Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
the Fet
Knackered climber
A bivy sack in the secret campground
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2008 - 05:16pm PT
|
"Do you think Homosexuality is a choice?"
No. Why would you choose to be part of a minority that is discriminated against, has hate crimes against, and all the other difficulties associated with it? People are obviously born that way.
"A tendency?"
No that's bi.
"Healthy?"
Yes, if someone is gay I imagine it would be much healthier to accept it and be gay. Fighting it leads to misery in many people, who after many years finally live as their true selves and are much happier.
Anti-gay people say 1% of people are gay. Gay advocates say 10% are gay. It's probably somewhere in the middle. So 5% of people are born attracted to the same sex. That is natural.
Is a gay couple the same as a hetero couple? No. Is it as good a family unit for raising children? On the whole no, but many gay parents are better than many straight ones.
To deny people rights and to discriminate against them is UnAmerican.
All men are created equal is one of the foundations of American government. Vote no on 8.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
primordial soup
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2008 - 05:50pm PT
|
GD-
you seem like a nice enough guy, and i do believe your heart is in the right place.
here is another take:
while you are weighing the appropriate components of the argument, perhaps you are not quite breaking it down into the same level of scrutiny or detail that some others (perhaps those whom are smarter than either of us?) have?
from the CA supreme court decision:
http://www.eqca.org/atf/cf/{34F258B3-8482-4943-91CB-08C4B0246A88}/S147999.pdf
(let me quote what i think is the important part, from the end of page 8 and into page 9):
8
Under the current
statutes, the state has not revised the name of the official family relationship for all
couples, but rather has drawn a distinction between the name for the official
family relationship of opposite-sex couples (marriage) and that for same-sex
couples (domestic partnership). One of the core elements of the right to establish
an officially recognized family that is embodied in the California constitutional
right to marry is a couple’s right to have their family relationship accorded dignity
and respect equal to that accorded other officially recognized families, and
assigning a different designation for the family relationship of same-sex couples
while reserving the historic designation of “marriage” exclusively for opposite-sex
couples poses at least a serious risk of denying the family relationship of same-sex
couples such equal dignity and respect. We therefore conclude that although the
provisions of the current domestic partnership legislation afford same-sex couples
most of the substantive elements embodied in the constitutional right to marry, the
current California statutes nonetheless must be viewed as potentially impinging
upon a same-sex couple’s constitutional right to marry under the California
Constitution.
Furthermore, the circumstance that the current California statutes assign a
different name for the official family relationship of same-sex couples as
contrasted with the name for the official family relationship of opposite-sex
couples raises constitutional concerns not only under the state constitutional right
to marry, but also under the state constitutional equal protection clause.
so you see, you are weighing constitutionally guaranteed rights (or the denial of them) vs. any other interest (such as preserving the so-called "traditional definition of marriage"), and i believe that you sir, are not adequately considering which of the two is more significant in our system of government.
i think it's just that simple, but i'd ask that, at a minimum, anyone who considers themselves to NOT be a bigot at least READ the decision of the CA supreme court (see link above).
after all-
what is there to be afraid of-
INFORMATION?
|
|
kelly slater
climber
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2008 - 05:55pm PT
|
Dirtbag,
If not being able to get married will lead them to a lifetime of misery then they shouldn't be together in the first place. Love will stay either way and not being able to get married shouldn't have an impact on their relationship (just on their taxes etc.)
VOTE YES PROP 8
keep integrity in marriage
|
|
Domingo
Trad climber
El Portal, CA
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2008 - 06:07pm PT
|
While I agree love remains, not allowing people to have civil unions makes it almost impossible to:
-Get a loan for a house/car/business, which married couples have much less trouble getting
-Adopt a child, which is much simpler for married couples regardless of the quality of their marriage
-Have joint possessions, especially since the government can repossess property that was not passed on to a direct relative. That means if I hand all my climbing gear down to my friend Chris, the government can decide whether this was lawful using almost no guidelines and take it from him
among many other things.
|
|
kelly slater
climber
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2008 - 06:15pm PT
|
Loan-many people go in on houses with friends/relatives so no problem getting a loan.
adoption-no comment
belongings-cover your ass from the government
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 28, 2008 - 06:17pm PT
|
"Dirtbag,
If not being able to get married will lead them to a lifetime of misery then they shouldn't be together in the first place. Love will stay either way and not being able to get married shouldn't have an impact on their relationship (just on their taxes etc.)
VOTE YES PROP 8
keep integrity in marriage "
Kelly, let's take a different approach. I'm assuming marraige is important to you. What if you were prohibited from being married because someone thought you weren't good enough for marriage? Sure you could still have a long term relationship, but to many couples, there is something about being married that is very important. Yet you would still be held back by others to something called a civil union. It's like saying you are a 2nd class citizen.
|
|
dirtbag
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Oct 28, 2008 - 06:19pm PT
|
BTW, I'm sure we all know many straight people who have done more to damage the integrity of marriage than homosexuals have ever done.
|
|
micronut
Trad climber
fresno, ca
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2008 - 06:20pm PT
|
Those are some good points Domingo, but getting a bank loan and adopting a child are far from being in the same zip code. We adopted last year, and are doing it again as we speak and the truth is, ALL couples should have to jump through a year of silly hoops to have a kid. Its crazy but quite an idiot filter. One thing we really need to take into account here are children. Yes, I know two loving gays can take better care of a child than a wifebeater and a coked out mom, but kids really often suffer in same gender marriages. There is some really solid social data on this one as far as childhood depression, learning disorders, anger issues, sexual identity issues, early drug use, unhealthy sexual relationships etc... It's often a rough go for these kids. In my opinion, one of the Pandora's Box issues is that of gay "families" rather than gay "married" couples without children.
|
|
Domingo
Trad climber
El Portal, CA
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2008 - 06:25pm PT
|
"Kids really often suffer in same gender marriages."
Give me your sources. I'm also curious as to whether these children suffer more because their parents are the same gender, or whether these children suffer more because they're aware of how complicated/hurtful the world is. It is hard to love a parent that the world says you should hate.
I agree that children should be the most protected, and the adoption process should be rigorous.
|
|
dirtineye
Trad climber
the south
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2008 - 07:07pm PT
|
One more time, BIGOTRY is prejudice with no knowledge of the thing you are prejudiced against.
In other words, if you know no Homosexuals, and prossibly hate them and think things like they should not be allowed to marry, THEN you are a BIGOT.
But, if yo udo know some homos, gays, queers whatever, and for some reason or other your experience with them leads you to think they are sub human and do not deserve the same rights as heterosexuals, THEN you are prejudiced, which is bad enough in itself, but you are not really a bigot, which is some ways is a bit worse than simple prejudice.
As for the claimed bit of humor in the title: "Prop. 8 Supporters-YOU SUCK!!!", I finally get it. HAHAHAHAAHAHAHA! Sorry to be sooooo sloooooowwwww
I bet a lot of them do suck, and they probably do it pretty well, although I am not intending to find out personally, LOL.
BTW, I heard recently that the bible didn't even start mentioning bad stuff about homosexuality til sometime around the King James version, which is also the one that seeks to include justification for divine right (that the KING is ruling because god wants him to, and the king is sort of the hand of god, basically). Funny how 'christians' seem to just rewrite the bible to justify whatever they want at various points in history.
|
|
Jaybro
Social climber
wuz real!
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2008 - 07:15pm PT
|
What about visiting/not being allowed to visit, a life partner in the ICU? Is a restrictive gender prejudice relevant? Does deciding that, for someone else, really put you right with your god, Kelly?
|
|
Karl Baba
Trad climber
Yosemite, Ca
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2008 - 07:22pm PT
|
Since Christianity is at the root of gay marriage resistance, it's worth considering that Jesus was not married (most disciples were) at a time when priests and rabbis didn't have a tradition of remaining single and celibate. It's not unlikely that he faced prejudice from not following the expected cultural pattern.
Then, sometime after Christianity caught on in the pagan world, it was oppressed and Christians were fed to lions and such.
Just with that history, and Christ's teaching about compassion for even sinners, should call for a "live and let live" attitude towards other groups. Let folks seeking extra righteousness practice it for themselves rather than enforcing it on others via laws.
Peace
Karl
|
|
graniteclimber
Trad climber
Nowhere
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2008 - 07:23pm PT
|
Kelly Slater: "VOTE YES PROP 8
keep integrity in marriage"
How does Prop 8 "keep integrity in marriage?"
If Proposition 8 passes will men and women in traditional marriages cheat less or get divorced less?
Will Prop 8 make them love each other more and cheat less?
|
|
ontheedgeandscaredtodeath
Trad climber
San Francisco, Ca
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2008 - 07:23pm PT
|
It's un-American to use a constitution to limit rights between individuals, regardless of what one thinks of gay marriage.
Further, restrictions like this do not withstand the test of time. See, e.g, slavery, women's voting, separate but equal, and the prohibition of alcohol. So even if it passes it will be a pyrrhic victory.
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
Arid-zona
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2008 - 07:38pm PT
|
VOTE YES ON PROP 8!! VALIDATE MY DISCOMFORT WITH HOMOSEXUALITY!
|
|
Mighty Hiker
Social climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2008 - 07:41pm PT
|
Not a thread I have much to say about. But dirtineye did mention that "I heard recently that the bible didn't even start mentioning bad stuff about homosexuality til sometime around the King James version." Which is interesting in that there is some debate in the historical community as to whether James I was bisexual. He was married and had children, but had a long history of close relationships with other men. Probably impossible now to know the truth, but still interesting.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_I_of_England
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_relationships_of_James_I_of_England
|
|
Domingo
Trad climber
El Portal, CA
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2008 - 08:01pm PT
|
Off-topic on the KJB: The King James Bible also introduced the word "Lord" as a synonym for God; this is pretty inaccurate as far as the translations from the original languages go. The only reasonable explanation for this is those in power at the time wanted to permanently relate and link God with the Kings and Lords of England.
|
|
Scott Wayland
climber
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2008 - 08:04pm PT
|
Okay, maybe one post on this sucka:
I'm especially annoyed at claims regarding the "integrity" of marriage. If Phred and Fred get married, how in any possible way does it affect my marriage--going on 15 years now? Seriously? Whatever integrity exists is in our hands, what we do day in and day out with our spouses, and no other marriage has any effect, regardless of the junk the couples may be hauling around between their legs.
What it comes down to is that Pro 8 people just don't like the idea of same sex couples--period. As a comfortably straight male, I get a little squirmy thinking about same sex couples, but that's MY problem, and not a big one at that as I have friends, colleagues and such who are most certainly in same sex relationships, one in particular who just got married. I saw the certificate. She is one of the happiest, friendliest people I know. I'm sincerely happy for her. Who are you narrow-minded jerks to deny her and her partner some happiness that--NOW GET THIS!!--that in no measurable way affects you? You just don't like the idea of it? Well big freakin' deal. Grow up. People are different.
I'm deeply bothered by the idea that a large number of people actually think Sara Palin would make a great vice president and, by extension, a president. And that's something that CAN have a real effect on my life--unlike this Adam and Steve having a little ceremony and a kiss at the end. Here's the clincher: I'm not advocating for a Constitutional ban on Caribou Barbies running for national office. Sorry, I gotta believe that Jesus would be standing with the gays on this one.
Grow the hell up people, fer cryin' out loud!
Rant off.
Continue.
Scott
|
|
Josh
Trad climber
Watsonville, CA
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2008 - 08:11pm PT
|
I'm feeling really optimistic about the way California and the country are heading. I'm sorry if you're on the other side of the fence, and are discouraged by it - I know that feels bad, having just endured that for a while. Trust in God and everything will work out! No on 8!
|
|
Gene
climber
|
|
|
Oct 28, 2008 - 08:15pm PT
|
Scott,
Who are you narrow-minded jerks to deny her and her partner some happiness...
Wouldn't spouse be a better term that partner.
GM
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!