opposed to civil protections for same-sex partners. In their private lives, I'm a firm believer that people have the right to do as they please. However, I can understand the reasoning of those who stand resolute against any kind of change. It's back to the slippery slope argument. One side gives an inch, the other side takes a foot and demands another yard.

TIME TRAVEL TO AS RECENTLY AS 1983, WHEN MY WHITE MOM MARRIED MY BLACK DAD:

"If we let her marry a nigger, then who's to say her sister wouldn't marry a another woman, or a dog."

You are no different than they were, SFL Cat. I know this. It's ok, though. Time will be the ultimate judge, and you'll be remembered as "that old crazy guy who had backwards views, but we loved him anyway."

[SFL Cat]

Well, black folks can't do much about their skin color (unless of course, they happen go the Michael Jackson route). The verdict about that is still up in the air as far as being gay.

Besides, I know a lot of black folks who themselves aren't fond of the gay agenda, and resent the hell out of them trying to equate gay rights with civil rights.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Bonegavel

Which I then take a step further and say anything should go. What is the harm? Polygamy, sheep, rakes, comic book characters, whatever. What does it matter? Think about it. It doesn't matter.

Just to be sure, you are not advocating NAMBLA or the young girl equivalent are you? None of the 'extremes' (however you define it) does not matter to you?

[Bad-example]

Originally Posted by Ronnie Dobbs2

It is a religious issue that people try to dress in other clothing.

It is a civil rights issue for those of us that are not religious.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Well, black folks can't do much about their skin color (unless of course, they happen go the Michael Jackson route). The verdict about that is still up in the air as far as being gay.

Besides, I know a lot of black folks who themselves aren't fond of the gay agenda, and resent the hell out of them trying to equate gay rights with civil rights.

SFL Cat....if you wanted to, could you turn gay? I know I couldn't. I'm pretty sure I was born straight. I'm pretty sure many gay people try to be straight, which is why we have the Lance Basses and Ellen DeGenereses of the world that only come out well into adulthood. Why would ANYONE choose the life of a gay person in this day and age? Do you realize how hard that must be? You have the potential of losing all of you family and all of your friends by coming out. That is why many gay folks wait a very very long time before coming out. It has to be absolutely frightening.

So why would someone CHOOSE that?

I already addressed the black folks that voted against gay marriage in my state with my original post. They should really take a look in the mirror, and realize that gay people weren't the first in America to be denied rights.

[SFL Cat]

^^^ Well, I know people go ballistic when it's mentioned...but a pedophile could make the same arguments...probably moreso, in this modern climate.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

^^^ Well, I know people go ballistic when it's mentioned...but a pedophile could make the same arguments...probably moreso, in this modern climate.

Well, the difference between a gay person and a pedophile is gay sex involves two consenting parties, where as pederast sex involves a helpless child being dominated or scared by a predator.

It's the same thing with those ridiculous beastiality Rick Santorum bullshit arguments. A cow, a sheep, or a dog cannot consent to sex or marriage. A person can. If a person wants to dress up like a gimp at their wedding, then that should be their choice.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

If the government establishes that same-sex unions are essentially no different than traditional man-woman marriages, that would open the door for homosexual advocates to prosecute religious individuals and/or churches that refer to same sexs unions in a negative way for "hate speech."

Uh... no. Have white supremacist groups been sued out of existence for "hate speech"?

Besides plenty of churches that will marry gays (even if they aren't recognized), or even have gay bishops.

What gay Americans want is to be treated equally and not be seen as second class citizens. Same as blacks, same as women.

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Besides, I know a lot of black folks who themselves aren't fond of the gay agenda, and resent the hell out of them trying to equate gay rights with civil rights.

Just because we have bigotted blacks, that doesn't tend to prove anything.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

Well, the difference between a gay person and a pedophile is gay sex involves two consenting parties, where as pederast sex involves a helpless child being dominated or scared by a predator.

Unless, of course, its those FL teachers from the other thread.

The question of GLB and choice is an interesting one. On one hand, I do believe a large % of gay/lesbians are born with a strong preference for same sex. However, doesn't a Bi- speak to choice? Suspect most lesbian relationships in p0rn are by choice ...

Then again, for hermaphodites/intersex with both sexual organs, how do the religious right explain that situation and who should they have relations with?

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Unless, of course, its those FL teachers from the other thread.

The question of GLB and choice is an interesting one. On one hand, I do believe a large % of gay/lesbians are born with a strong preference for same sex. However, doesn't a Bi- speak to choice? Suspect most lesbian relationships in p0rn are by choice ...

Then again, for hermaphodites/intersex with both sexual organs, how do the religious right explain that situation and who should they have relations with?

Porn? Uh....ask any porn actor/actress, stripper, or prostitute if they are attracted to many of their clients. They're just getting paid. I don't find myself attracted to obese women, but if my job was having sex for money, and the obese woman was a big pay day, imma have sex with the big girl.

Porn is a completely different realm.

[larrymcg421]

This country is a Republic and not a Democracy for a reason. There are certain issues where the people cannot be trusted. Social justice happens to be one of them. 50.1% of the people should not get to decide that the other 49.9% don't have equal rights.

[larrymcg421]

dola

And I've never understood why people argue about whether it's a "choice." At least I don't understand what that argument has to do in the context of gay rights. There are many things I do by choice that are protected by the Constitution.

[Tekneek]

The Supreme Court of the United States has already stated that marriage is a civil right, in the Loving v. Virginia decision. So that much is not really up for debate in this nation anymore.

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

The Supreme Court of the United States has already stated that marriage is a civil right, in the Loving v. Virginia decision. So that much is not really up for debate in this nation anymore.

Except that I doubt the current court would translate this precedent to same sex marriages. If they would, then prop 8 would be meaningless.

[Autumn]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

SFL Cat....if you wanted to, could you turn gay? I know I couldn't. I'm pretty sure I was born straight. I'm pretty sure many gay people try to be straight, which is why we have the Lance Basses and Ellen DeGenereses of the world that only come out well into adulthood. Why would ANYONE choose the life of a gay person in this day and age? Do you realize how hard that must be? You have the potential of losing all of you family and all of your friends by coming out. That is why many gay folks wait a very very long time before coming out. It has to be absolutely frightening.

So why would someone CHOOSE that?.

These are both great points. I've always wondered why those who believe sexual preference is a choice imagine that anybody would choose that, particularly people who suffer, get beat up or killed over it. Seems likely they would have switched teams the first couple times they got the shit kicked out of them.

But also this other point--most of the people I know who imagine homosexuality is a choice could probably not even fathom being gay themselves without making themselves ill. Why do they think some people decide "hmm, hot sex with a guy? I guess I will" when most straight guys can't even stand to talk about it? Not very logical.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

Except that I doubt the current court would translate this precedent to same sex marriages. If they would, then prop 8 would be meaningless.

Illegal law goes into effect almost every year. They stand until they are sufficiently challenged. The question of Prop 8's legality has not been before a court, has it? Certainly not SCOTUS, right?

[Daimyo]

The prop 8 opposition groups have brought four suits before California courts challenging prop 8 in different ways. I believe they're specifically asking that no one bring suit before a federal court on this at this time because they're afraid of losing with the current SCOTUS and having the movement set back decades.

I think the strategy here is to challenge this in California courts where it has a very good chance of being overturned for one of a variety of reasons. If that fails wait until SCOTUS is more favorable and then challenge it federally.

[Daimyo]

DOLA, here is an article from the LA Times that talks about the upcoming legal challenges to prop 8:

Gay rights backers file 3 lawsuits challenging Prop. 8 - Los Angeles Times

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Autumn

These are both great points. I've always wondered why those who believe sexual preference is a choice imagine that anybody would choose that, particularly people who suffer, get beat up or killed over it. Seems likely they would have switched teams the first couple times they got the shit kicked out of them.

But also this other point--most of the people I know who imagine homosexuality is a choice could probably not even fathom being gay themselves without making themselves ill. Why do they think some people decide "hmm, hot sex with a guy? I guess I will" when most straight guys can't even stand to talk about it? Not very logical.

You can make that argument about a lot of destructive compulsive behaviors: eating, gambling, infidelity, drug and alcohol abuse, etc., etc. People know their behavior is destructive but they just can't help themselves for whatever reason.

I've seen people dying from emphezema, who still lit up as often as they could. I'm sure one could argue there is a chemical/dependency component involved in a lot of these cases, but I've also known people who have decided to stop smoking, and by God, they do it...no patches, or other gimmicks needed, which leads me to believe there is also a component of willpower (i.e. choice) involved.

[Tekneek]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

You can make that argument about a lot of destructive compulsive behaviors, eating, gambling, infidelity, drug and alcohol abuse, etc., etc. People know their behavior is destructive but they just can't help themselves for whatever reason.

It has been decades since homosexuality was considered to be on the same level as the items you've listed. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed it from its list of disorders. In 1975, the American Psychological Association did the same. So, you are a few decades behind the times, at least considering where the professionals are on this matter.

[SFL Cat]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

It has been decades since homosexuality was considered to be on the same level as the items you've listed. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed it from its list of disorders. In 1975, the American Psychological Association did the same. So, you are a few decades behind the times, at least considering where the professionals are on this matter.

Thanks to strong lobbying efforts from gay advocates and a lot of sympathetic members in the Association. Don't know about you, but I was around at the time.

[DaddyTorgo]

Tekneek - don't feed the troll

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

It has been decades since homosexuality was considered to be on the same level as the items you've listed. In 1973, the American Psychiatric Association removed it from its list of disorders. In 1975, the American Psychological Association did the same. So, you are a few decades behind the times, at least considering where the professionals are on this matter.

I was going to make a similar argument. I think SFL Cat was trying to respond to Autumn's question. There is alot of things people do that is not in their best interest or would not change even if "they got the shit kicked out of them".

Why would someone eat and eat, be obese, ridiculed by society? There are plenty of obese people in TN who indulge in their food without giving a damn.

Why do people drink and drive? Chain smoke? etc.

Just a counterpoint to Autumn's statement.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

Thanks to strong lobbying efforts from gay advocates and a lot of sympathetic members in the Association. Don't know about you, but I was around at the time.

Too bad your moral agenda is still back there.

Prop 8 discriminates against a very specific group of people.

You say its not a group that deserves such status.

The argument has been made that this is no different than interracial couples. Which the courts agreed was discrimination back in your mentally lucid days.

Nowhere can those supporting Prop 8 find a shred of valid, logical, reasoned evidence to support their argument. There is no reason to disallow gay and lesbian couples visitation rights in hospitals, there is no reason to deny them equal coverage under corporate insurance policies, there is no reason to keep them from adopting children, there is no reason to deny them the same legal rights that you and your spouse or myself and my wife enjoy every day without a second thought.

But you get all bent out of shape because a word gets used to link something you dislike, Homosexuality, to religion....Marriage. So you rail against the universe with anything you can find, no matter how frivolous and empty, just to keep arguing long enough to stave off what even you must know is coming.

Prop 8 probably won't last 6 months, Homosexual couples will in time be afforded equal rights and opportunity to marry/union/whatever it ends up being called. it WILL happen.

Historians know that history repeats itself.

Keep screaming bigotry is right and good, keep flailing against equality and tolerance for all people and history will repeat itself. Time finds a way to cleanse the world of the foolish. Cling to outdated and close minded ideals. Cling to bigotry in whatever form you find most comfortable. The universe will scrub itself clean of you eventually.

[SFL Cat]

^^^ Strange, I thought only Christians and other religious fanatics acted all uppity and holier than thou...

I stand humbled by your obvious moral superiority and enlightenment.

[RendeR]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

I stand humbled by your obvious moral superiority and enlightenment.

bout god damned time

[larrymcg421]

Originally Posted by Tekneek

Illegal law goes into effect almost every year. They stand until they are sufficiently challenged. The question of Prop 8's legality has not been before a court, has it? Certainly not SCOTUS, right?

What I'm saying is that the current makeup of SCOTUS is not likely to find a Constitutional violation here. If Loving v. Virginia was so controlling, then it'd be an open and shut case.

Now, personally I think the denial of equal marriage rights for same sex couples is a CLEAR 14th Amendment violation. I just don't think the courts agree. However, 4-8 years of Obama appointments will likely move us in that direction.

[Karlifornia]

Originally Posted by SFL Cat

^^^ Strange, I thought only Christians and other religious fanatics acted all uppity and holier than thou...

I stand humbled by your obvious moral superiority and enlightenment.

Dude, I think you're forgetting the fact that you are in favor of DENYING people rights that have no effect on you. What happens to you if two people of the same sex get married? Where is the harm done? It does not affect you, it does not affect me. Live and let live. If every gay marriage lowered your white blood cell count, I could understand. What I'm seeing here, though, is just indoctrinated bigotry. Also, I have a question:

What religion were you parents? Are you a different religion than them?

[ISiddiqui]

Originally Posted by larrymcg421

What I'm saying is that the current makeup of SCOTUS is not likely to find a Constitutional violation here. If Loving v. Virginia was so controlling, then it'd be an open and shut case.

Now, personally I think the denial of equal marriage rights for same sex couples is a CLEAR 14th Amendment violation. I just don't think the courts agree. However, 4-8 years of Obama appointments will likely move us in that direction.

I doubt many SCOTUS's, even with 4-8 years of Obama appointments will necessarily want to touch the issue. The SCOTUS has always been cognizant of how the public perceives the institution and how overreach would be seen. I believe, if I'm not mistaken, O'Conner's decision Planned Parenthood v. Casey actually makes reference to that in some respects (ie, how it'd look if the court decided abortion was a right guarenteed by the Bill of Rights and then less than 15 years later said they were wrong).

[larrymcg421]

Well, one of the main criteria that SCOTUS uses to decide whether cert is granted is if the lower courts are giving different rulings on an issue. A few years of Obama appointments to District and Appeals courts could lead to that exact situation. If some circuits are ruling in favor of same sex marriage and others are ruling against it, SCOTUS will have to step in.

[Mac Howard]

What does the American (or Californian) Constitution have to say (if at all) about discrimination on grounds of sexual orientation?

[Karlifornia]

[Mac Howard]

Originally Posted by Karlifornia

Powerful!

What is awful is that it needs to be said

[stevew]

Ohlbermann channeling his inner Chris Crocker.

[sterlingice]

I greatly appreciated Olbermann's commentary the other night. I wish he had stayed away from talking about religious people at all, but it was less than a minute of the whole.

He was very passionate and it seemed to genuinely affect him and he was almost choked up a couple of times. I've been trying to figure out how he was able to talk so ardently about it as rarely do you see something so passionate when when it's not personal.

In short, it's a great message- I'm just trying to figure out why it seemed that he was the one who delivered it.

SI

[Bonegavel]

Olbermann is a complete weenie and though I agree with his overall message (gay's should be allowed to marry) that was quite possibly the most horrible fake-cry I've ever seen.

He could talk so ardently because he is a liberal talking-points drone (the left's version of Hannity). If the liberal MOTD was "eat shit" he would be on camera shoveling feces in his mouth like Joey Chestnut would hot dogs.