California Gay Marriage Ban Lifted

[kickyourass]

Ok just a question why is it that an ENGLISH news orginization is running this story before of an American one does, when this is happening in AMERICA? It doesn't invalidate it I just find it odd that the Guardian, a newspaper that TO MY KNOWLEDGE is not printed outside of the UK, is running a story that does not involve the UK in anyway (At least that I am aware of).

Any OT, almost everything I was going to say has already been said by this guy below (And probably many others) so I'll just quote him and say that this was a triumph on the part of the judge.

Ahh its a dark day for democracy.
Even worse since this already happened and Prop 8 had to come along to fix it.

yeah, that whole defence of the constitution thing, real bad news for democracy.

-m

I am assuming you mean this as sarcasm but the simple fact is that the constitution is bad news for democracy. The people voted against gay marriage. Lets not forget that the constitution also makes it legal for news stations to tell straight out lies.

No, a ruling that the FCC did not have sufficient regulatory authority to prevent news stations from telling outright lies makes it legal for news stations to tell straight out lies. (a claim which itself is only half true).

----------------

point 1: The US is a republic, not a democracy. A republic being a representative deomcracy - the basis of which is that representatives act in the interest of their constituents, not necessarily according to their wishes.

point 2: go read up on tyranny of the majority. Just because an idea is popular doesn't make it just or right.

point 3: the constitution is held as the basic operating rules for all of american democratic process. Without it (and defense of it against misguided and prohibited populist action) your democracy is meaningless - it is but a dictatorship of the many.

-m

 

[HyenaThePirate]

Score one for people who AREN'T biggots. Maybe 100 years from now, the United States will be up to date with the rest of the world. Probably not, if Fox News watchers continue reproducing.

Oh, the rest of the world doesn't have bigots? Really?
How many nations outside of Africa have had a black LEADER or Prime Minister? England? France? The Netherlands? Canada?
How long until we see a black or gay (or black AND gay) Doctor Who or James Bond?

Don't go around accusing other countries of being backwards about things unless your own country is a shining beacon of civilization. TO which, there aren't ANY.

I'm from the United States. And while I agree there are bigots in other countries, (I never said there wasn't) America is still a backwards-thinking nation.

Not at all really.. IN fact, I'd argue that the rest of the world could take a lesson from us. You see, I think the reason these things are so noticeable is because WE push the dialogue forward, mainly because we have the freedoms that allow it. Is anyone aware of the British, Mexican, French, German, or Canadian laws on homosexual marriage, etc? I'm sure each of those nations has a policy or majority belief, but the thing is, it isn't as widely discussed as it seems things are in America. Of course, this is merely my own perspective as I live in America and am not exposed to the internal news and politics of other nations... yet they seem to be greatly exposed to ours.. Many internet forums seem to be discussing a plethora of American issues and topics, but I see precious few about Britain's social reform issues, etc.

Want an eye opener? Go look at France's public opinion and laws regarding interracial marriages... You might find them surprising.

 

[Broken Blade]

To be fair, Nine and Ten were basically bisexual, or as much as the Doctor can be.

"Basically" denotes an assumption. While the possibility of bisexuality in the Doctor (more so the Ninth than Tenth) might have been hinted at from time to time especially with the inclusion of Captain Jack, it was left largely open to the interpretation by the individual viewer. Some could simply dismiss it as the Doctor is an extremely tolerant and peaceful being or even above base human concepts as bisexuality or for that matter inter-species sexuality. But no where does it clearly demonstrate the Doctor as having any other sexual orientation beyond heterosexual, considering the suggestion that the Doctor was married to River Song at some point and that whole "love thing" with Rose and Doctor Jane.

Actually, I've always checked the Doctor as "not interested," but that's just me. Him and River? I dunno. River said that Amy was "very close" calling the two of them married, implying that there's something more there. But this is a topic for the Doctor Who thread, I suspect, and yes, they never did just come out and call him bi or omni or whatever.

Not to draw a comparison, but if a close friend of yours admitted that they loved "little girls", and by "little" they meant 12 or 13, you would be accepting of that? You wouldn't change anything about how you associate with that person? After all, it is that friend's sexual preference right? It might seem like a far-out argument, but in many people's minds the two situations are not different at all.

My usual argument in these places is that the "little girls" aren't really able to make an informed decision about the relationship, so it's wrong. But yeah, a lot of people would make that argument, if only to horrify people who aren't well informed. Or because they genuinely believe it, and I don't know which of those two is worse.

What constitutes an "informed decision"? From what I see in society, it looks like these kids are having more sex than I am! And I'm not certain what an informed decision about sex is and how it is made by anyone at ANY age... certainly plenty of "adults" have vastly different opinions and philosophies on the subject. And if you look or ask around, you'll find plenty of gay or homosexual people who will testify that they knew sexually they were gay at young ages leading to the argument that they are "born" that way, so it really depends on one's point of view. The entire discussion to be honest is completely subjective, accept for the part that gays, along with everyone else, have the right to all the priviledges and freedoms of everyone else.. and that people also have the right to dislike anyone that they very well please for just about any reason they very well please. Those are the only two immutable facts in the entire discussion.

But that is the problem with "freedom" isnt it? Because your freedom only extends so far until it interferes with someone else's concept of freedom. Then we have problems.

Yeah? welcome to the real world. It's all nice and good to make fancy arguments and talk about morality and that stuff, but once you add humans into the argument it just gets messy. :\ It's all very depressing.

And yeah, the stories about this fourteen and fifteen year olds or younger having sex? I mean, there's just something wrong about that. I think that at that age you're generally not educated or wise enough to be able to make that choice properly, but admittedly if we made wisdom a requirement for sex the human race might be on the verge of extinction.

 

[Firia]

This step forward is HUGE!! I'm a gay woman, and while Marriage isn't in my cards for some many years (at least 4 more), I'd like to think that a Union Of Equals is somewhere in my future. That the legal code of the country won't restrict my rights to be legally be recognized with my future partner. If we have children, I want legal rights that hetrosexual couples enjoy. If one of us is injured, I want visitation rights as family.

I want equal rights, and California, today, is moving forward that end. I hope soon that it's something that all of America can be on the same page with.

 

[Jindrak]

Side Note: The judicial-activist in this case was appointed by this guy:

That's right, Mr. Reagan appointed a crazy activist judge. Cognitive dissonance, go! (Though that is me presuming this forum has republican readers)

Though allowing gay marriage is the Conservative view in a literal standpoint. Taking the belief that the Government should not be given the power to determine your private relationship life.
True Conservatives: Pro Marijuana Legalization, Pro Gay Marriage, Pro Gun Rights and Anti-Death Penalty.
I'll never understand the republican viewpoint that the government should only rule our private life and not rule the economy. If anything the economy is the only place they have business. Never ever ever in interfering with personal situations such as their bedroom antics.

 

[Decabo]

Score one for people who AREN'T biggots. Maybe 100 years from now, the United States will be up to date with the rest of the world. Probably not, if Fox News watchers continue reproducing.

Oh, the rest of the world doesn't have bigots? Really?
How many nations outside of Africa have had a black LEADER or Prime Minister? England? France? The Netherlands? Canada?
How long until we see a black or gay (or black AND gay) Doctor Who or James Bond?

Don't go around accusing other countries of being backwards about things unless your own country is a shining beacon of civilization. TO which, there aren't ANY.

I'm from the United States. And while I agree there are bigots in other countries, (I never said there wasn't) America is still a backwards-thinking nation.

Not at all really.. IN fact, I'd argue that the rest of the world could take a lesson from us. You see, I think the reason these things are so noticeable is because WE push the dialogue forward, mainly because we have the freedoms that allow it. Is anyone aware of the British, Mexican, French, German, or Canadian laws on homosexual marriage, etc? I'm sure each of those nations has a policy or majority belief, but the thing is, it isn't as widely discussed as it seems things are in America. Of course, this is merely my own perspective as I live in America and am not exposed to the internal news and politics of other nations... yet they seem to be greatly exposed to ours.. Many internet forums seem to be discussing a plethora of American issues and topics, but I see precious few about Britain's social reform issues, etc.

Want an eye opener? Go look at France's public opinion and laws regarding interracial marriages... You might find them surprising.

The fact that you think more countries need to be like America is pretty much the arrogance of Americans in a nutshell.

I don't really feel like talking about this, I'll just be happy that sensibility prevailed this time.

 

[Thedayrecker]

i greatly aproove. i think that all the states should legalize it.

Hermes Conrad: Ya mon! You gatta legalize it!
Amy Wong: We're talking about (gay) marriage.
Hermes Conrad: We're talking about a lot of things.

hehe

You win sir

 

[Oilerfan92]

I only have 2 words for anti-gays.

[HEADING=1]Freddy. Mercury.[/HEADING]

OT:My gay best friend squeed from this news. I would too but apparently straight men can't..

>_>
<_<

SQUEE!

Checkmate. If Freddy Mercury isn't enough proof that gays can offer things to society they you truly are bigots

Whether or not you're being sarcastic doesn't bug me. I just use Freddy Mercury in every gay conversation.

What ? I. Serious. Freddy was one of the greatest lead singers of all time. And it disproved the theory that gay people are pedophiles that hang around elementary schools trying to kidnap kids.

 

[Jindrak]

How long until we see a black or gay (or black AND gay) Doctor Who or James Bond?

And that is just pure stupidity. Why would The Doctor or James Bond suddenly change colour and sexuality? Does not happen. Might as well ask why not a female Doctor or Bond. Hell, why not have a female, bisexual, crippled Sherlock Holmes with downs syndrome while we are at it.
They are set characters and it would make absolutely no sense to change them just to appeal to fools trying to make a weak point.

But one day, ONE DAY, he WILL be a ginger.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

How many nations outside of Africa have had a black LEADER or Prime Minister? England? France? The Netherlands? Canada?

And you choose primarily white countries to pick at. Yes, they may not have had a black leader, mainly because the sheer number of their citizens are white. Be like saying that Japan does not have a non asian leader...

Ah, but there in lies the rub.. you see, homosexuality in America is a self-professed Minority. A minority demanding equal treatment. Japan, and other non-black nations, might be homogeneous, but they DO have citizens of other races that constitute a minority. So what we have is the same situation, different scenario.. does a small African population in Japan have the right to demand representation in Government simply because to do otherwise would be unfair? Homosexuality is a small minority comparitivly yet they are doing that exact thing, demanding (perhaps rightfully so) equal treatment, even though in THIS case, the MAJORITY has deemed to deny them that right.

The fact that I used race in my suggested example is immaterial. The point is that nobody is perfect and NO country can claim to be any more progressive than any other when it comes down to it on social issues. There is no perfect nation.. some just are better on SOME issues while worse in others. Hell, from a certain perspective, America is light years ahead in the homosexuality issue than some Middle Eastern nations and some African nations and China.
All about perspective...

How long until we see a black or gay (or black AND gay) Doctor Who or James Bond?

And that is just pure stupidity. Why would The Doctor or James Bond suddenly change colour and sexuality? Does not happen. Might as well ask why not a female Doctor or Bond. Hell, why not have a female, bisexual, crippled Sherlock Holmes with downs syndrome while we are at it.
They are set characters and it would make absolutely no sense to change them just to appeal to fools trying to make a weak point.[/quote]

Not so silly to be honest... Bond has changed imaged vastly over the years, from tall blondy guys to raven haired stocky dudes. I do agree since the character of Bond had been written with a specific description in the source material, it would be somewhat unlikely that they would ever deviate from that. But ultimately, he is a "character".. he can be written and portrayed any way the writer and director want.. Why do you think it would detract from the series if a black man was cast instead, say Denzel Washington or Samuel Jackson? Honestly it's just hiding behind an even weaker argument to counter a weak argument.

Hell, Doctor WHO would have it even easier, since the Doctor changes his entire appearance from time to time when he dies... there was never any stated convention that declared that the Doctor could only transform into some other type of "white male". Hell he doesnt even have to technically have the same accent, since he is a Gallifreyan, not British.

 

[Grand_Arcana]

To add on to my other point.

You are born gay, it's not a choice. The makeup of the brain determines sexuality and seen as the human body is designed to survie and reproduce as Darwin says, then it's a disorder that impairs the bodies goals and thus it's as much as a disability as been blind.

Well, in that case I don't see the problem. If the makeup of the brain prevents them from passing on their genes to the next generation, then their genes are unfit to exist. Thus, they are doing the gene pool a favor, and there's no need to get in a tizzy about it. They'll die along with their genes, no harm done.

Even so, we shouldn't discriminate against them. Homosexuality in and of itself is no more destructive to their lives or the lives of others than being Black prior to the 1960's i.e. any grief that their sexuality gives them is a result of those that are intolerant of them. As such, it can't be called a mental illness, or even a personality disorder. It's what they were born as and "curing" them would be impossible unless we were to rearrange the DNA sequence in every cell in his or her body.

 

[crudus]

Basically, a judge found the ban was unconstitutional.

That is all that has happened. The ban is still in effect and in a year or so it will go to the U.S. supreme court and be repealed. I do agree it is a good thing and a step in the right direction.

 

[Sovvolf]

Not at all really.. IN fact, I'd argue that the rest of the world could take a lesson from us. You see, I think the reason these things are so noticeable is because WE push the dialogue forward, mainly because we have the freedoms that allow it.

Well, most other countries have the exact same freedoms... If not being free'er. Again with the homosexuality laws... in America, you still have states where it's abolished and such. Here in Britain..it's been completely legal for years now. It's not that you push things. It's because your a leading power and your own country doesn't often concern it self with the dealings of others.

A lot of people out side America (Even quite a few in your country too) scoff at the idea that America still feels it's the only free country out there. When really it seems pretty restrictive. There's a lot of restrictions depending on what state you live in. In some states, if your an homosexual, you aren't even free to marry.

Is anyone aware of the British, Mexican, French, German, or Canadian laws on homosexual marriage, etc? I'm sure each of those nations has a policy or majority belief, but the thing is, it isn't as widely discussed as it seems things are in America.

Most are aware of how it is in Britain... it's not widely discussed because there's nothing to discuss. It's a legal act over here. In some places in America... It isn't. So that makes news because it's controversial and good news.

Many internet forums seem to be discussing a plethora of American issues and topics, but I see precious few about Britain's social reform issues, etc.

Well the escapist is constantly running news from the happenings here in Britain. Social reforms, tax issues... elections, these where reported on here.

 

[Emilin_Rose]

Two arguements against gay marriage invalidated:

Bible calls it a sin. Bible also calls shellfish a sin and says that there's no sin greater than another sin, yet no one tries to ban shellfish yet(except PETA, but their reasons are unrelated).

Argument 2: Its gross and any children raised by them will turn out messed up. 23 states in America will allow a person to marry their first cousin. This causes malformations in the children, as well as increasing the likelihood for horrible diseases like cerebral palsy and down syndrome to increase to over 50%. Where's all the support for banning First-Cousin marriages? No where. Because by their logic, and biblical logic, it's perfectly okay.

I raise a toast to the intelligent judge who looked at the proposition, realized it was perpetuated by idiots, and overturned it.

 

[Audioave10]

You are not a bigot if you believe in what Nature intended. Some of the problem here is that everyone is being selfish. What about the children? What about a real (by blood) father & Mother? What about the next generation? Do YOU know what's best for them?
"just sayin"
This is part of the argument.

 

[HyenaThePirate]

but admittedly if we made wisdom a requirement for sex the human race might be on the verge of extinction.

LOL hilarious.. thats the funniest thing I've read all week!!!

The fact that you think more countries need to be like America is pretty much the arrogance of Americans in a nutshell.

I don't really feel like talking about this, I'll just be happy that sensibility prevailed this time.

Where did I say that? Strawman argument is made of straw.
And even if I did state that, why is it acceptable that others can make such statements that America should be more like THEM, but we are not allowed to say others should be more like us? To be honest, I think we should all strive to be more like EACH OTHER, rather than one nation or the other sitting back passing moral judgment from upon high like some shining beacon of human aspiration.

Besides, I love the country I choose to live in. I also love Manchester United and Man City as a man of Manc ancestry. Should I think better of Chelsea simply because someone thinks worse of my teams? If they criticize ours, I can not criticize theirs?

Pride is a matter of perspective. Everyone has pride in something, and for that something, there is someone who disagrees with you on it and finds your 'pride in it' equally unappealing.
Thats life... You can't please all of the people all of the time, etcetera, etcetera...

 

[Fox242]

Good for them I guess. I really don't care about it. Some days I'll be against gay marraige because of the sanctity of marraige angle, while other days I just won't express my opinion and let the people in California do whatever they want. Still, I find it a bit repugnant to say that people must be "backwards" because they are against gay marriage. It just stinks of the liberal elitism that says that if you don't agree with the progressive minded "moving forward" philosophy, then you must be an inbred, cousin marryin', moronic bigot. It's tough to be politically conservative these days.

Anyway, I at least hope that gay marriage doesn't wind up having the high divorce rate that straight marraige has. Also, I have no bias against gay people so don't call me a gay basher.