Homosexuality

[Original Alear]

I'd argue the computer screen is perfectly natural. Just like a beaver's dam. Although that's obviously wrong according to the colloquial meaning, that's because the colloquial meaning promotes some sort of insane dichotomy between humans and the rest of nature.

Well, there are a number of animals that have gay sex, are they unnatural animals?

Also, are you really arguing that artificial = natural? If so, why do you belive that anything is not natural?

I would actually argue that beaver dams are not natural, they are imposed constructions that alter the natural flow of water.

Marriage in and of itself seems silly to me. Why should there be a legal agreement between two people who love eachother? Vows should be a private thing between one person and another. It seems to me the law has a tendency to get in the way in matters of relationships. Plus, no marriage=no messy divorce proceedings. But, since it's a well established tradition which has no forseeable decline, marriage should be allowed to everyone. If you want to potentially ruin your life with legal trouble, that's your perrogative.

Do joint accounts mean nothing to you? There are financial benefits (and downsides) to being married. If it's not reg'd by govt then how would spouses get special permission to visit each other in hospitals, etc? Additionally, a cumbersome bureaucracy around divorce makes it less likely people will get divorced on a whim. I know this may be controversial but IMO making divorce something you can't engage in easily is good for the kids involved if there are any. Please don't send too much flak my way for favoring 2 parent families, I'm not fanatical about it I promise.

and quite frankly whatever the hell the Founding Fathers might have wanted is obsolete at this point. It's time for our laws to reflect our people as opposed to discrimination.

Disagreed. There are some things we shouldn't toss out on a whim, or just to resolve one legal issue when things have worked out relatively well for so long. Constitution and bill of rights = still pretty good stuff.

EDIT-But good post SSP.

Edited August 6, 2010 by SeverIan

[Crystal Shards]

However, the original marriage was indeed between a man and a woman (Genesis Ch. 2). I believe that, according to the Bible, God intended marriage to be between a man and a woman.

Marriage was around before Christianity even existed. It was a transfer of property (in this case, the daughter became the wife). And it's not like the Bible got marriage down right anyway, in our current society's eyes; a man who raped a woman had to marry her (unless she was already betrothed), and someone who bought a woman as a slave could marry her or allow his son to marry her. So... I dunno that I'd say God really intended anything with marriage.

A marriage is a legal contract. A wedding is (generally speaking) a religious ceremony. The distinction is important due to separation of church and state. Since the church cannot interfere with government stuff, they cannot reasonably expect something that is a legal contract to be held to religion's standards. Likewise, the government cannot interfere with religious stuff (except in extreme examples that actually require religions to break a law, such as human sacrifice, destruction of property, etc.). This means that if a church does not want to wed two men, it doesn't have to. Even now there are churches who refuse to marry interracial couples. It's dumb, in my opinion, but it's their right, and should remain their right as a private institution. (Besides, a wedding is supposed to be a happy event. I wouldn't want to spend it around people who thought my love was a sin.)

[Fenrir]

and quite frankly whatever the hell the Founding Fathers might have wanted is obsolete at this point. It's time for our laws to reflect our people as opposed to discrimination.

the founding fathers of america were some of the greatest men of their time, time can change a lot but in most cases it doesn't make a brillant man totally irrelevant.(especially if he founded your country) By this train of thought, christians can say, "who gives a shit about jesus hes dead" buddhist's could say, "buddha made some nice points but its been thousands of years so lets get rid of paying attention to what he said" and so on and so forth with other religions. The point being, that america was founded on great principles, and they are still great principles.

[SSP]

Oh, I'm not dissing ALL principles. I'm dissing the principles that no longer apply to our changed society, and we should cater our decisions/laws to what applies to modern society, not outdated society.

Still, I feel bad for derailing this topic. <____<

[Crystal Shards]

Oh, I'm not dissing ALL principles. I'm dissing the principles that no longer apply to our changed society, and we should cater our decisions/laws to what applies to modern society, not outdated society.

Still, I feel bad for derailing this topic. <____<

Which principles in the Constitution no longer apply today?

[Original Alear]

Which principles in the Constitution no longer apply today?

In the words of a guy on another forum I frequent, I would like to "Add the words, "No exceptions" to the 1st Amendment". That's not what you were asking for though, I know.

Stealing the ideas from an article I googled (only the ideas I kinda liked):

-Iraq showed us something (IMO) about the power of the presidency to continue wars. It would be nice to see a point where congress could "vote away" the power of the president to wage war against another power after a period of time. Obviously this would not be subject to presidential veto :P

-Potentially create term limits for judicial appointments. I think this is a worthwhile point especially since IIRC judicial power was expanded by John Marshall after the constitution was originally written; thus we should perhaps create a counterbalance to that.

Edited August 7, 2010 by SeverIan

[Mikethfc]

Which principles in the Constitution no longer apply today?

I still don't see the need for the "right to bear arms" anymore. Especially after the numerous examples Vtech, Columbine, Derrek Bird and Raoul Moat (the last two weren't in the US but they help show how catastrophic a gun can be in the wrong hands and how easily it seems to fall into said hands.

The only benefit to it that I can think of is that it introduces a new market to the economy to help people satisfy all their murdering needs

Unfortunately because of all the loud-mouthed idiots and some of the corporations in the media that would make the daily express look legit, none of these out-dated views will be replaced any time soon.

[Original Alear]

I still don't see the need for the "right to bear arms" anymore. Especially after the numerous examples Vtech, Columbine, Derrek Bird and Raoul Moat (the last two weren't in the US but they help show how catastrophic a gun can be in the wrong hands and how easily it seems to fall into said hands.

The only benefit to it that I can think of is that it introduces a new market to the economy to help people satisfy all their murdering needs

Unfortunately because of all the loud-mouthed idiots and some of the corporations in the media that would make the daily express look legit, none of these out-dated views will be replaced any time soon.

My biggest problems with gun control are:

1: Who decides who DOES get guns? (paranoid gov't fearing concern but hey, let's keep it in perspective)

2: Revoking the 2nd amendment is not necessarily going to stop such things from occurring.

EDIT-I do think that we should look at harsher control of srs bzns firearms.

Edited August 7, 2010 by SeverIan

[Crystal Shards]

Not to derail the topic, but if you outlaw guns, only the outlaws will have guns. And judges should not have to campaign to stay or to be put back into place, as their job is not to please the people but to uphold the Constitution; that's why there are no term limits.

Anyway, back on topic: http://www.towleroad...udges-stay.html

Edited August 7, 2010 by Crystal Shards

[Parrhesia]

I still don't see the need for the "right to bear arms" anymore.

Doesn't the right to bear arms only apply to militia defending the nation?

Anyway, on-topic, it's good to see progress in this important issue. Hopefully many other states will follow suit...hopefully Australia will follow suit as well.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Agent Dale Cooper

[Original Alear]

Doesn't the right to bear arms only apply to militia defending the nation?

There's three general interpretations of the 2nd amendment, according to wikipedia but I heard of this from my bro:

-It only allows collective, not individual, ownership of weapons in order to allow the existence of a militia.

-It allows individuals belonging to the militia to own weapons.

-All individuals are allowed to own firearms.

Historically, the third interpretation has been upheld by the courts.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.

The way this reads, one could argue that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a precondition of a militia's existence and thus all people are allowed to own arms.

[Parrhesia]

There's three general interpretations of the 2nd amendment, according to wikipedia but I heard of this from my bro:

-It only allows collective, not individual, ownership of weapons in order to allow the existence of a militia.

-It allows individuals belonging to the militia to own weapons.

-All individuals are allowed to own firearms.

Historically, the third interpretation has been upheld by the courts.

The way this reads, one could argue that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a precondition of a militia's existence and thus all people are allowed to own arms.

So essentially, you can carry guns just in case an army of Natives springs from the earth and overwhelms the army. Well, that's just brilliant.

Oh well, at least I've expanded my rather pathetic knowledge of the US Constitution.

Edited August 8, 2010 by Agent Dale Cooper

[quanta]

Well considering that misleading the voting population was how Prop 8 got into existence to begin with, I don't really trust the voting population.

Dear Proposition 8 supporters – You lost because you lied

I'm not saying I trust them to do so, I'm saying it would be preferable. I also don't know if people being misled was the reason it passed in the first place. I think a lot of people really are afraid and ignorant, probably including some of the people who worked on those sort of ads. Does it count to mislead someone if you believe X and they might have been leaning towards X anyways? Well, in some cases, but that's not how I would phrase it.

Secondly, bullshit that winning in court in California says anything other than you can win in a venue where the intelligentsia are roughly as blue as possible for the U.S. A court ruling one way or the other says nothing about the logical or moral validity of your position. Believability maybe.

Thirdly, not being allowed to marry doesn't mean you are being "den[ied] the right to love" people of the same sex- or technically even that you're banned from ("protecting the ones we love"); write a living will or something, grant your significant other power of attorney in specific situations, whatever; you can workaround some things even though it happens to be bullshit that you shouldn't have to deal with in the first place although admittedly you might not get a change in your tax rate although I think in some places civil unions do- to suggest or imply that because you can't marry people means you're being denied the right to love people is patent bullshit. It might be a great line to use, but it's a pretty severe exaggeration.

Also, on a tangent, has anyone written about any legal interactions gay marriage might with laws relating to divorce, alimony, etc? Or how it might affect legal debate about these topics? As a bit of a weak example, the original legal basis for alimony as I understand it is pretty explicitly grounded in certain gender roles (although it doesn't work precisely that way anymore), so when those are lacking...

Also, speaking to Esau's point: The coming evangelical collapse

I'd think of it more as a slow decrease followed by a whimper, but that's not as dramatic. I'd also like to think the decline is due to the fact that most churches have as roughly much moral fiber per capita as I do (which is to say- not enough; at least I know that I'm not an upstanding person morally, just around average) and that in the rare cases that someone (in the church, although really this applies to any public position) has a pair (and is also not a crazy fanatical mofo who thinks that gays marrying is somehow more damaging to Christian values than the fact that 50% of heterosexuals divorce, the various pedophilia scandals in Catholicism, deadbeat dads, and the shitty way kids are sometimes treated all combined) they will promptly be gutted by both allies and enemies.

[Blasied]

I hope Australia does follow suit. Then I can get married to who I love without having to move to another country. (Now you all know a bit more about me, congratulations.)

[Original Alear]

I hope Australia does follow suit. Then I can get married to who I love without having to move to another country. (Now you all know a bit more about me, congratulations.)

*updates his copious notes on every member of Serenes Forest*

[Crystal Shards]

I'm not saying I trust them to do so, I'm saying it would be preferable. I also don't know if people being misled was the reason it passed in the first place. I think a lot of people really are afraid and ignorant, probably including some of the people who worked on those sort of ads. Does it count to mislead someone if you believe X and they might have been leaning towards X anyways? Well, in some cases, but that's not how I would phrase it.

Secondly, bullshit that winning in court in California says anything other than you can win in a venue where the intelligentsia are roughly as blue as possible for the U.S. A court ruling one way or the other says nothing about the logical or moral validity of your position. Believability maybe.

Thirdly, not being allowed to marry doesn't mean you are being "den[ied] the right to love" people of the same sex- or technically even that you're banned from ("protecting the ones we love"); write a living will or something, grant your significant other power of attorney in specific situations, whatever; you can workaround some things even though it happens to be bullshit that you shouldn't have to deal with in the first place although admittedly you might not get a change in your tax rate although I think in some places civil unions do- to suggest or imply that because you can't marry people means you're being denied the right to love people is patent bullshit. It might be a great line to use, but it's a pretty severe exaggeration.

Also, on a tangent, has anyone written about any legal interactions gay marriage might with laws relating to divorce, alimony, etc? Or how it might affect legal debate about these topics? As a bit of a weak example, the original legal basis for alimony as I understand it is pretty explicitly grounded in certain gender roles (although it doesn't work precisely that way anymore), so when those are lacking...

From what I hear a lot of people who did vote yes on Prop 8 (not necessarily most but not a few) were astounded to find out that Prop 8 took away rights instead of what they thought it was going to be: not teaching young kids about gay sex, protecting straight marriage, etc. I also heard from people who live in California that these ads played constantly--every other ad was one of these ads, on some channels. Some people still think that Prop 8 prevents gay sex from being taught to small children. So it's not entirely unheard of. It's not necessarily that these people didn't believe X anyway, but rather they were mislead to think that X was what was being prevented when really it was Y. And maybe they're afraid of/against Y too, but it only adds confusion.

Well, the judge was actually nominated by Reagan, and liberals bitched about him because he wasn't "blue enough." And they had the option of asking for another judge, to my knowledge. And if you actually read the ruling, he makes a good case. I haven't had the chance to read it all yet, due to the GRE shit, but yeah.

Actually, it makes life a lot harder. Wills are often ignored in the cases of a gay couple, even if they are in a civil union. And second parent adoption is HELL for single parents and gay couples. Up until recently many hospitals didn't even allow visitation rights for gay couples. It's not as easy as it looks without the actual legal backing of being married.

I'm not sure on your tangent. It's possible--scroll through the ruling maybe?

I'd think of it more as a slow decrease followed by a whimper, but that's not as dramatic. I'd also like to think the decline is due to the fact that most churches have as roughly much moral fiber per capita as I do (which is to say- not enough; at least I know that I'm not an upstanding person morally, just around average) and that in the rare cases that someone (in the church, although really this applies to any public position) has a pair (and is also not a crazy fanatical mofo who thinks that gays marrying is somehow more damaging to Christian values than the fact that 50% of heterosexuals divorce, the various pedophilia scandals in Catholicism, deadbeat dads, and the shitty way kids are sometimes treated all combined) they will promptly be gutted by both allies and enemies.

Agreed.

[Freohr Datia]

Thirdly, not being allowed to marry doesn't mean you are being "den[ied] the right to love" people of the same sex- or technically even that you're banned from ("protecting the ones we love"); write a living will or something, grant your significant other power of attorney in specific situations, whatever; you can workaround some things even though it happens to be bullshit that you shouldn't have to deal with in the first place although admittedly you might not get a change in your tax rate although I think in some places civil unions do- to suggest or imply that because you can't marry people means you're being denied the right to love people is patent bullshit. It might be a great line to use, but it's a pretty severe exaggeration.

I was about to say, "Yeah, this is exactly what I think!" I think they really just should be angry about how everyone is trying to put it upon themselves to decide what should be free for them and what should be locked away just because of some stupid bias.

Actually, it makes life a lot harder. Wills are often ignored in the cases of a gay couple, even if they are in a civil union. And second parent adoption is HELL for single parents and gay couples. Up until recently many hospitals didn't even allow visitation rights for gay couples. It's not as easy as it looks without the actual legal backing of being married.

Now "........ Oh...."

Well, my thoughts are, "What kind of free/united country is this?"

I personally don't see a problem with gay marriage. They are born the way they were and there's no way to change that. They can't help how they were made to feel and I think it's none of our business what individuals would want to do with their lives, and it's not up to us what they can or can't do. They should be free to do what they want and we shouldn't control they way they live. Just because several whiny babies think it's weird or wrong doesn't mean it shouldn't be allowed. And if their God is supposably against it, let Him handle it. It's not like everyone else will get in trouble because of somebody else, which means it's none of their concern and should just go on and trouble themselves with their own "wrongs." That's what I always go by. God will handle the situation himself if it is indeed what people claim to be against their religion and God (though I personally do not quite think He would punish someone for the way they were born). And those with no religion have no excuse to be against it besides the fact that it's weird in their eyes, which is a horrible excuse.

This is the suckiest thing to be voted about. That is my opinion.

[volkethereaper]

I agree with Crystal. The judge makes an excellent case, and frankly it doesn't hurt that Olson and Boies are ready to defend it all the way to the supreme court. These men are two of the top legal minds in the country, in my opinion, and they know what they're doing far better than most of us. I sincerely hope that this leads to marriage being available to everyone.

Edited August 10, 2010 by volkethereaper

[quanta]

From what I hear a lot of people who did vote yes on Prop 8 (not necessarily most but not a few) were astounded to find out that Prop 8 took away rights instead of what they thought it was going to be: not teaching young kids about gay sex, protecting straight marriage, etc. I also heard from people who live in California that these ads played constantly--every other ad was one of these ads, on some channels. Some people still think that Prop 8 prevents gay sex from being taught to small children. So it's not entirely unheard of. It's not necessarily that these people didn't believe X anyway, but rather they were mislead to think that X was what was being prevented when really it was Y. And maybe they're afraid of/against Y too, but it only adds confusion.

Interesting. My memory is fuzzy but... I didn't watch enough TV to see any ads, and there was a CA state government pamphlet (or something like that I think) with summaries (for every proposition) that should probably have been read before voting (and I got it without asking for it FOR FREE; it comes with... voter registration or something from the government. Unless Santa Barbara is just weird, I'd imagine most people got one in the mail). If you're too damn lazy to even read the half-page summary (which as I recall, was accurate), then you shouldn't be voting in the first place. Sure, the ads might add a bit of confusion, but if people are going to make stupid excuses for things that could have been solved in about 30 seconds then fuck them. Gaaahhhh... I know you're not condoning this, but Jesus Christ, it's not that hard. Nothing quite peeves me like stupidity combined with laziness. There's really no good excuse even if you didn't get the pamphlet too...

And what is protecting straight marriage other than preventing gay marriage? That's the only thing I've ever taken it to mean (in the case of political arguments or ads).

Well, the judge was actually nominated by Reagan, and liberals bitched about him because he wasn't "blue enough." And they had the option of asking for another judge, to my knowledge. And if you actually read the ruling, he makes a good case. I haven't had the chance to read it all yet, due to the GRE shit, but yeah.

My first sentence of that section was a bad choice (Although Reagan got us... Anthony Kennedy so it's hardly surprising his nominees aren't strongly conservative). It's still irrelevant to the fact that legality (court rulings) has nothing to do with being logically correct or morally right (ok, it's slightly related to logic, maybe, kind of sort of). Which I'd argue is a good thing, considering you could argue parts of the Dred Scott decision were logical (from a certain point of view) but you probably wouldn't argue that it made slavery any more morally justifiable.

It just seems like a reaaaallly bad idea to me to argue the validity of your point because you won a court case. Does losing court cases make your opponent's case more valid? Of course not. That would be insane.

Actually, it makes life a lot harder. Wills are often ignored in the cases of a gay couple, even if they are in a civil union. And second parent adoption is HELL for single parents and gay couples. Up until recently many hospitals didn't even allow visitation rights for gay couples. It's not as easy as it looks without the actual legal backing of being married.

Wills being ignored probably wouldn't be fixed by changing the marriage law anyways. Shit, if you don't want your will to be ignored in any case of contention (inheritance for example), you'll probably require reliable legal firepower after you're dead. Of course, the quote I used wasn't complaining about these things (which is my point; it is very important to give the right reasons for things even if you are right), nor does gay marriage being allowed solve these things (some of which were difficult rather than almost impossible)- not that I'm claiming anyone is under the illusion it would solve these things. I can see legal gay marriage as part of a stepping-stone strategy towards equality, but I don't think this puts me on the same page as the article, which is a much more feeling-based type of appeal. An approach I generally disagree with if you're going to get facts wrong while doing it.

[volkethereaper]

I think the whole ruling being a good case is more to justify gay marriage as a whole. anyway, one could say that it is just another arguement anyway since this thing is hardly over.

[Eltoshen]

where are all the gaybashers. i need somebody to lash out on right now. >_<

[PipForever]

where are all the gaybashers. i need somebody to lash out on right now. >_<

But isn't it comforting to know that the Fire Emblem community is such a nice group? Much nicer than the some other fan bases I know (like almost any online game nowadays, unfortunately).

Haha, as a side story about gays and Fire Emblem, I met my first boyfriend when he was dressed up as Sothe for Halloween.

We broke up when I realized that I wanted to discuss the pros and cons of using Lilina vs Lugh (or Rebecca vs Wil, Kent vs Sain, etc.), whereas all he wanted to do was go to cosplay conventions. Although I must admit some of his outfits were pretty good.

[Crystal Shards]

Interesting. My memory is fuzzy but... I didn't watch enough TV to see any ads, and there was a CA state government pamphlet (or something like that I think) with summaries (for every proposition) that should probably have been read before voting (and I got it without asking for it FOR FREE; it comes with... voter registration or something from the government. Unless Santa Barbara is just weird, I'd imagine most people got one in the mail). If you're too damn lazy to even read the half-page summary (which as I recall, was accurate), then you shouldn't be voting in the first place. Sure, the ads might add a bit of confusion, but if people are going to make stupid excuses for things that could have been solved in about 30 seconds then fuck them. Gaaahhhh... I know you're not condoning this, but Jesus Christ, it's not that hard. Nothing quite peeves me like stupidity combined with laziness. There's really no good excuse even if you didn't get the pamphlet too...

And what is protecting straight marriage other than preventing gay marriage? That's the only thing I've ever taken it to mean (in the case of political arguments or ads).

Seeing as I don't live in California, you may be correct. We've talked about the ads that I have found, so I feel no need to discuss that particular point in... well, particular, unless you feel like bringing it up here. And protecting straight marriage, to me, is stopping domestic abuse and lowering divorce rates, not preventing gays from marrying. I don't see gay marriage as a threat: gays marrying in California have no effect on my life. In fact, even if one of my good friends ended up marrying his boyfriend, it wouldn't really affect me with the exception of my feelings of happiness for them being happy. It wouldn't change the fact that I am more than likely going to marry a man. It won't prevent me from having kids (I have enough reasons to not have any as it is), and it won't encourage me to get divorced or beat any children I do have.

My first sentence of that section was a bad choice (Although Reagan got us... Anthony Kennedy so it's hardly surprising his nominees aren't strongly conservative). It's still irrelevant to the fact that legality (court rulings) has nothing to do with being logically correct or morally right (ok, it's slightly related to logic, maybe, kind of sort of). Which I'd argue is a good thing, considering you could argue parts of the Dred Scott decision were logical (from a certain point of view) but you probably wouldn't argue that it made slavery any more morally justifiable.

No, legality doesn't have anything to morality. I would agree with this.

It just seems like a reaaaallly bad idea to me to argue the validity of your point because you won a court case. Does losing court cases make your opponent's case more valid? Of course not. That would be insane.

Agreed.

Wills being ignored probably wouldn't be fixed by changing the marriage law anyways. Shit, if you don't want your will to be ignored in any case of contention (inheritance for example), you'll probably require reliable legal firepower after you're dead. Of course, the quote I used wasn't complaining about these things (which is my point; it is very important to give the right reasons for things even if you are right), nor does gay marriage being allowed solve these things (some of which were difficult rather than almost impossible)- not that I'm claiming anyone is under the illusion it would solve these things. I can see legal gay marriage as part of a stepping-stone strategy towards equality, but I don't think this puts me on the same page as the article, which is a much more feeling-based type of appeal. An approach I generally disagree with if you're going to get facts wrong while doing it.

I encourage you to watch Tying the Knot. I need to rewatch it, but it's a good example of how invalidated gay couples are in this country, even by people who openly supported their unions. While validating homosexual relationships through marriage may not in and of itself resolve legal issues regarding wills and the like, it (hopefully) is one step toward that. Overturning Prop 8 isn't going to save the world or anything, but I do honestly believe it'll be a giant step forward, toward both equality and safety for couples.

[grandjackal]

Got permission from Sirius to necropost.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39743668/?GT1=43001

Judge has ruled that "Don't Ask, Don't Tell" as unconstitutional. It is going to another court for an appeal, but for the moment? Gays and lesbians are allowed into the military. Now, the ban could be reinstated at any time and whatnot, but for now it seems recruiters cannot turn people away if they state they are homosexual.

[lolDeath]

Score negative one for people who are willing to take a bullet, but not work with gays!