California to De-Legalize Gay Marriage

druscilla; smiles.:

As for the "it can't" statement, I am completely and utterly offended and disgusted. If marriage works so fucking well for heterosexual couples, why do fifty percent of them end in divorce?

I'm pretty sure she would have been utterly offended and disgusted by you calling her beliefs absurd and bullshit, too.

Also, just some three-second research into gay marriage divorce rates:

Sweden had 1526 gay partnerships between 1995 and 2002.
The Institute for Marriage and Public Policy did a survey in Sweden: Gay male couples were 50% more likely to divorce within an eight-year period than heterosexual couples.
Lesbian couples, 167% more likely.

Maybe they're bad statistics, maybe the reserch is biased. To be frank, I haven't checked.

Just to ask, how accurate a statistic is the "50% of marriages end in divorce"?

Sheepy:

druscilla; smiles.:

As for the "it can't" statement, I am completely and utterly offended and disgusted. If marriage works so fucking well for heterosexual couples, why do fifty percent of them end in divorce?

I'm pretty sure she would have been utterly offended and disgusted by you calling her beliefs absurd and bullshit, too.

Also, just some three-second research into gay marriage divorce rates:

Sweden had 1526 gay partnerships between 1995 and 2002.
The Institute for Marriage and Public Policy did a survey in Sweden: Gay male couples were 50% more likely to divorce within an eight-year period than heterosexual couples.
Lesbian couples, 167% more likely.

Maybe they're bad statistics, maybe the reserch is biased. To be frank, I haven't checked.

Just to ask, how accurate a statistic is the "50% of marriages end in divorce"?

Personally, I think that sexual orientation has nothing to do with divorce.
I think it's based on the people who marry.
Then again, there's a valid argument that if the couple faces prejudice their relationship could deteriorate quite a bit.

Lestat:

Marriage can be just religious.

In the U.S., however it is not.
And if it is, it is not recognized by the government.

Lestat:

I don't mind people challenging my views once in a while, but to have them be called "bullshit" and "absurd" was uncalled for.

I want to clarify that I was not calling your views "bullshit" and "absurd".
I was calling the idea of marriage being strictly a Christian sacrament as such.
It is an idea that lots of people leap upon. They believe that marriage was started as a Christian sacrament when it was not.
That was the idea I calling those things.
Not your opinions. Just that idea in general.
I reread what I posted just to make sure that I phrased it the way and I wanted to and I did, but I understand that it was taken in a different way.
I did not call your opinions/views those words, rather the "fact" that America has come to accept marriage being a Christian sacrament.
I'm sorry it was misunderstood.

It is absolutely ridiculous. I CANNOT BELIEVE that the people of California would be so shallow and narrowminded as to force a couple who love each other to divorce. It's disgusting. I thought Prop 8 was the limit, but my God they just keep out doing themselves. And this from the state that brought us Harvey Milk. I have no words.

Lestat:

finksgirl:

I think that the US governement should legalize it but churches have the right on whether or not to wed homosexual couple or acknowledge it as it is part of their faith.

Though legally, they should be married, there's no reason not to.

That's actually quite a good way to look at it, I guess. I'm sorry I wasn't more open minded before. . .

Perfect Teeth:

Marriage isn't religious. Marriage is societal.

I just want to pick up on that last line, because I think it's a little bit of an assumption.

Wikipedia:

"Marriage is an institution in which interpersonal relationships (usually intimate and sexual) are acknowledged by the state, by religious authority, or by both."

The quote pretty much says how I see marriage.

And to your question (which I forgot to quote), I woudn't ban anyone from marrying, although it was a good question. But I think finksgirl's idea was pretty good: "The US governement should legalize it but churches have the right on whether or not to wed homosexual couples or acknowledge it as it is part of their faith."

I'm glad you like my opinion.
But again, even in the quote you've presented it states "by the state, by religious authority, or both."

That US government should just legalize it and give the church's the option of acknowledging it.

I do remember though that back in the 50s interracial marriage was illegal because of the religious debate as well. They thought that the bible was against interracial marriages but of course, we now see that as a completely ridiculous thought.
I'm just waiting for the point in time where the public will realize how ridiculous this debate is and fix it.

druscilla; fiction.:

Lestat:

Marriage can be just religious.

In the U.S., however it is not.
And if it is, it is not recognized by the government.

I don't live in the US, I live in Britain.
I'm not sure how much of a difference that makes.

Lestat:

druscilla; fiction.:

Lestat:

Marriage can be just religious.

In the U.S., however it is not.
And if it is, it is not recognized by the government.

I don't live in the US, I live in Britain.
I'm not sure how much of a difference that makes.

It's similar.
Arguably Christianity has less of an influence in Britain. Which is very paradoxical, because the separation of Church and State technically doesn't exist. We have an Established church and a state religion. America has none of those things. Yet we're more secular; Christianity has less of an influence on everyday life and in terms of politics, it's not even really 'acceptable' for a British politician to hold Christian beliefs.

This is probably why we have civil partnerships and America doesn't, yet. If you remember, when the Civil Partnership Act was passed, the Conservative party supported it. And I know the term 'conservative' doesn't strictly mean the same thing, but still, I think that's a difference between what would happen here and what would happen in America.

So in some ways the attitudes to religion and marriage differ.

^ On the same note:

Although over half of our nation is Christian, only around 7% actually go to organized religion.

Although we have "Christian Coalition" style political parties, they are very much a minority group - moreso than the Socialist party or even the Screaming Lunatic Party-esque groups.

I'm just mad that people are still getting discriminated against like that. I mean, you can think all you want about how much you hate gays getting the right to marry when your bible says it a 'sin' but making a LAW against it? That just makes me think of the black codes and Jim Crowe laws where they made rights resticting blacks. Wasn't it the christan's that disagreed with them? Isn't dicriminated against people because of race or religon a sin? Well then why are they doing it now? Shouldn't they believe that it doesn't matter who you love, you should still have the same rights as everyone else? I believe being able to marry who you want is not something the government should be involed in let alone setting laws against it. Thats all i have to say about this issue. It just makes me SO mad.

I'm just mad that people are still getting discriminated against like that. I mean, you can think all you want about how much you hate gays getting the right to marry when your bible says it a 'sin' but making a LAW against it? That just makes me think of the black codes and Jim Crowe laws where they made rights resticting blacks. Wasn't it the christan's that disagreed with them? Isn't dicriminated against people because of race or religon a sin? Well then why are they doing it now? Shouldn't they believe that it doesn't matter who you love, you should still have the same rights as everyone else? I believe being able to marry who you want is not something the government should be involed in let alone setting laws against it. Thats all i have to say about this issue. It just makes me SO mad.

California is apparently going to make gay marriage illegal, but not going to force the couples to divorce. My mother read it to me in an article today.

I really am for gay marriage. It’s not right to discriminate against people like that. Especially since it’s who they are and not something they can control. It’s practically like before the Civil Rights movement in America. It says in the Constitution No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. I know this doesn’t affect anyone other than people in America but still. I just don’t get why people can think that you can’t discriminate against race but you can against sexual orientation. I don’t mean to be rude but I just find it ridiculous.

^ We discussed this in English, oddly enough.

1. It can be hidden. Race cannot.
2. Most people see it as a "choice". For some it will be, for others it won't. Depends.

The Doctor:

^ We discussed this in English, oddly enough.

1. It can be hidden. Race cannot.

You can also hide your gender.
Is sexism okay?

I believe it should be legal everwhere, regardless of religious opinions. Can you prove that your religion is correct? No, you can't. So why should religions control the laws?

Quote

Religion: A specific fundamental set of beliefs and practices generally agreed upon by a number of persons or sects: the Christian religion; the Buddhist religion.

So, if I decided to make up my own religion and got a couple hundred thousand followers then I could have my own religion?

It hurts to know that if my mum wanted to get married she can't. The right of marriage has been taken away from her, and all other homosexuals, because some people are just too damn selfish. If christians, catholics or whatever have an issue with it then they should keep it to themselves.

I'm pretty damn sure that if the right of marriage was taken away from anyone then they'd be pretty mad. What is so wrong with two men or women getting married anyway?

Someone, anyone, give me reasons as to why it's so wrong.

druscilla; undone.:

The Doctor:

^ We discussed this in English, oddly enough.

1. It can be hidden. Race cannot.

You can also hide your gender.
Is sexism okay?

It's a bit more diffcult to hide your sex than to hide your sexual orientation.

and I never said that it wasn't wrong. I was just commenting that people seem to think that laughing at homosexuality is okay - I mean, Horne and Corden are really quite awful at that - but other crap, not so much. I won't say it doesn't really happen because it does but it seems to be more socially acceptable to be all camp for a laugh than to - say - 'black up' for a laugh.

Racism is a crime. Sexism is a crime.
Why is Homophobia not a crime?

How dare someone deny a couple who are innocently in love the right to getting married?

Lady Lazarus:

Racism is a crime. Sexism is a crime.
Why is Homophobia not a crime?

All three are classed as hate crimes under UK law.
Of course, only if you act on them and actually commit a crime motivated by this hate. There would be no way of punishing someone just because they don't like or accept gay people; similarly, this is why the BNP still exist when they are a racist political party.
Racism, homopobia and sexism aren't in themselves crimes, they are states of minds or attitudes. When you start putting those attitudes into practice, this is when you commit a crime.

Ok so I didn't quite put my point across properly.
What I meant it, when someone is Racist toward somebody, either shouting insults or physically acting on their hate, the newspapers and everyone make a big fuss. But you never really hear about people being beat up for being gay, even though it happens alot. I just don't think it's right.

People chose their religious beliefs. And people choose their sexual preferences.