News Federal Judge Strikes Down Prop 8: California Gay Marriage Ban

[Ivan Seeking]

Good point, churches don't have to perform marriage ceremonies for same sex couples. So they should not get involved with legal definitions, unless they want to admit that they are a political organization and give up their tax exempt status.

BTW, I am without sin because I am without a religion that tells me so.

Yes, the church and I part ways when they try to impose their view of morality on everyone else. I understand intervention in cases of human rights violations, but simple morality arguments belong in church, not in the voting booth or state legislature.

I am a dreadful sinner. Just ask Tsu. She'll tell you all about it.

 

[Hurkyl]

I agree. I only hope you won't have to test your convictions about marriage in a court of law.

Er, okay?

 

[Evo]

Here is one of the radio ads that flooded us in 2008. Note the fear-mongering about churches losing their tax exemptions.

What amazes me is the amount of time, effort, and money that goes into a campaign against our fellow humans that could have been used to do something for people that are in need. It's this kind of activity that turns people against organized religion. When religion is used as a weapon to hurt people that they irrationally fear, I can't condone it.

I want to believe that the majority of people that consider themselves religious do not condone this sort of activity. My mother was a devout catholic and the most open minded person I've ever known. My father was an atheist and was a closed minded, racist, bigot. I could see him backing this sort of hate campaign against gays and my mother being opposed to it.

 

[ZQrn]

BTW, I am without sin because I am without a religion that tells me so.

By this logic, I am without evil if I kill a man when I do not believe killing is wrong.

The point about religious / moral dogmata is that people typically also hold you accountable even if you never said you shared the view.

Morals have all the qualities of an organized (state) religion by the way.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

True. Churches have remarkable latitude in their right of association, too. No church can be forced to be racially inclusive, for example.

I strongly suspect that this lies at the heart of many objections from the religious community. Not sure, but it may even be true to say that I have seen no exceptions: All religious people with whom I've discussed this matter seem to think churches would be required to perform gay marriages.

 

[Evo]

I keep hearing about religious involvement, but what about non-religious homophobes?

Not all religious people are homophobes!

 

[Hurkyl]

Aside: is there a word for someone who simply dislikes homosexuality? I don't buy that that phrase is synonymous with fear of homosexuality.

 

[turbo]

What amazes me is the amount of time, effort, and money that goes into a campaign against our fellow humans that could have been used to do something for people that are in need. It's this kind of activity that turns people against organized religion. When religion is used as a weapon to hurt people that they irrationally fear, I can't condone it.

The Catholic Church took up special collections and used half a million dollars to finance ads, along with another $1.9M from the National Organization for Marriage. That money could have done a lot of good work. Instead it went to pay for ads to deny gay people equitable treatment under the law.

The church also pulled funding from the Preble Street homeless shelter because the shelter didn't endorse the church's anti-gay views. At the time, the director (IIR) of the shelter explained that friction due to sexual orientation was a significant cause of homelessness in young people, but the church didn't relent, asked for previous donations to be returned and canceled future funding.

 

[ZQrn]

Aside: is there a word for someone who simply dislikes homosexuality? I don't buy that that phrase is synonymous with fear of homosexuality.

If we want to interpret it literally a 'homophobia' is simply a fear for the same thing [as some other thing] anyway. Phrases are often idiomatic and don't reduce to the sum of their parts. To begin with 'homosexual' is hardly a word, it is neither Latin nor Greek and when struck together would mean 'same-sided' or something like that. Homophile however is etymologically more sensible but would mean 'fear for the same'. Purely in Greek, a homosexual male would be called androphilos and a female gynophila probably.

I never really got why all these terms need to be Latin or Greek, because more often than not they are neither when they are invented these days.

So just say 'person that hates homosexual' or 'gayhater', just keep it English, all making all these 'technical' terms Latin or Greek is pretentious and often ends up being neither really.

The Catholic Church took up special collections and used half a million dollars to finance ads, along with another $1.9M from the National Organization for Marriage. That money could have done a lot of good work. Instead it went to pay for ads to deny gay people equitable treatment under the law.

Not at all, the money was collected explicitly for that purpose, and people gave their money explicitly for that purpose to the church, this is democracy at work I fear.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Aside: is there a word for someone who simply dislikes homosexuality? I don't buy that that phrase is synonymous with fear of homosexuality.

This is one thing that I don't think homosexuals appreciate: Some of us are simply repulsed by the notion. I think this is just as biological as is their attraction to the same sex.

This only applies to men, however. Two women together are another matter altogether. Heck, I'll pay to see that!

 

[edward]

I keep hearing about religious involvement, but what about non-religious homophobes?

Not all religious people are homophobes!

That is a good point so why are there homophobes? Is the word homophobe too strong for people who simply are following the basic instincts of nature and human survival.

The human race evolved in part based on an aversion to anything that would not allow it to thrive.

It is natural to have an aversion to any activity that does not promote reproduction. It has been built into many people along with many other aversions and instincts.

We don't all lose our basic instincts easily. My father-in-law had a stroke a few years back. His left arm was curling inward as tends to happen in stroke victims.

I had a long talk with the best physical therapist available. He explained to me about the latest science relating to the phenomena of the curling arm. He told me: "It is a basic instinct to hang on to the tree". In this case it isn't even a conscious instinct.

For many people the instincts and aversions we evolved with aren't necessarily that easily overcome by applying knowledge.

It boils down to how deeply the aversion to anything goes. Everyone is different. There are certain bodily functions that we all remain private about.

The good news is that most aversions can be over come but it does take time. I remember the first time I say my father gut a rabbit, I nearly puked. Now I can gut an animal myself with no problem.

Just my opinion , but I think that the gay community pushed too far too fast. When they mentioned marriage a lot of red flags began to fly.

This is just common sense and a bit of biology, don't expect a link.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The Catholic Church took up special collections and used half a million dollars to finance ads, along with another $1.9M from the National Organization for Marriage. That money could have done a lot of good work. Instead it went to pay for ads to deny gay people equitable treatment under the law...

I know how they justify this: They are trying to prevent the innocent from being corrupted. They are trying to save souls. They may even believe that they are trying to save the country. As you know, God recognizes borders.

 

[ZQrn]

This is one thing that I don't think homosexuals appreciate: Some of us are simply repulsed by the notion. I think this is just as biological as is their attraction to the same sex.

This only applies to men, however. Two women together are another matter altogether. Heck, I'll pay to see that!

'Biological', those are such strong words. At the moment there is little reason to assume that homosexuality or heterosexuality is anything more than 'taste', some men have a preference for blonds, some for brunettes, and some for other men. The nonexistence of this so-called 'gay gene' that people have been trying to find together with the documented existence of societies where it was extremely common seem to imply that like any other form of taste, it is subject to fashion, can be acquired, and has a nurture and nature component to it.

Homosexuality to me is as simple as being attracted to per exemple very small women, it's not extremely common, but that's all there is to it.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

'Biological', those are such strong words. At the moment there is little reason to assume that homosexuality or heterosexuality is anything more than 'taste', some men have a preference for blonds, some for brunettes, and some for other men. The nonexistence of this so-called 'gay gene' that people have been trying to find together with the documented existence of societies where it was extremely common seem to imply that like any other form of taste, it is subject to fashion, can be acquired, and has a nurture and nature component to it.

Homosexuality to me is as simple as being attracted to per exemple very small women, it's not extremely common, but that's all there is to it.

So then you are really saying that being gay is a choice. Gay men could be reconditioned to be straight.

You are essentially making the Church's argument here.

 

[Evo]

I understand that some people don't find homosexuality appealing. I don't find the thought of two 1,000 pound humans attempting to copulate appealing either, but I am not going to deny them the right to marry.

 

[lisab]

I understand that some people don't find homosexuality appealing. I don't find the thought of two 1,000 pound humans attempting to copulate appealing either, but I am not going to deny them the right to marry.

*snork*

That made me laugh

 

[vela]

So then you are really saying that being gay is a choice. Gay men could be reconditioned to be straight.

You are essentially making the Church's argument here.

Actually, the churchs' argument against gay marriage doesn't depend on whether homosexuality is a choice or not. The argument is merely: (1) marriage is sacred commitment made before their god, and (2) their god said homosexuality is wrong. To the church, it doesn't matter whether an individual was born gay or chose to be gay. It's just wrong.

 

[Math Is Hard]

I understand that some people don't find homosexuality appealing. I don't find the thought of two 1,000 pound humans attempting to copulate appealing either, but I am not going to deny them the right to marry.

Oh, thanks, Evo. I was trying to have lunch.

 

[ZQrn]

So then you are really saying that being gay is a choice. Gay men could be reconditioned to be straight.

No, I didn't say that at all.

At least, as far as I know, people don't have a 'choice' to suddenly start liking blonds if they first liked brunettes. Or suddenly consciously decide 'Hey, let's like women with a B cup instead of a D cup from now on.'

But the simply fact that there are documented societies where virtually all members were at least what they call 'bisexual' leaves it to be prima facie so that indeed, environmental factors play a role in determining the preference, just like in any other taste.

Also, there is not a passage in the bible that says that homosexuality is wrong, nor does the bible speak of homosexuality. The bible says that two men having sex is wrong and is remarkably silent about two women. And that should be seen in context because it's in the part that basically says that all forms of lust that don't lead to children are wrong. Basically the idea was that you cannot have sex for sex alone, you need to do it to breed. Of course, that implies that two men having sex is quite wrong. Two women having sex was comparatively rarer in those days. Of course, this was the old testament, the same book that tells you how many slaves you may keep and how you should punish them for disobedience and how you can hit your wife is she is not obedient et cetera.

Also, do take in mind that at the time the old testament was written, the category of 'homosexuality' didn't really exist, what existed was indeed men having sex with other men. People didn't think of 'gay' versus 'straight', at some point, guys, who most often also had a wife, just basically wanted to get it on with a guy as well. Essentially all or most men were what they today call 'bi-curious'. The view the modern west has on homosexuality, as in a category that you can neatly put people into is indeed a view that is mostly limited to the modern west.

I understand that some people don't find homosexuality appealing. I don't find the thought of two 1,000 pound humans attempting to copulate appealing either, but I am not going to deny them the right to marry.

They don't find it 'unappealing', they find it morally wrong.

It's the same principle by which drugs are banned essentially. The same principles by which incest is banned, the same reason for which pornography used to be banned, the same reason suicide is in various countries illegal and so on. People have a tendency to craft what they call 'victim-less crimes'.

 

[Evo]

They don't find it 'unappealing', they find it morally wrong.

Some may only object to it on moral grounds, but I always hear it described as being "disgusting", appalling, etc...

 

[ZQrn]

Some may only object to it on moral grounds, but I always hear it described as being "disgusting", appalling, etc...

People also describe masturbation on lolicon for instance as 'disgusting', while they find it morally wrong.

At least, we can agree on that there is a difference between 'my stomach turns over when I see it' and 'this is bad, this shouldn't happen, people shouldn't do this'.

The point is that you're facing a group of people who find two grown men having romantic love for one another as wrong on a moral level as most people find one grown man having the very same love for an eight year old boy. That's their vision on the matter.

And you could put forth 'But this isn't damaging to one party', but it is in their world, to begin with, some of them believe those men may go to hell if they die before they are 'turned', so in their world, they are actually helping them / us..

 

[vertices]

At least, we can agree on that there is a difference between 'my stomach turns over when I see it' and 'this is bad, this shouldn't happen, people shouldn't do this'.

Well many people do actually have feelings of revulsion, but there is no "biological basis" for these feelings - they arise purely from irresponsible parenting and/or people growing up in a corrosively conservative (read: homophobic) environment/society.

And ofcourse, we all know that homophobia is basically a narcissistic, male rape anxiety which itself stems from ridiculous, socially constructed gender roles...

 

[ThomasT]

I'm surprised I don't see a thread about this already up.
A federal judge struck down California's constitutional amendment banning gay marriage today.
http://www.cbc.ca/world/story/2010/08/04/california-same-sex-marriage.html
The ruling will be appealed, of course, and will likely end up in the Supreme Court. This ruling is a huge step in the right direction for equality and civil rights.

Whether one thinks it's right or wrong, it's a pretty good bet that California will have same sex marriage after all the 'legal' stuff is over.

I have never heard a single sensible argument against same-sex marriage.

Well, there are 'sensible' (as opposed to emotional or religious or strictly cultural, or whatever) arguments against it. But no really good ones these days. My opinion is that since there are so many gay people, then if we just let them be gay and treat them as human beings, then things will probably work out ok. I mean, I can sort of understand it, but then again not really identify with it. And so what? I don't really understand Christians and Muslims either, but I think they should be allowed to marry each other if they want to.

The government cannot discriminate based on gender without some compelling state interest.

The government can do anything it wants to -- if it wants to do it bad enough. But, in the case of gay marriage, there is more to be lost than to be gained by supporting a ban on it. An extremely high percentage of gays actually vote (unlike Americans on the whole, so to speak).

 

[DanP]

This is one thing that I don't think homosexuals appreciate: Some of us are simply repulsed by the notion. I think this is just as biological as is their attraction to the same sex.

This only applies to men, however. Two women together are another matter altogether. Heck, I'll pay to see that!

I don't think the repulsion it's biological at all. It's all in your head, playing games with you.

I used to hate gay ppl, man actually. To think there is nothing more repulsive than that. To make fun of gay man and taunt them in every way possible. To think they are sick and they need a cure. Weird enough at the same time I was consuming girl on girl porn with no problems, I never found 2 women involved in sex disgusting.

All this changed when I got to know gay ppl better. I realized I am in no way better than them, and they are not sick creature which need to be confined somewhere. I realized that the disgust is self induced. Eventually, I got over it and learned to accept them, and cease the taunting and the mocking, and I slowly shifted politically from a man who would deny gay anything to a supporter of their campaigns.

I still can't understand their sexual orientation and the intricacies of their sexual behavior. Its quite alien to me. But it's not required to understand. If you accept that they are healthy human beings, you can't deny them the same rights straight ppl have.

 

[Al68]

I have never heard a single sensible argument against same-sex marriage.

I have a good argument against it: Gay people have suffered enough already.

 

[ZQrn]

Well many people do actually have feelings of revulsion, but there is no "biological basis" for these feelings - they arise purely from irresponsible parenting and/or people growing up in a corrosively conservative (read: homophobic) environment/society.

Yes, so what of it? I'm just pointing out how it is from their perspective, what you need to know to successfully argue with them.

And there is hardly ever a biological basis for moral dogma. Why do we think killing is bad, slavery is bad, female oppression is bad? Because we were raised / brainwashed to believe it. Upbringing is brainwashing and there is really no way to differentiate between which morals are 'good' and which aren't without delving into 'I'm right, you're wrong'.

And to be quite fair, there is a certain evolutionary explanation slash justification for homophobia, they don't reproduce that much, but they still take up resources, if reproduction is your axiom, then expulsion of homosexuals is a consequence thereof.

Of course, it should be pointed out that modern human democracies display all the characteristics of a hive, a homosexual still has a job, with that job he fulfills a specialized purpose that serves a function in the hive that enables the heterosexuals to reproduce better. If a homosexual man is a baker, then the provides bread for young children from heterosexuals for instance. So the argument from reproduction can be refuted.

And ofcourse, we all know that homophobia is basically a narcissistic, male rape anxiety which itself stems from ridiculous, socially constructed gender roles...

Do we know this? This seems fairly speculative to me.

Is fair of paedophiles the believe that your own children are some-how so attractive that any random paedophile would develop sexual feelings for them?

Is fair of incest the narcissism that your own first degree relatives find your attractive?

I still can't understand their sexual orientation and the intricacies of their sexual behavior. Its quite alien to me. But it's not required to understand. If you accept that they are healthy human beings, you can't deny them the same rights straight ppl have.

Given your forum name, I shall assume you male (for sake of argument), correct me if I'm wrong.

A: Can you understand your own attraction to females?
B: Can you understand it if another male has the same attraction?
C: Can you understand t if a female has the very same attraction?

D: Can you understand a female having attraction to male?
E: Can you understand a male having the very same attraction?

F: Can you understand the position that some one does not notice / does not care for the quality of 'gender' and as such consequently is attracted to either gender without really being consciously aware of which it is [this time].

 

[Al68]

'Biological', those are such strong words. At the moment there is little reason to assume that homosexuality or heterosexuality is anything more than 'taste', some men have a preference for blonds, some for brunettes, and some for other men. The nonexistence of this so-called 'gay gene' that people have been trying to find together with the documented existence of societies where it was extremely common seem to imply that like any other form of taste, it is subject to fashion, can be acquired, and has a nurture and nature component to it.

Homosexuality to me is as simple as being attracted to per exemple very small women, it's not extremely common, but that's all there is to it.

One thing that seems obvious is that a "gay gene" if it exists, would be eliminated by evolution. A preference for brunettes doesn't hinder reproduction. A brunette can have your baby.

Of course societal pressure to marry and reproduce may allow a "gay gene" to survive, but if that's the case, and homosexuality is genetic, that will become obvious in a few generations.

 

[Al68]

It is natural to have an aversion to any activity that does not promote reproduction.

I would think the natural aversion would be to things that don't perpetuate one's own genes. It would make sense genetically for a man to be averse to lesbian activity but not male homosexuality of others, since the former would reduce one's reproductive opportunities, while the latter would increase them. It seems this is the opposite of reality for most straight men.

Personally, I would like nothing more than for every man on Earth except me to be homosexual, while every woman on Earth is straight. (Except the ugly ones). That would be very beneficial to the perpetuation of my genes.

 

[ZQrn]

One thing that seems obvious is that a "gay gene" if it exists, would be eliminated by evolution. A preference for brunettes doesn't hinder reproduction. A brunette can have your baby.

Well, there is still a gene for haemophilia around, surely it hinders reproduction a lot, yet it has survived, it is not common, but it survived.

Evolution can do no more than minimizing in general, at least, when the gene is recessive.

What I find preposterous is that in the 50's the consensus of 'specialists' was that homosexuality was due to bad parenting and all those things, while in the 80's-90's they all thought it was 'born' and there was even a gene that caused it, while neither of both hypotheses have ever seen a solid proof. Indeed, the gay gene obviously does not exist because of identical twins of which one of both is gay.

Another thing is that there is no objective way to define or 'diagnose' homosexuality but the claims of the subject. Which leaves me to assume that it's not as hard as some people may think. Together with the documented existence of societies which treated sexuality quite fluid, I am quite sceptical to homosexuality as such a 'hard' category as many western 'specialists' assume it is.

Of course societal pressure to marry and reproduce may allow a "gay gene" to survive, but if that's the case, and homosexuality is genetic, that will become obvious in a few generations.

Interestingly, there are a lot of documented societies where homosexuality was pretty much accepted, nay, encouraged.

Also, homosexuality in nature seems to correlate with a higher intelligence. And let's face it, sex in human beings isn't all about reproduction, it fulfills a social role, a way to communicate as well. If homosexuality is a disease, then so is being willing to use a condom.

 

[Al68]

If homosexuality is a disease, then so is being willing to use a condom.

Plus gay sex is probably more reliable as a birth control method. What are the odds of getting a male partner pregnant?

Seriously, I never referred to homosexuality as a disease. I just pointed out that evolution discriminates between behavioral tendencies based on their effect on reproduction. So if homosexuality is genetic, it seems likely that societal pressure to "stay in the closet" ironically would increase the actual percentage of homosexuals in a society, while societal acceptance would decrease the percentage.