Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

Andrew1975 wrote:
I don't see it as either really.....well exclusively either way. It's fun and it does manifest in reproduction. I also see it as an important part of human sexuality and of a loving couple, but it can also be a dirty lot of fun between two consenting adults, and it's not like we are running low on population. So I don't think that helps with the answer.

Sure, most people do, but its a question of proportion.

Though I also know a lot of people that have an irrational aversion to two dads, though strangely many of them are just fine with two moms; I suppose that's mostly titillation though.

Who cares, let em marry. It's not that great anyway.

I would happily sacrifice my right to marry a women in order to give a gay person the right to marry.
I thought the gays were more fun than that, anyway.

dogma wrote:Though I also know a lot of people that have an irrational aversion to two dads, though strangely many of them are just fine with two moms; I suppose that's mostly titillation though.

There is that, and the vague assumption that gay men will somehow molest children in their care. It's uncommon for men to work in primary schools, but an openly gay one? Never heard of one.

It's unfortunately not uncommon to see people conflating homosexuality with paedophilia.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

dogma wrote:Though I also know a lot of people that have an irrational aversion to two dads, though strangely many of them are just fine with two moms; I suppose that's mostly titillation though.

There is that, and the vague assumption that gay men will somehow molest children in their care. It's uncommon for men to work in primary schools, but an openly gay one? Never heard of one.

It's unfortunately not uncommon to see people conflating homosexuality with paedophilia.

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:
I don't see it as either really.....well exclusively either way. It's fun and it does manifest in reproduction. I also see it as an important part of human sexuality and of a loving couple, but it can also be a dirty lot of fun between two consenting adults, and it's not like we are running low on population. So I don't think that helps with the answer.

Sure, most people do, but its a question of proportion.

Though I also know a lot of people that have an irrational aversion to two dads, though strangely many of them are just fine with two moms; I suppose that's mostly titillation though.

Eh, two moms, two dads it doesn't really matter. But saying that out loud helps me think. It might have to do with some form of the ideal family (which most straight couples don't meet anyway now) because I don't think that two straight guys or two straight women should be able to adopt either. I must still be clinging on to the idea that a classic nuclear family provides a nurturing and protective environment. I waited until I was married to have children because I believe it is the responsible thing to do, that is how my parent did it.

On the other hand many of my friends came from classic nuclear families and I can't say they better off than the kids with divorced parents. Logically I think kids should go to the best home, if that is a gay home then so be it. There are plenty of bat gak crazy people that are straight......but still I don't like the idea of gay people raising kids.

So I'm back to square one. While it would be an acceptable alternative to being in an abusive or otherwise f'd up straight family. I still only see it as an alternative, and not something that should be fostered or supported.

There is that, and the vague assumption that gay men will somehow molest children in their care. It's uncommon for men to work in primary schools, but an openly gay one? Never heard of one.

It's unfortunately not uncommon to see people conflating homosexuality with paedophilia.

You know, I don't see homosexuality as a perversion like pedophilia. I see it as an alternative. An alternative that I don't choose, but I think other people should be able to. I just don't see it as something that should be held up as a standard.

Is it logical to accept something but not embrace it's acceptance? Or deep down do I just not accept it, but I don't want to admit that I am a bigoted douche?

Children pretty much bring themselves up. As long as they're fed and clothed, they'll be okay.
The "nuclear family" is itself unnatural, we're supposed to be raised by a large extended family (not nessesarily blood family).

Andrew1975 wrote:

dogma wrote:

Andrew1975 wrote:
I don't see it as either really.....well exclusively either way. It's fun and it does manifest in reproduction. I also see it as an important part of human sexuality and of a loving couple, but it can also be a dirty lot of fun between two consenting adults, and it's not like we are running low on population. So I don't think that helps with the answer.

Sure, most people do, but its a question of proportion.

Though I also know a lot of people that have an irrational aversion to two dads, though strangely many of them are just fine with two moms; I suppose that's mostly titillation though.

Eh, two moms, two dads it doesn't really matter. But saying that out loud helps me think. It might have to do with some form of the ideal family (which most straight couples don't meet anyway now) because I don't think that two straight guys or two straight women should be able to adopt either. I must still be clinging on to the idea that a classic nuclear family provides a nurturing and protective environment. I waited until I was married to have children because I believe it is the responsible thing to do, that is how my parent did it.

On the other hand many of my friends came from classic nuclear families and I can't say they better off than the kids with divorced parents. Logically I think kids should go to the best home, if that is a gay home then so be it. There are plenty of bat gak crazy people that are straight......but still I don't like the idea of gay people raising kids.

So I'm back to square one. While it would be an acceptable alternative to being in an abusive or otherwise f'd up straight family. I still only see it as an alternative, and not something that should be fostered or supported.

Don't try to "talk yourself" into something. You feel what you feel. Changes come over time and through experiences, IMHO.
At least you've made it to the point of having an open enough mind to accept Gay marriage. The rest will come, or not.

Changes come over time and through experiences, IMHO.

As is society. Even after we freed the slaves they had to wait 100 years to get equal rights on paper, another 20 for it to start becoming a reality, and to this day their descendants continue to suffer the ill effects of the practice.

Things don't change over night in our minds or the world around us.

I think it just comes from wanting to give kids the best shot in life. I made a conscious decision to not have children until I was married. People thought I was old fashioned for those ideas, but I'm not really an old fashioned guy. I just was sick of seeing unwed people at work with 5 kids from different fathers, I mean I looked at those kids and just thought "you're f'd".

Andrew1975 wrote:I think it just comes from wanting to give kids the best shot in life. I made a conscious decision to not have children until I was married. People thought I was old fashioned for
those ideas, but I'm not really an old fashioned guy. I just was sick of seeing unwed people at work with 5 kids from different fathers, I mean I looked at those kids and just thought "you're f'd".

Unless you live in a country that doesn't allow divorce, getting married is irrelavent to the child's upbringing. You can still break up, and unmarried couples stick together.

Howard A Treesong wrote:

dogma wrote:Though I also know a lot of people that have an irrational aversion to two dads, though strangely many of them are just fine with two moms; I suppose that's mostly titillation though.

There is that, and the vague assumption that gay men will somehow molest children in their care. It's uncommon for men to work in primary schools, but an openly gay one? Never heard of one.

It's unfortunately not uncommon to see people conflating homosexuality with paedophilia.

The stupidest part about that conflation is that gay couples, in order to become parents, would be subject to more safeguarding procedures than a straight couple would, simply by nature of the fact that they can't (or more accurately, are far less likely to) procreate naturally. Straight couples normally don't need a full background check to become parents (more's the pity), a gay couple wishing to adopt would.

Andrew1975 wrote:I think it just comes from wanting to give kids the best shot in life. I made a conscious decision to not have children until I was married. People thought I was old fashioned for those ideas, but I'm not really an old fashioned guy. I just was sick of seeing unwed people at work with 5 kids from different fathers, I mean I looked at those kids and just thought "you're f'd".

Yah except this is the farthest thing from the truth I have ever read (And I read Frazzleds What I want To Be When I Grow Up paper he did in 3rd grade). Most of the folks I know who are making their way in the world and leading good lives come from "broken" homes. Now if we look at the flip side I see lots of folks who just become bums living in "happy" married homes. Living without a parent is great training to become a parent yourself.

Coming from homes with two parents I have seen great kids come from being raised by two women or two men. You see when I see married couples with 5+ kids who pretend to stay happy for the "sake" of the children I think "You're f'd"

Oh god this is horrible. Not that gays are marrying im ok with that. But i now have to deal with my cousin who supported it and i who did not not shut up endlessly.
Also i live in cali.
I knew gay people growing up, their love is just as dysfunctional as a straight couple


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also the whole
"Marriage is Sacred" Is just redicoulous.
MArriage for many many years before the onset of the last century was only for survival and work. when you get an industrialized country that ability to survive without a spouse working with you brought in the new idea of "Love"
When that happend people thought the world would end...it didnt.
I mean, look at most poor third world countries, they don't marry or get together because they love each other.

I think this is good news. Any consenting adults wishing to get married should be allowed to.

Crablezworth wrote:I think this is good news. Any consenting adults wishing to get married should be allowed to.

As long as they're not related. And there's only two of them.

Of course.

I just heard an interesting debate on the issue.
1) The argument against it is that it is unconstitutional
2) It was enacted by a vote of the people, which supposedly can't be overturned by a judge because it falls outside of the normal checks and balances (not sure about this).
3) This will probably go to the Supreme Court who will decide its constitutionality, EXCEPT for my last point...
4) As it stands today, NOWHERE in the U.S. Constitution does it say ANYTHING about a right to marry.

The last point means that this will not end up as a dispute over civil liberties, but it will again fall under the most debated topic in U.S. history, federalism. For those not as well informed on the history of federalism, it is all about what powers the state and national government have. So this means we should stop fighting about if it is right or wrong (wrong IMHO), and decide once and for all if the federal Gov. or the state Gov. has the authority to regulate marriage.
If this goes through for the gay side, this opens the door for those who wish to be polygamists. If gay's have the right why shouldn't they? I think they would have to decide if state or federal Gov gets the power and, if federal, amend the Constitution so that there is a right to marry and then they can decide who gets to marry. This is what happens in a democratic-REPUBLIC. Again to those who don't know the difference between a democracy, republic and the combo, in a republic, you elect representatives to meet and make policies (which we do). Democracy is where all of the citizens have a direct vote to use in policy making, which we do ONLY if the politicians decide to let the people vote on it like in this case. So the people have cast their vote in the state of California, and they say no. It will be interesting to see how the SC rules on it.

Sopoko wrote:4) As it stands today, NOWHERE in the U.S. Constitution does it say ANYTHING about a right to marry.

And yet Anti-miscegenation laws were found unconstitutional. The Constitution doesn't specifically mention a lot of things that it covers. It would be impossible to make a document that lists every possible violation that one could foresee, not including all those that can't be predicted.

Sopoko wrote:I just heard an interesting debate on the issue.
1) The argument against it is that it is unconstitutional
2) It was enacted by a vote of the people, which supposedly can't be overturned by a judge because it falls outside of the normal checks and balances (not sure about this).
3) This will probably go to the Supreme Court who will decide its constitutionality, EXCEPT for my last point...
4) As it stands today, NOWHERE in the U.S. Constitution does it say ANYTHING about a right to marry.

I'm not trying to be rude, but wherever you heard this debate, it's tremendously ill-informed.

1) Assuming the conclusion.

2) The Constitution is the "Supreme Law of the Land," and therefore any law needs to be held to the Constitutional standard (see e.g. Marbury v. Madison, see also Rochin v. California).

3) The Supreme Court is the final arbiter on Constitutionality, like it or not.

4) The case wasn't decided on the "right to marry" (see Loving v. Virginia), but rather on the narrower Constitutional question of equal protection.

If you were to argue that this is not a case where there's an equal protection violation, I would agree with you, for a number of reasons. But the blanket argument "it's not in the Constitution" doesn't work, unless you're advocating to completely walk back Supreme Court authority to before Marbury. A discussion that I think might be interesting.

Albatross wrote:The stupidest part about that conflation is that gay couples, in order to become parents, would be subject to more safeguarding procedures than a straight couple would, simply by nature of the fact that they can't (or more accurately, are far less likely to) procreate naturally. Straight couples normally don't need a full background check to become parents (more's the pity), a gay couple wishing to adopt would.

While any idiot can have a baby or two, or seven... there's not really much we can do about that. But any couple that adopts, straight or gay, goes through a really stringent process for adoption, proving they can provide everything the kid needs in terms of finances, stability and nurturing. They don't give kids out to single parents, for instance, believing that two parents are needed.

So if it's found that kids really do need a male and a female role model, then denying gay adoption makes sense. The problem with this theory is that the evidence is mounting that kids raised by gay parents are just as healthy and happy as kids raised by straight parents, and that having one of each kind of parent doesn't impact the kid.

biccat wrote:
If you were to argue that this is not a case where there's an equal protection violation, I would agree with you, for a number of reasons.

As an honest question, what are those reasons?

To elaborate, my primary objection to the law, from my admittedly limited experience with American law, is that it effectively annuls any homosexual marriage that occurred in another state once said married couple crosses the California border; thereby denying citizens of the United States privileges that they have been granted.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
If you were to argue that this is not a case where there's an equal protection violation, I would agree with you, for a number of reasons.

As an honest question, what are those reasons?

First, the Equal Protection clause applies to individuals, not groups (or even couples). The marriage laws are equal because everyone has an equal opportunity to get married. If you don't like that choice, well, deal with it (just like you have to deal with the fact that if you want to be a Doctor, you have to go to medical school, or if you want to own a gun you have to undergo a background check). One counter to this would be that men don't have the same rights as women (they can't both marry men), but since this restriction is based on a "real difference between the sexes," it's a much more difficult case to make.

Second, even if you can establish that the law is discriminatory as to sexual orientation, laws discriminating on the basis of sexual discrimination are given the highest amount of deference. All the state has to show is that the action is reasonably related to a legitimate government function. "Creating and raising future generations" is a legitimate function of the state and encouraging people to procreate and stay together is "reasonably related" to that function.

Massachusetts, the first state to recognize gay marriage, changed the balance in their state by raising sexual orientation (sorta) to a higher classification, therefore requiring a higher level of scrutiny of the law. What we can take away from that decision is that even Massachusetts believed that laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples satisfies the rational basis level of review.

Ahtman wrote:

Sopoko wrote:4) As it stands today, NOWHERE in the U.S. Constitution does it say ANYTHING about a right to marry.

And yet Anti-miscegenation laws were found unconstitutional. The Constitution doesn't specifically mention a lot of things that it covers. It would be impossible to make a document that lists every possible violation that one could foresee, not including all those that can't be predicted.

I know it doesn't mention everything, which is one of the best things about it, it CAN be changed. We will have to see what the Court decides. Same thing for biccat, we wait and see.

Sopoko wrote:I agree that i doesn't mention everything, which is one of the best things about it, it CAN be changed. We will have to see what the Court decides. Same thing for biccat, we wait and see.

I can tell you that unless there's some major change, the 9th circuit ruling will be upheld. The 4 liberal justices will vote to overturn the law. The decision was based on Kennedy's opinion in Romer (probably intentionally, a lot of decisions get written to stroke Kennedy's ego in case they get challenged to the SCOTUS), so he's likely going to vote with the majority. Scalia might even join the majority on the basis that Romer is settled law. Heck, cert. might not even be granted if there are 6 votes against it.

Deferring to the vagueries court is, IMO, a lazy way to avoid debate, especially where the law is relatively clear. I agree that it's always possible for the court to change the law, but in this case it's especially unlikely.

The issue was spiked from the start by Judge Walker's early trial decisions. If he hadn't retired, he should have been sanctioned by the California judiciary for his actions.

dogma wrote:I love that Iowa can say "In before California!"

Iowa is a really weird place, politically. It has a strain of very strong conservatism, but also has some very strong liberal leanings (I mean that in the classical liberal sense, not the modern one). It elects both parties in an even split consistently for the last 30 years, and has powerful protections for civil rights that are unusual for the midwest (gender identity, for example). It also was an early adopter for many civil rights well before they became widely accepted.

In the 10 years I've lived here, I think the best way to sum it up is that there are a lot of religious people here of the type who prefer to keep it understated and consider fairness to be a chief virtue, and would prefer to be left the hell alone.

Ouze wrote:
In the 10 years I've lived here...

We must now duel at dawn. Your cornfields have caused me far too much pain via boredom.

I choose rapiers.

And not the 40k version.

The Pepsi King (Fraz) is my second.

awesome.
i haven't been in a duel in ages.