What it boils down to, Jeff, is that your premise is fundamentaly flawed. You want to believe that you are not inherently discriminative, but you are. You want to believe that your Propression 8 legislation is not raw and offensive bigotry, but it is.
I might add that any religiously motivated legislation - of which Propression 8 is just one recent and easily citable example of far-right Judeo-Christian attempt to side-step and/or cloud acknowledgement of the basic concepts of human rights and equality - is in direct contravention of the constitution by its, among other things, premise of a separation of church and state, and it is in all ways definitively un-American.
It's your country, Jeff, to screw up as you wish. I just wish you'd stop the self-delusional rhetoric, such as "land of the free" etc. The direction you and your like-minded buddies are dragging the US is barely a step up from Sharia law. It's regressive and it's the WRONG direction.
It's based on morality, independent of any specific religion. Most of the vice laws, (drugs, prostitution, gambling) are based on a moral code of conduct. The concept of an age of consent, and laws like statutory rape (a minor can't consent to sex) are examples of morality based laws.
In the USA, the government currently enforces some laws that are based on some common moral ground, even for behaviors where no harm is done. Generally behaviors fall into 3 categories: treated as illegal and possibly prosecuted, treated indifferently, or promoted via benefits.
Currently same sex couples are offered benefits such as "civil unions" or "domesitc partnerships". Prop 8 is not about eliminating the existing laws regarding civil unions. Prop 8 is about the legal meaning of marriage, which has long been defined as between one man and one woman. An example was Utah had to outlaw polygamy in order to become a state back in the 1890's. Marriage is a legal and moral concept that USA society currently chooses not to extend to include same sex or polygamist relationships. The USA legislature recently passed the defense of marriage act law to clarify this definition. State laws cannot supercede this law.
This phrase doesn't exist in the constitution. It is a interpretation of the first amendment to the USA constitution that applies to the federal government, but not to individual states. The phrase "wall of seperation between church and state" is from a letter from Thomas Jefferson to Danbury Baptists:
Note that Jefferson distinguishes between "opinions" (religious beliefs) and "actions" (behaviors) in this letter, and also refers to "legislature", meaning the USA congress. It doesn't mention anything about the laws of the individual states. Overtime, most states have eliminated religously oriented laws, such as "blue laws".
Lies. (except Wsinda)
There is no disparity of law. Gay couples will continue to enjoy the same rights as any other couple whether or not 8 passes. Nothing is unfair, nothing is different except the name. As much as you fight Jeff for his belief that gay couples should not be called "married" do you ever stop to think about why gay couples want to be called "married" in the first place?
Again, no inequality. Gay couples will still be legal, but they will be domestic partners with equal rights in every way. Gay couples who want to marry after 8 passes will still be able to go to a court, get a domestic partner permit (it even looks the same as a marriage certificate), go to a progressive church or synagogue and say their vows, etc and be married in the church. No discrimination.
I don't think it is homophobic to be against or dislike the gay agenda (which apparently doesn't exist in europe). I don't like brussel sprouts but I'm not brusselphobic.
Oh believe me, giving equal rights to gay couples in CA is far from Sharia law. If this was Iran, we'd just kill them. Or maybe castrate them or murder their families. If this was China in the 80's we could try electroshock therapy, it had almost a 100% cure rate.
back to me, I like country music, as stereotypical as that is. I also listen to techno, rap, classic rock (not 50's rock b/c is sucks the big ones), classical and a bit of pop. I do enjoy scissor sisters "Don't feel Like Dancing" because I don't know anyone in this world who could not get into that song. Its the gayest song ever and I like it
Believe it or not I'm much more conservative on this forum than I really am. I'm pretty moderate actually. I am pro-choice (before second trimester) I work at a soup kitchen over thanksgiving and Christmas, I support welfare for people who had no choice but to accept it (disabled people, not families who decided to have more children than they could possibly support or freeloaders), but moreover I don't hate gay people. I don't hate what they do. I hate the fact that children are being oversexed younger and younger but now its ok to do it to even younger children under the guise of teaching tolerance. I've said it three times before I'll say it again: ALL couples should be domestic partners, CHURCHES decide whether to marry them or not based on whatever criteria they use. Problem solved, children saved (for now).
children get oversexed by keeping sex away from them thus turning it into something dirty they get from the internet or tv at night (the tv bit probably not in the us)... the less of a deal you make out of keeping the topic away from them the less oversexed theyll end up in their teens
Can't say I agree with that train of thought since that's what being a teenager is about.
We never had "that talk" with my parents, we never had sexual education at school until we got into high school - sex as sex didn't even come into the picture until I was into my teens. I recall my first crush and walking back from school with a girl when I was 6 - but it wasn't sex-related, I had no idea what that was and I can tell you if I did it would likely gross me out severely and thus miss out on having a simple beautiful memory.
However, some time ago with my gf we had to sort of babysit a pal's 8 y/o daughter for a day. I had never heard so many sexual innuendos and "dirty" jokes in a such a short period of time - in fact, if they came from an adult I'd likely tell them to put a lid on it as it got real old real fast. And ofcourse she, thankfully, had no idea what it was all actually about - she was just repeating and trying desperately to appear adult. And no, she wasn't taught all of that crap from her dad - it came from her peers and from daytime TV.
Why should the technocrats ruin things for kids like that? Why kill it for them? The media is already doing a great job of that as it is. It's obvious that for the most part the educational system, and today's educators, make a mess of teaching things that CAN be taught - so why trust them with this?
It'll just fit right in place with the whole "oh your kid isn't paying attention in class, they must have ADD and need medication" dogma. Robotize those kids - kill the beauty in everything before it's too late because it's the easy way out for the adults.
I was asking a question. There was question marks and everything, and a curious prose to the tense of my post. I was asking if something was the case, therefore what I said was not a statement or factual, therefore it's not a lie.
This is typical of a mindset of making your mind up then finding ways to prove your point, sadly.
So Proposition 8 says "Let's not change anything". Marriage is an institution recognised in law, it is not a religious institution. The desire to seperate out "undesireables" and label them is in itself an extremely negative thing to do and shows that America is ethically receeding to a darker time, as it has been since Bush was elected.
Marriage is not for every couple, but I for one would like to think that I could marry one day. I want the same opportunities to **** my life up as everyone else. Sadly I live in a country that discriminates against me based upon my sexuality and I cannot marry, I can instead enter a civil union in which i'm still called Miss and my partner, rather than being my wife, is called my "life partner". Which is just rediculous.
It's all about labels and putting nice easy to itentify stickers onto people so that they can be categorised as miscreants when really they are people just like everyone else. This is why I raised the question of intersexed and transgendered persons, which has sadly been ignored. I raised that topic because there is a very justifyable argument for gender not being binary, for the very definition of man and woman to be considered a linear scale and not just a state of true or false, and this being the case how can "one man and one woman" be defined.
So where do transgendered and intersexed individuals fall into the one man and one woman definition? Who should they be allowed to marry? Have they lost the right to marry purely because their gender is not alpha-male/alpha-female? Did they cease to have the right to a normal life from a birth defect, even if it was later corrected in surgery? Bear in mind i'm referring to all forms of gender identity disparity.
Forgetting what is law, as my country is woefully conservative on this issue and even dissolved marriages of transexuals (as does America), what do the neo-cons believe in regards to transexuals whether they be straight or gay, who should they be allowed to marry?
What's the friggin use of having two types of marriage, of which one must never ever be called marriage? Two types that give couples exactly the same rights -- except for the label, which is so bloody important that they will change the constitution for it? If you don't call that inequality, then I have a better name for it: Apartheid.
Could it be that they no longer want to be regarded as second-class citizens?
Regardless of prop 8 or any state laws, at the federal level, same sex marrage is not recognized. For federal tax purposes, one member of a gay couple or polygamist family can file taxes as head of househould if that person is the primary support for another person in the household. The rest have to file as single (although currently this is actually a tax advantage).
Note that if both members of a married couple are working, the net effect is a tax penalty. The choices for a married couple are married filing jointly, which combines the couples income and places them into a higher tax bracket, or married filing seperately, which uses higher tax brackets than non-married filing single. The only tax benefit is for families with only one working member.
Even some atheists believe that homosexuality is flawed (one issue is that it goes against the common trait of living things to pro-create), so it's a moral judgement shared by many that goes beyond right wing religious zealots. Many behaviors in life are classified as right or wrong based on moral judgement calls within a society, even by the non-religious.
This concept needs to be clarified. In the USA, the states and the counties within the states are free to establish their own set of moral standards as long as those standards are based on behaviors (actions as worded in the Thomas Jefferson letter concerning seperation of church and state (meaning the Federal legislature, not actual state governments)). Texas has "dry counties", where alcohol is not allowed to be publicly sold, simply because it's part of that communites moral standards and it's legal because it applies to a behavior. Morality based laws in Lubbock, Texas are going to greatly differ than those in San Francisco, California. Local governments in some parts of Utah essentially accept polygamy, while most of the USA doesn't.
im not suggesting letting everything out of the bag on elementary schoolers but telling them what they already know which is that a hetero couple can have kids through some process that doesnt involve storks and that some people will want to spend their lifes with the same gender (no i do not want to get into a discussion on gender/transgendered vs sex/transsexual in case anyone sees an opening there) wouldnt change that memory at all would it?
which is exactly the point i was trying to make... teach it as something that is what it is ie one of the most normal and mundane (hopefully) everyday things in the world and suddenly it stops being dirty special and a rite of initiation
i believe theres more than just a mere correlation between countries that offer sex ed and countries where teenagers lose their virginity comparably late
If procreation were the criterion then we'd outlaw celibacy and promote rape.
I suspect that this reason is just a front, as are all the other ones. The real basis for judgment is a strong notion that homosexuality is "not normal". But that notion can not be defended with respectable (i.e. rational) arguments, so people come up with fake reasons like the laws of nature, AIDS, etc.
Yep, the notion of right and wrong are usually based on morality. And contrary to what many christians think, atheists also have a sense of morality.
By jings your right you know, although I am no athiest.
At the age of nine, I stopped believing in the existence of gods, because there seemed to be no evidence for the kind of supernatural power asserted by those around me. I don't see my lack of religious belief as a matter of ideology, which is why I prefer the term "non-believer" to the term "atheist" (one who actively disputes the existence of gods, often in a militant fashion) or "agnostic" (one who doesn't think there is enough evidence one way or another to determine if gods exist).
Edit: The reason I use a quote by others is because of my inability to express myself using english ;ike y others can do.....bloody hell I'm an engineer what do you expect
That's because the "gay agenda" exists nowhere, except in the minds of certain people, most of whom it seems reside in the US. In fact, I've only ever heard the term "gay agenda" as a US Republican Party/Religious Right talking point & usually only in the context of enshrining ignorance & prejudice into law, as Prop 8 intends to. It's a pure fabrication but, nonetheless, I'd like this alleged gay agenda explained to me in simple terms as an intellectual exercise, so at least I can see what people think it is.
Shit, noone likes brussels sprouts, but what do people do? They just don't freaking buy them, cook them or eat them. They don't try and legislate them into a separate category of second-class vegetable while citing some sinister, made-up "Sprout Agenda" as justification.
If you don't like/understand homosexuality or homosexuals, whatever. But they're actually pretty easy to avoid. A lot easier to avoid than the prejudices of homophobes (aka those behind the "Straight Agenda") in my experience, which are more or less ubiquitous.
FTR: I'm not a gay guy but I hate this anti-gay shit as much as I hate racism and anti-Semitism and religious bigotry and every other kind of baseless hatred. Imagine some politician running on a platform of "battling the Jew Agenda" or the "Black Agenda" or the "Agnostic Agenda"? He'd sound like a bloody Nazi and he'd be booed off the stage in most places. That's what this "Gay Agenda" bullshit reminds me of. Just a hateful slogan, based on nothing & designed to rile up & inspire fear in those who don't pay attention or wonder why they think the way they do, or simply don't want to.
I think that's the bottom line here. It is a notion shared by many, if not most, societies. At least some states in the USA go beyond tolerance to including some benefits like civil unions. I'm not sure what gives a person a sense of "right" and "wrong", as it varies between people in the same society, and varies even more among societies.
One example of "gay agenda" in the USA includes the fact that aids is the only disease that health insurance companies aren't allowed to screen for in some states, because of it's association with gays. I consider that special treatment.
The bottom line is generally that people believe in what they are brought up to believe. Be it by their peers, family or whatever. To challenge this takes courage and an opening of the mind beyond was has been taught to you. This challenge can be difficult for sure but something that must be recognised as a method of evolution.
It's a front all right, so's the "sanctity of marriage" argument we hear a lot from conservatives & conservative Christians in Oz (noone down here is silly enough to mention the non-existent "gay agenda"). But of course, nobody has yet come up with a satisfactory, logical explanation of exactly how two gay people getting married is any kind of threat to the sanctity my marriage or anyone else's hetero marriage. My marriage is as sacred as my wife and I make it; it's completely up to us how seriously we take the vows we made to each other. If my gay neighbours get hitched too, I could give a shit! Good on them :up: As tax-paying, law-abiding citizens who have a vote equal to mine and a claim to justice equal to mine, they should have every spousal right that my wife and I have. Besides that, with divorce figures the way they are, I really don't think us heteros treat marriage as very sacred anyway!
Atheists use the same morality when deciding on a course of action as Christians do when they select which bits of the Bible should be obeyed and which should be regarded as metaphors or products of ancient thinking But that's a whole other thread.
Source? And can you show evidence that it was the work of the "gay agenda" that produced this result and not something else?
Straight people get AIDS too. Maybe it's more to do with protecting people with AIDS from discrimination. But I'm not up with US state insurance laws - or with the policies of individual insurance companies (surely they get a say in who they screen and for what). Regardless, it sounds pretty tenuous.
The AIDS screening legislation is to counter the misinformation around that AIDS can be caught as easily as a cold, and because HIV is no longer an imminent life-threatening disease - you can live a full life even if you are HIV+. Employers, it has been demonstrated, will not hire HIV+ people. If they're able to distinguish them, anyway. The legislation attempts to prevent that.
The legislation also addresses the problem of healthcare companies refusing to give insurance to AIDS sufferers. Unlike the UK, where being a citizen automatically entitles you to equal healthcare even if you're HIV+, the Medicare provision in the US is significantly deficient in comparison and you can be turned down. Unlike insuring a car, where if you can't afford to insure your Ferrari you sell it or don't buy it in the first instance, in life you can't trade in your terminally ill one for a healthy body.
I am a "strong Christian" and I am all for gay rights and marriage...I know, I know, I don't fit into some (leftists) templates of stereotypes regarding Christianity. Sorry, you'll have to judge me as an individual.
One cannot say "God hates fags", because God does not. God loves everyone equally, as he sent his only son to Earth for this reason. A gay man or woman is no more a sinner than I am, and I myself cannot use the procreation argument because my wife and I (who is atheist) chose not to have children.
To say "God hates fags" puts a person in the same league as the a-holes who warped the word from the Koran for their own selfish means.
As far as laws concerning gay marriage, that is a toughie for me. Should it be federally mandated? The Libertarian in me says no, because on general principle I feel that the federal government should butt out of these kind of laws, and leave it to the people of individual states to decide; in other words less government interference.
On the other hand, should it be deemed as a universal civil right, like laws passed for women and minorities?
To throw in my two cents, marriage should simply be a right available to any two adults. It shouldn't be an argument about special treatment, it shouldn't have to be legislated for or against per se, it should simply be a universal right, just like voting. It's the 21st century for crying out loud. It's time to end this medieval discrimination. Some people in this world are way too concerned about who other people love and how they have sex, and way too unconcerned about their basic rights as human beings and fellow citizens.
It used to be illegal for blacks & whites to marry; it used to be illegal for blacks to ride the front of the bus or vote or hold office or own property; it used to be illegal for women to vote or hold office or own property; it used to be okay to buy & sell other human beings like livestock and lynch them at picnics - hell, it even used to be illegal to be gay in the first place, and what happened? Inevitable social progression happened. Anyone voting Yes on Prop 8 is merely delaying the inevitable and wasting their time & effort. Humans have an innate desire for justice and free societies inevitably follow that desire.
But that's a whole other thread.