To take part in discussions on talkSFU, please apply for membership (SFU email id required).
California Legalizes Gay Marriage - Neocons fortell doom.
If you want to be amused, check out the pathetic arm-flailing currently dominating the American right-wing news media. It's hilarious. But there are a few issues raised that annoyed me.
It's interesting, the assumption inherent in the "marriage is not a right" thing. It implies that we, as individuals, need to be given rights by the state. By contrast, the foundation of a free society is that all liberties are intrinsic rights, unless they are specifically taken away. It is not the government's place to dole out liberty, but to restrict it, and only where absolutely necessary. To talk about "giving" gays the ability to marry is to misstate the issue. The real issue is that until now California has been actively withholding their right to marry, just as it actively withholds a person's right to marry an animal. You may claim that it should continue to be withheld, but please acknowledge that that is what you are saying. To couch this move as some sort of revolutionary movement is like saying that allowing a ball to fall to the ground is to throw it downwards. No, the fundamental force is freedom, and it takes will and energy to resist its pull. Sometimes that's a justified expenditure, as with marrying an inanimate object, and sometimes it is not justified. But it's dishonest to pretend that keepings gays from marrying is the base state of a free society. It is not.
I'd also like to point out that, in 1948, when interracial marriage was first allowed in California, more than 90% of the population opposed it. The constitution of a democracy is not an issue on which we vote. The constitution of a democracy is specifically defined as the set of fundamental rules and values that are not open to interpretation based on popular opinion. If 100% of the people in US wanted to deny Jews the right to vote, this would contribute exactly nothing to any argument for a constitutional amendment to that effect.
As Canadians, we have seen that in the 5 years since 9 of the 13 of our provinces/territories legalized same-sex marriage, there has been zero impact. No positive or negative effects have been cataloged either anecdotally or statistically. This is reflected by European countries that have had legal same-sex marriage for decades. There is simply no evidence for the argument that allowing gays to marry is to the detriment of society.
I'm a pretty conservative guy, for the most part. I'm certainly not a liberal (yuck! :p). But this is one of those issues that makes me ashamed to associate with the right. It's just innane.
It's interesting, the assumption inherent in the "marriage is not a right" thing. It implies that we, as individuals, need to be given rights by the state. By contrast, the foundation of a free society is that all liberties are intrinsic rights, unless they are specifically taken away. It is not the government's place to dole out liberty, but to restrict it, and only where absolutely necessary. To talk about "giving" gays the ability to marry is to misstate the issue. The real issue is that until now California has been actively withholding their right to marry, just as it actively withholds a person's right to marry an animal. You may claim that it should continue to be withheld, but please acknowledge that that is what you are saying. To couch this move as some sort of revolutionary movement is like saying that allowing a ball to fall to the ground is to throw it downwards. No, the fundamental force is freedom, and it takes will and energy to resist its pull. Sometimes that's a justified expenditure, as with marrying an inanimate object, and sometimes it is not justified. But it's dishonest to pretend that keepings gays from marrying is the base state of a free society. It is not.
I'd also like to point out that, in 1948, when interracial marriage was first allowed in California, more than 90% of the population opposed it. The constitution of a democracy is not an issue on which we vote. The constitution of a democracy is specifically defined as the set of fundamental rules and values that are not open to interpretation based on popular opinion. If 100% of the people in US wanted to deny Jews the right to vote, this would contribute exactly nothing to any argument for a constitutional amendment to that effect.
As Canadians, we have seen that in the 5 years since 9 of the 13 of our provinces/territories legalized same-sex marriage, there has been zero impact. No positive or negative effects have been cataloged either anecdotally or statistically. This is reflected by European countries that have had legal same-sex marriage for decades. There is simply no evidence for the argument that allowing gays to marry is to the detriment of society.
I'm a pretty conservative guy, for the most part. I'm certainly not a liberal (yuck! :p). But this is one of those issues that makes me ashamed to associate with the right. It's just innane.
Comments
Did you know there are people born with penis' but with ovaries? People born with vaginas and internal testes? Then their parents get reconstructive surgery on them to become one gender, only to find out their child feels like the opposite sex never knowing what happened to them as a child.
Thats an issue you should not even touch with a ten foot pole, you should be lucky something awful like that hasnt happened to you.
As far as removing mom and dad from textbooks thats just as stupid as parents fighting to keep same sex childrens books out of libraries...you just cant just persuade people to change sexual preferences fluidly.
Anyway...I'm all for gay rights but one thing I don't understand is why gays want to get 'married' in the first place, its a religious institution that hates on them, it's stupid. I can see civil unions for legal reasons, like tax reasons etc, all the legal ramifications that heterosexual couples get to have. On top of that religion is man made, so why embrace something man made that hates on you...
but im all for people doing whatever the hell they want if it doesnt hurt anyone else, or hate against them or just general ill will in general
but you will hear it soon the religious sect will now claim all earthquakes / wild fires / drought / etc in cali are because of gay marriage / war in iraq
The public is concerned because there are a considerable number of religious fundamentalists who think gay marriage is wrong in the same way that theft and murder are wrong.
Oh, some religious people feel pity for gays cause theyre committing imaginary 'sin's and theyre going to go to hell. Is smug pity any worse than hate? Dude, give me a break, have you heard of 'hate crimes', do you know what hate crimes are, ever heard of them? Oh guess what, they're normally justified by religion.
Anyway, do you know the difference between gonadal sex, phenotypical sex and gender? If you don't then you really should go read up on it and discover that human sexuality is a lot more complex than someone choosing to be attracted to another gender. If you can read up on that and give me a good counter point I will listen.
I give up.
Do you remember a point in history when being black was sub human? The way the larger part of the religious sect considers gays cause their lifestyle isnt 'right'?
Give me some valid points and I will shut up, I'm a scholar of truth and reason, appeal to my reason.
Also as I mentioned above, go research on the gonadal sex, phenotypical sex and gender then come back and fight me with reason.
It's wrong because God says it's wrong.
God says it's wrong because it's "mis-using" sex for non-procreative purposes.
edit: yes, I know there are a myriad of objections that can be raised to that argument.
Got my fighting heels on for no reason :(
i still don't see why the state should be involved.. i mean if they were that concerned about people's marriages.. why not play matchmaker and match everyone up with their ideal half? wouldn't that solve the problem instead of banning gay marriages on the whole? the issue lies in the fact we have the right to choose who our life long partners are going to be.. a freedom to love... and whether one chooses to pursue marriage or not.. the state can't and shouldn't interfere..
If there were no legal difference between a relationship and a marriage, then the state would have no reason to be involved.
lol.. yeah and that somewhat strips/degrades (however you view it) the meaning of marriage if you take things like shared property and legal powers into consideration.. suddenly it's not just about marrying the person you love anymore... =\
Have you heard of people marrying for citizenship / green cards / visas?
Have you heard of people marrying for marriage benefits / tax reasons?
Have you heard of people getting married and divorced a week later?
Of course...straight people would never do these things and abuse the sacred instituion of marriage...its unheard of
Now true equality would allow gay people to abuse all these things as well, am I correct?
I'm bringing up the biological bases of sexuality because it is relevant.
There are people who are androgen insenstive and develop into females with fully developed female looks and features, yet have testes in their body...could you see this as a reason someone could be gender confused? Not knowing this until they realized they cant menstruate.
And lazyguy, you obviously did not fully realize my post because you clearly don't know the difference between gender, gonadal sex and phenotypical sex. As I posted there are people who are operated on as infants to become say a male, then feel like a female their entire life and find out one day from their parents that surprise! You were born a female.
The way I see it, legalization of gay marriages is halted by the church. The separation between the church and state should've been done with a long time ago. It's pathetic how an organization still have such an influence over the political system.
I guess it was insignificant he was mostly naked and in a gay cruising area of stanely park....riiiiiight
I'm sure they would have beaten any nearly naked guy they found at stanley park in the dark.
The article you refer to only says it was contentious whether or not it was a hate crime, not that it was either or not
Also, why would anyone confess to a hate crime with the stiffer penalities involved? I'm sure their confession came AFTER they had council from their lawyers as well. Further; none of them even had their story straight, sorry for the pun.
This was six years ago, there may not have been as many well publicized cases in Vancouver since, but why do young groups of guys always call people they have disdain for fags? The negative connatation came from the churches views on homosexuality. Also, cases like this don't often get lots of coverage, like people beaten up cause they are gay. Sometimes the people dont want to admit they are gay out of fear of reprisal so they just call it a beating.
[youtube]6UMP3AK5jwo[/youtube]
They are doing a disservice to the Lord. Instead of spreading the message of the love and mercy of Jesus Christ, they choose to focus solely on the consequences of a poor spiritual life. Also, these people claim that the statement "God loves everyone" is false. Bullshit! The Bible clearly says that God is love. They can't argue against that.
randomuser: THIS is hate, a KKK rally is hate, a lynching is hate, a beating is hate. Stating my beliefs in a peaceful way without making threats or accusations is not hate. also:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/hate
I could be a complete dick about this and say that you hate me for my religious views, but I won't because I'm nice. I'm sure you are nice too.
i saw that episode a long time ago, this one with julie banderas is much funnier.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=b3PyoUPcobA
IVT I do agree with you people like the phelps give people like YOU a bad name.
At the same time I'm aware not all Christians are hate mongerers.
I don't hate you either, I don't even know you. I don't respect some of your views, there is a difference. I may even loathe some of them. I would never try to deny you any rights because of your beliefs either.
My point is, your religion has caused so much bloodshed, hate, and pain in the world. It's one thing to say, I'm not a part of that radical sect of my religion. It's another thing to do something about it, which none of the catholic church seems keen on doing.
I personally feel a world without religion, would be a better off world. I say this being aware that not all religious people are bad people. I'm sure people who are religious and not bad would remain good people, and that the people who are religious and bad would have to find another reason to hate people so intensely--which I theorize would be hard to do.
IVT I believe some of your opinions are discriminatory, discrimination leads to ostracization and hate. It also futher perpetuates the possibility for hate. It's one thing for you to say you disagree with some peoples lifestyles--once you do that you acknowledge there is something *wrong* with that lifestyle. Now someone else is going to say, well he thinks its wrong too, but you know what? I'm going to go a step further and stop them.
Can you honestly tell me that christianity has not resulted in innocent people suspected of being witches, gays, and insubordinate blacks or females in being hurt or killed? Where it was socially acceptable, and where it wasnt a radical sect like the westboro baptist church?
I think there is a point where people need to own up to what their religion does, and if it does something inconsistent with it's teachings it should be stopped--but it never is. Where else did the westboro baptist church even get the idea that being gay was wrong??? Your answer is mainstream catholicism, so what mainstream catholicism has done for them? All it needed was one person to say it was wrong, and now these goes go around saying they should all die. Perfect step ladder scenario.
NO
I do appreciate your more understanding tone though :)
Just as someone from New Zealand would not like to be called Australian. Or an Irish person British. Don't mistake my semantic inconsistencies as breaks in my logic. If you would like from now on I will say: Christianity and Catholicism itll just get tiresome on my hands :(