California to De-Legalize Gay Marriage

Lady Lazarus:

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

People don't choose their sexual preference.
I didn't choose my sexual orientation, nor did anyone I know: gay, straight, bi, pan, asexual, whatever.

A straight marriage is a man and a woman. A gay marriage is two men, or two women.

Honestly now, where is the harm in that?

I don't understand how the government can think they can have a law saying two men or two women cannot get married. ::Ranting:

druscilla; young.:

Lady Lazarus:

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

People don't choose their sexual preference.
I didn't choose my sexual orientation, nor did anyone I know: gay, straight, bi, pan, asexual, whatever.

Ok. I suck at wording things.

Ok. SOME people DO chose to be gay or straight or bi or whatever, same as some people chose their religion.

Some people are born into a religion, and some people are born gay or straight or bi.
So my argument is why aren't they treated equally.

Lady Lazarus:

druscilla; young.:

Lady Lazarus:

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

People don't choose their sexual preference.
I didn't choose my sexual orientation, nor did anyone I know: gay, straight, bi, pan, asexual, whatever.

Ok. I suck at wording things.

Ok. SOME people DO chose to be gay or straight or bi or whatever, same as some people chose their religion.

Some people are born into a religion, and some people are born gay or straight or bi.
So my argument is why aren't they treated equally.

No one chooses their sexual preference. I understand your argument for why aren't people treated equally, people just don't choose their sexual preference.

If they did, it would be a much greater argument for the Christian right rather than people for the legalization of marriage.

Because "if someone can choose their sexual orientation, they can choose to be straight and then gay marriage isn't necessary".

Lady Lazarus:

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.

Okay, I've been thinking about this, and I know it's not directly relevant to California but I'll answer it here.
It's true to say that whilst hate crimes motivated by homophobia most definitely are illegal in the UK, it's not that common to hear of somebody being convicted for them. Whereas we do hear of racist attacks, such as the murders of Anthony Walker or Stephen Lawrence.

Now, I don't know why this is, but the only reason I can think of is that it happens less often. You say that it happens a lot - but is there any conclusive evidence to say that it happens to the same degree as racist attacks, and that the media are just ignoring it? I find that hard to believe. Why would the media do this, when I think it's safe to say that the media are far better at representing gay people then they are at representing people from ehtnic minorities. Just a thought. Because there are a fair few gay TV presenters and celebrities in the media. More than there are people from ethnic minorities, it seems to me.

I'm not necassarily saying the media ignore it. I'm just saying that, some people don't seem to think homophobia is as bad as racism, when in my opinion it is because it's someones choice or way of life, that has nothing to do with anyone else. Therefore I don't think it should be illegal to marry the person you love when you're harming nobody and just wanting to be happy.

My argument, from the beginning, was simply... I don't think de-legalization of gay marriage is fair.
There we go. Sorted. xD
I don't wanna cause anymore arguments or get too off topic. So yeh.
That's what I think, :)

Bloodraine:

Lady Lazarus:

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.

Okay, I've been thinking about this, and I know it's not directly relevant to California but I'll answer it here.
It's true to say that whilst hate crimes motivated by homophobia most definitely are illegal in the UK, it's not that common to hear of somebody being convicted for them. Whereas we do hear of racist attacks, such as the murders of Anthony Walker or Stephen Lawrence.

Now, I don't know why this is, but the only reason I can think of is that it happens less often. You say that it happens a lot - but is there any conclusive evidence to say that it happens to the same degree as racist attacks, and that the media are just ignoring it? I find that hard to believe. Why would the media do this, when I think it's safe to say that the media are far better at representing gay people then they are at representing people from ehtnic minorities. Just a thought. Because there are a fair few gay TV presenters and celebrities in the media. More than there are people from ethnic minorities, it seems to me.

There was a gay companion in the TARDIS before an ethnic minority.

Just a thought.

Captain Jack - I'll-Have-Anything-With-A-Pulse-And-A-Postcode - Harkness came before Martha Jones.

I don't count Mickey Smith since he wasn't a proper companion until Series 2.

If you think of all the 'gay' people in British Media:

Graham Norton.
Paul O'Grady.
Simon Amstell.
John Barrowman.
Elton John.
Stephen Fry.
John Sessions.

And not all of them are on late night niche shows: most of these people are presenting light entertainment shows aimed at family audiences.

So...I actually can't remember my point.

*sigh*
so now it's illegal to be gay.

To me, the government doesn't have the right to divorce couples because of their sexuality.

shotgun_symphony:

*sigh*
so now it's illegal to be gay.

That's not what they are saying.

shotgun_symphony:

*sigh*
so now it's illegal to be gay.

No. It's just illegal to marry the person you love if you happen to be gay.
Because, you know, that's so much better.

Did they give a reason for the changing law?

As I see it, the only reasons GLBT people shouldn't have same sex marraiges, is because it's a genetic dead end. As callous as that sounds, humans exist to reproduce and carry on our species, like every other organism.

I don't really see the point of marriage either. It's a religious thing, and seeing as GLBT people are going against the average religion anyways, is it really so bad to be "living in sin"?

Question though- do you need to be married to adopt/foster a child?

The Strokes:

As I see it, the only reasons GLBT people shouldn't have same sex marraiges, is because it's a genetic dead end. As callous as that sounds, humans exist to reproduce and carry on our species, like every other organism.

That doesn't sound callous so much as somewhat backwards.
I mean, by that logic, you're going to deny women who have had the menopause from getting married because they can't have children. You're going to deny infertile people from getting married. You're going to deny people like me who (shockingly) actually don't want to reproduce.
In short, marriage does not equal reproduction. Likewise, gay people can still, you know, produce children.

The Strokes:

I don't really see the point of marriage either. It's a religious thing, and seeing as GLBT people are going against the average religion anyways, is it really so bad to be "living in sin"?

And this is completely ignoring all the issues surrounding equal legal rights. But okay.
I doubt gay people really care about what the rest of the world thinks regarding them 'living in sin' (by the way, are we still in the 19th century or something?). But I think they really do care when they can't have the same legal rights as other people.

The Strokes:

Question though- do you need to be married to adopt/foster a child?

Not in the slightest.
I have no idea about America. But gay adoption is very much legal in Britain.

Bloodraine:

The Strokes:

As I see it, the only reasons GLBT people shouldn't have same sex marraiges, is because it's a genetic dead end. As callous as that sounds, humans exist to reproduce and carry on our species, like every other organism.

That doesn't sound callous so much as somewhat backwards.
I mean, by that logic, you're going to deny women who have had the menopause from getting married because they can't have children. You're going to deny infertile people from getting married. You're going to deny people like me who (shockingly) actually don't want to reproduce.
In short, marriage does not equal reproduction. Likewise, gay people can still, you know, produce children.

Two young healthy people, who are able to reproduce and of the same gender marrying/commiting to only be with only each other is a genetic dead end. They are not going to reproduce alone.

The Strokes:

I don't really see the point of marriage either. It's a religious thing, and seeing as GLBT people are going against the average religion anyways, is it really so bad to be "living in sin"?

Bloodraine:

And this is completely ignoring all the issues surrounding equal legal rights. But okay.
I doubt gay people really care about what the rest of the world thinks regarding them 'living in sin' (by the way, are we still in the 19th century or something?). But I think they really do care when they can't have the same legal rights as other people.

No, we're not in the 19th century, but millions of people live together, and have sex, without being married (which is living in sin).
Not having the same legal rights as somebody else is rather upsetting. But they have the same legal rights. Straight people aren't allowed to marry someone of the same gender either.

Bloodraine:

The Strokes:

Question though- do you need to be married to adopt/foster a child?

Not in the slightest.
I have no idea about America. But gay adoption is very much legal in Britain.

Not so much gay adoption as unmarried adoption.
As in, can a single person, or two people living together, but unmarried, adopt a child?

The Strokes:

Two young healthy people, who are able to reproduce and of the same gender marrying/commiting to only be with only each other is a genetic dead end. They are not going to reproduce alone.

So it's okay for older gay people to get married, then?
That's ageism, by the way.

The Strokes:

But they have the same legal rights.

This is incorrect. They blatantly do not.
There are certain rights that come with marriage (tax credits, next-of-kin, getting a mortgage, inheritance, access to state pension - good list here) that gay people are denied and to say they have the same rights is just...wrong.

The Strokes:

Not so much gay adoption as unmarried adoption.
As in, can a single person, or two people living together, but unmarried, adopt a child?

Yes, then can. Why do you ask?

Bloodraine:

The Strokes:

Two young healthy people, who are able to reproduce and of the same gender marrying/commiting to only be with only each other is a genetic dead end. They are not going to reproduce alone.

So it's okay for older gay people to get married, then?
That's ageism, by the way.

I never said it wasn't okay, I said I understood the logic for preventing gay marraige.
I suppose it is ageism, but I was trying to make the point that a marriage that cannot involve reproduction between two people who could reproduce if they married a different person is a genetic dead end.

Bloodraine:

The Strokes:

But they have the same legal rights.

This is incorrect. They blatantly do not.
There are certain rights that come with marriage (tax credits, next-of-kin, getting a mortgage, inheritance, access to state pension - good list here) that gay people are denied and to say they have the same rights is just...wrong.

Are they denied the right to marry someone of the opposite sex? No. They have the exact same rights as everyone else.

Bloodraine:

The Strokes:

Not so much gay adoption as unmarried adoption.
As in, can a single person, or two people living together, but unmarried, adopt a child?

Yes, then can. Why do you ask?

I'm not quite sure anymore. :think:

The Strokes:

Are they denied the right to marry someone of the opposite sex? No. They have the exact same rights as everyone else.

But they really don't. I'm sorry, but what don't you understand?
That's also a fairly ignorant statement. What good is a heterosexual marriage going to do for a homosexual person? The very idea is almost insulting.

Gay people did not have the right to:

* Benefits that are income-related will be considered in regards to joint treatment
* Tax, including inheritance tax
* Benefits from state pensions will also become a joint treatment
* The duty of providing maintenance to your partner and any children of either party
* Each party of the union will become a parental figure and thus become responsible for any children either person may have
* Inheritance in regards to an agreement of tenancy
* Domestic violence protection
* Access to compensation of fatal accidents
* Succeed to rights of tenancy
* The registration of civil partnership will have merit for the purposes of immigration
* Hospital visiting rights as next of kin
* Like traditional marriage, those that are involved in a civil partnership are exempt from being required to testify in court against one another
* Each partner has the responsibility to be assessed for child support, in the same manner as that of civil marriages
* Treatment comparable to that of a civil marriage in regards to life assurance
* Benefits that arise from Pension and Employment

They were denied all of these rights before the introduction of Civil Partnerships. This is what equality means, and that equality can only be achieved through gay marriage (or equivalent).
Explain to me how it is ethical, right, or reasonable to deny gay couples these rights, when they are granted to straight couples. Please do explain. Because I'm not sure I understand you, at all.

Bloodraine:

The Strokes:

Are they denied the right to marry someone of the opposite sex? No. They have the exact same rights as everyone else.

But they really don't. I'm sorry, but what don't you understand?
That's also a fairly ignorant statement. What good is a heterosexual marriage going to do for a homosexual person? The very idea is almost insulting.

Gay people did not have the right to:

* Benefits that are income-related will be considered in regards to joint treatment
* Tax, including inheritance tax
* Benefits from state pensions will also become a joint treatment
* The duty of providing maintenance to your partner and any children of either party
* Each party of the union will become a parental figure and thus become responsible for any children either person may have
* Inheritance in regards to an agreement of tenancy
* Domestic violence protection
* Access to compensation of fatal accidents
* Succeed to rights of tenancy
* The registration of civil partnership will have merit for the purposes of immigration
* Hospital visiting rights as next of kin
* Like traditional marriage, those that are involved in a civil partnership are exempt from being required to testify in court against one another
* Each partner has the responsibility to be assessed for child support, in the same manner as that of civil marriages
* Treatment comparable to that of a civil marriage in regards to life assurance
* Benefits that arise from Pension and Employment

They were denied all of these rights before the introduction of Civil Partnerships. This is what equality means, and that equality can only be achieved through gay marriage (or equivalent).
Explain to me how it is ethical, right, or reasonable to deny gay couples these rights, when they are granted to straight couples. Please do explain. Because I'm not sure I understand you, at all.

What I'm trying to say is that gay people cannot have same-sex marriages, yes, but neither can anyone else. They're not denied rights, they're just denied the right to marry someone who's the same sex as they are. That's the exact same as everyone else.

Your logic makes no sense to me.

Why would two straight dudes or girls get married?