U.S. Judge Overturns Proposition 8

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2010/08/04/128984764/u-s-judge-overturns-prop-8-in-ga-hey-rights-victory?ft=1&f=103943429&sc=tw&utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Always thought it would just be a matter of time until it was overturned...

Same here and personally I have no issue with gays and lesibans getting married if they choose to.

prop 8 was entirely unconstitutional so im glad it has been overturned. I think homosexuals should be allowed a civil union though instead of a traditional marriage but still be able to receive all the same benefits.

How was it unconstitutional? The courts are overstepping their bounds here and proving we have totally moved away from any sort of being a Republic.

Stender wrote:

prop 8 was entirely unconstitutional so im glad it has been overturned. I think homosexuals should be allowed a civil union though instead of a traditional marriage but still be able to receive all the same benefits.

Have to agree with you. I can understand the problems a lot of people may have with homosexuals marrying (even though I disagree with them), but prop 8 was blatant discrimination, which is of course entirely unfitting for a proper Western nation.

Please explain to me how it was discrimination? Not trying to fight here.

TheNazgul wrote:

Please explain to me how it was discrimination? Not trying to fight here.

Excluding marriage on the basis of genetic makeup seems rather discriminatory to me... Even if you believe that homosexuality is a choice (which it is not, and I'm not saying that you believe it, but I'm just using it as an example) it would be nonsense. That'd be like making marriage illegal for people that dye their hair or something...

By the way, I hope we can keep this civil. I rather enjoy a proper discussion.

Speaking of dye, I see it in simple terms, which is something comparable to: yellow cannot be blue, because yellow is not blue. But yellow can very much indeed be yellow. In this case, yellow = civil union, blue = marriage which = defined by a man + woman. No further ethical elaborates needed in a mere matter of definitions, which aren't saying (or shouldn't, at least) that A is legally superior to B and so forth. If definition is what is being debated (which seems to be the root function much of the time, and can throw many supposed cases for a loop), that seems fruitless and is another matter altogether, but generally speaking, I agree with Stender.

I have nothing against gays marrying, I do not see any reason why I should suffer alone.

Orion Crystal Ice wrote:

Speaking of dye, I see it in simple terms, which is something comparable to: yellow cannot be blue, because yellow is not blue. But yellow can very much indeed be yellow. In this case, yellow = civil union, blue = marriage which = defined by a man + woman. No further ethical elaborates needed in a mere matter of definitions, which aren't saying (or shouldn't, at least) that A is legally superior to B and so forth. If definition is what is being debated (which seems to be the root function much of the time, and can throw many supposed cases for a loop), that seems fruitless and is another matter altogether, but generally speaking, I agree with Stender.

Then you presume that definitions never change, which is of course nonsense. Definitions are never constant, which is of course the greatest hazard in defining something.

Not sure what you mean by genetic makeup but let me explain what i'm thinking. First off, i'm not for making illegal homosexual behavior. But you have to realize that all thirteen colonies and the union when it started made illegal, sodomy so it's hard to understand how it's unconstitutional. Now, having done a lot of study i've concluded some things. First off, every Western civilization has recognized what sociologists call an analytic proposition, meaning when you say marriage you know what it means. If you cut that out you now have a free for all and anyone, anywhere, will be fighting for the right to marry, say Uncle Bob and little Suzi. You might not think it will happen but there are already small pushes for such a thing.
Second, I think it will be bad for children. There are numerous studies that show children do best in a two parent family of one Dad one Mom. Of course you can bring up how that isn't happening any more but really, that's another subject and because we already do something harmful should we add more harmful influences into the picture.
Third, studies done by homosexuals themselves conclude that those who practice this have higher rates of suicide, depression and drug use. And for males, the average life span is much lower then average.

Of course you can find studies done by the GLBT community that will refute all this so you have to look with a mind that really seeks truth. I was friends with a guys who stepped out of homosexuality and he's the reason I really looked into this. He works with those that want to get out of the lifestyle and his attitude is one of letting be those who don't want to change.

Stender wrote:

prop 8 was entirely unconstitutional so im glad it has been overturned. I think homosexuals should be allowed a civil union though instead of a traditional marriage but still be able to receive all the same benefits.

My wife went and read the civil union law/statute here in Cali and they have all the same rights(medical benefits, tax breaks, etc) as hetero married folk.....

They just do not get the title..... "married"

Apparently they want the title.

chewie wrote:

Stender wrote:

prop 8 was entirely unconstitutional so im glad it has been overturned. I think homosexuals should be allowed a civil union though instead of a traditional marriage but still be able to receive all the same benefits.

My wife went and read the civil union law/statute here in Cali and they have all the same rights(medical benefits, tax breaks, etc) as hetero married folk.....

They just do not get the title..... "married"

Apparently they want the title.

That's what I thought too.

Since I'm not completely sold on investing something as energy-consuming as a debate or even a viewpoint upon total relativism, I think my reply to that would just be 'tough'. If it's respect they think will come with the title, that couldn't be more incorrect either. We just can't get to the point where we can hijack a term if we so choose. My life isn't going to end if I can't call myself a woman, a tapir, or a coffee table and it be accepted as fact. They have a separate term because it's a separate thing, it's how language works. They can even make up their own term for all I care. The rights are the rights and that's most important, beyond that, I say please decide if you really want to segregate or not and do something about it. I see nothing stopping any organization from claiming a title of their own.

It also shows a great degree of disrespect and disregard for the original term, origins of said term, and those who rightfully hold said term. People are upset all the time when genres of metal are incorrect and inaccurate. People would get upset if I said I was a Muslim but worshipped Jehovah. I can't just tell those people 'too bad' and call the belief Islam anyway simply because *I* feel like it.

I think Ellen DeGeneres is pretty.

SpectreFate wrote:

I think Ellen DeGeneres is pretty.

You and Portia De Rossi are probably the only people who can say that.

As for where I stand on this issue: In the immortal words of Ted Nugent, "you can f*ck buffalo for all I care, just don't make me watch."

I would watch. I've seen worse.

Quote :

I've seen worse.

"2 Buffalos, 1 Cup?"

I have no problems with civil unions but I think marriage ought to be between a man and a woman. I think defining these relationships as marriage opens up the door to lawsuits against those who will not perform same sex marriages.

TheNazgul wrote:

Not sure what you mean by genetic makeup but let me explain what i'm thinking. First off, i'm not for making illegal homosexual behavior. But you have to realize that all thirteen colonies and the union when it started made illegal, sodomy so it's hard to understand how it's unconstitutional. Now, having done a lot of study i've concluded some things. First off, every Western civilization has recognized what sociologists call an analytic proposition, meaning when you say marriage you know what it means. If you cut that out you now have a free for all and anyone, anywhere, will be fighting for the right to marry, say Uncle Bob and little Suzi. You might not think it will happen but there are already small pushes for such a thing.
Second, I think it will be bad for children. There are numerous studies that show children do best in a two parent family of one Dad one Mom. Of course you can bring up how that isn't happening any more but really, that's another subject and because we already do something harmful should we add more harmful influences into the picture.
Third, studies done by homosexuals themselves conclude that those who practice this have higher rates of suicide, depression and drug use. And for males, the average life span is much lower then average.

Of course you can find studies done by the GLBT community that will refute all this so you have to look with a mind that really seeks truth. I was friends with a guys who stepped out of homosexuality and he's the reason I really looked into this. He works with those that want to get out of the lifestyle and his attitude is one of letting be those who don't want to change.

I REALLY think its more in the best interest for children to just HAVE parents of some kind rather than say they must have both a real mom and dad, ask any kid that im positive that they would opt for the homosexual parents than be stuck being a ward.

I'm torn on the subject myself. I have no ill will to two members of the same sex marrying, but exact is ....umm....exact...when he says that it kind of opens a door. What if I was in love with my sister and wanted to marry her? Why can't we get married? People may have no problem with that, but that kind of extreme scenario warrants a skunk eye from me.

By the way y'all, before this turns into a Chinese fire drill, I just wanna point out that we've done this before:

http://www.heartofmetal.net/rip-f4/ca-allows-g4y-marriage-t5490.htm?highlight=marriage

In fact, I think I used the same Ted Nugent quote back then.

Fat Freddy wrote:

Quote :

I've seen worse.

"2 Buffalos, 1 Cup?"

2 buffalos, 1 spectrefate

Now that's a party!