Reply With Quote
As a Californian, ditto. Due to my state's reliable blueness, voting No on this hateful proposition is about 83% of the reason I'm making time to hit the polls on Tuesday.
marriage--no
civil union--yes
As a Californian, ditto. Due to my state's reliable blueness, voting No on this hateful proposition is about 83% of the reason I'm making time to hit the polls on Tuesday.
cause then who will do women's hair, or interior design?
It infuriates me
The commercials that I have to see every day disgust me. They don't even try to hide the fact that they're ignoring the civil rights issues in favor of blatant phobia.
I support gay marriage. One thing, though . . . I think states should be allowed to discriminate slightly against gays when it comes to adoption. California's Supreme Court decided that gays are a protected class under the state cons ution, thereby subjecting any discrimination against them to strict scrutiny. In effect, it is unlawful for the state of California to EVER discriminate against gays.
Put in perspective . . . discrimination based on gender is now more permissible than discrimination based on sexuality, in California. (Actually, I don't for sure what California's cons ution says about gender discrimination; I'm talking about the federal cons ution). I know, it's considered taboo to consider sexuality a choice; but to me, in some cases it is. Gender, on the other hand, is something you're born with, but the courts offer women less protection from discrimination. That doesn't seem fair.
Anyway, no to Prop 8. No to judicial activism, as well.
Shouldn't the goal, then, be to eliminate all forms of discrimination, rather than simply balance it out so that everyone is getting equally ed?
Also, I'm curious to know a) what you consider to be gender, and b) in which cases sexuality is a choice.
Like I said, I think states should be allowed to discriminate slightly against gays in adoption. So, no, I don't think all discrimination should be eliminated. A better example, maybe: I think states should be allowed to establish single-sex public universities. That's discrimination based on gender. But the Supreme Court found that such discrimination was uncons utional. What about forcing men, but not women, to register for selective service?
More fundamentally, pretty much any law classifies people or treats them differently in some way. What do you think about the drinking age being 21? That's discrimination based on age. Look, line-drawing just happens, and the courts have taken it upon themselves to interpret the cons ution as forbidding certain types of line-drawing. I guess that's fine. But each time the courts decide a new group is en led to cons utional protection, the more constrained states are in passing laws. I think we can all agree that racial discrimination is absolutely repugnant. But, gender, sexuality, age . . . I can see why discrimination may be in order from time to time.
Sorry for the long post. To answer your questions: (a) I know you're hinting at transsexuals with this question, and my answer is I don't know; 99% of people are easily classified as men or women, and it's my view that the remaining 1% should be classified depending on their, um, physical attributes; (b) sexuality can be a choice for bisexuals who choose to live as either gay or straight; thus, a bisexual man can commit to living with his boyfriend and raising a family together as gay men.
WTF? Isn't the OP continuously ranting for smaller government and other libertarian talking points? Except when it doesn't align with your bigoted views though, huh?
Are you a Mormon perchance?Re: Vote yes to Prop 8.......or at least donate.
If you want to be a , move to europe.
at Obama supporters trying to take the high road on sexism.
I... don't agree with any of this. At all.
I actually wasn't hinting at anything. I was curious as to your guidelines for determining gender -- social construct, iden y, physical structure, or something else. Your percentages are a bit off, though. There are far less than 99% of people in this country that can be easily classified as men or women in terms of iden y.
Again, I disagree, but appreciate your answer.
s are gay.
I've never understood how someone who considers himself a true libertarian, somehow who believes the government should stay out of the lives of its citizens, would promote the continued governmental imposition on marriage.
This particular issue is always a dealbreaker with me. If you oppose gay marriage, you automatically need a kick to the balls.
If you oppose gay marriage, that's gay.
I agree, but also: what would gay people think of that sentence?
If you want to be a ing moron, move to Waco.
If you want to be a , move to europe.
actually there was an interesting, disturbing article yesterday about how the good turnout for Obama may both put him in office and allow this bit of fear-filled, hateful propaganda to pass --- because of the large turnout of African-Americans.
Re . So those with different opinions then yours should go f- themselves ?
Marraige = Man and a woman. - you change the definition to suit all of you "secular progressives" and where does it stop ? Man and boy ? etc.. etc.. but then - none of you folks believe in the slippery slope.
And all of you "folks" used the same argument with interracial marriage. Progressives move societies forward and people like you simply hold them back. Congrats Mr. Anchor.
I guess we differ on what the term "move societies forward"
Natrually. Its an extreme radical opinion today that people of 2 different races should be allowed to marry. Or that we have civil rights in this country to begin with. I mean damn, the bible says a woman's role is to honor and obey her husband why the are we allowing them to vote?
Damn progressives tearing apart the fabric of our society.
Societies draw lines. It's not helpful when supporters of gay marriage just bash traditionalists by calling them bigots or idiots or that they should just themselves. You see, even supporters of gay marriage draw lines. Should 10 year olds be able to get married to one another? Surely not, and that's age discrimination. Should a brother and sister be allowed to marry each other? What about lesbian or gay siblings who want to marry each other? What about a woman who wants to marry her cat? What about a man who wants to marry a second wife?
Presently, we generally draw the line as follows: marriage is between one man and one woman, and they must be unrelated and of a certain age. This is changing in some places to include same-sex couples, as it should. But to say that any discrimination in the area of marriage is bigoted or closed-minded . . . that's just wrong. I don't think less of people simply because they show some reluctance to significantly alter an ins ution that's been around for thousands of years.
Last time I checked no one is seeking to alter religious marriage one bit. That may be an ins ution that has been around for a long time, but government marriage is far from the same ins ution in any shape or form. Much of the problem is based upon one side of the disagreement refusing to acknowledge the difference between government marriage and marriage by the church. Equality is only ensured in one of those and its the only one where equality is being sought.
Drawing the line is pretty easy, two non related consenting human adults.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
