Scwarzenegger announces veto on Californian gay marriage bill

  • News
  • Thread starter arildno
  • Start date
  • #26
60
0
cronxeh said:
How many gay people are there in the United States?
How many straight people are there in the United States?

http://www.newdirection.ca/a_10per.htm

Apparently not that many. So why should the government support the ~2% at all times - be they the filthy rich ones or the extremely homosexual ones?
There's about 300 million people in the United States. About 270 million consider themselves straight. About 30 million consider themselves gay.

Of course, that's a bit arbitrary. As human sexuality studies have shown, just about everybody is bisexual to one degree or another.

Homophobes included.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #27
cronxeh
Gold Member
961
10
10% figure is wrong, besides its from the 40's
 
  • #28
221
0
cronxeh said:
How many gay people are there in the United States?
How many straight people are there in the United States?

http://www.newdirection.ca/a_10per.htm

Apparently not that many. So why should the government support the ~2% at all times - be they the filthy rich ones or the extremely homosexual ones?
Well if you're suggesting that the government should not consider this an issue because it only affects a minority then I would have to disagree with you. The balance between liberalism and democracy should only tilt in favor of democracy when it is not an issue of discrimination.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #29
60
0
cronxeh said:
10% figure is wrong, besides its from the 40's
If 10% were gay in the forties, just think of how many are gay now!

Actually, like I said, it's somewhat arbitrary. About 10% of people are exclusively homosexual.

Most everybody else is bisexual to one degree to another.

That explains why you enjoy gay porn. In case you were wondering.

BTW, you're getting your information from a bigoted fundamentalist site that claims homosexuality can be cured. Not exactly a reliable source of information.
 
Last edited:
  • #30
cronxeh
Gold Member
961
10
Well if its an issue of discrimination then perhaps they should institute a civil union with same rights and tax codes as for marriages, but not call it a marriage
 
  • #31
cronxeh
Gold Member
961
10
TRCSF said:
That explains why you enjoy gay porn. In case you were wondering.
Yes well when I need your opinion on anything I'll let you out of my closet and you can strap on that gimp costume that you enjoy so much
 
  • #32
221
0
cronxeh said:
Well if its an issue of discrimination then perhaps they should institute a civil union with same rights and tax codes as for marriages, but not call it a marriage
Not a bad idea....

Taking the religious aspect out of it is a good start.
 
  • #33
cronxeh
Gold Member
961
10
Religion is the reason these laws even cause controversy in the first place. They dont belong in politics let alone in state affairs
 
  • #34
221
0
cronxeh said:
Religion is the reason these laws even cause controversy in the first place. They dont belong in politics let alone in state affairs
Exaclty...
 
  • #35
60
0
cronxeh said:
Well if its an issue of discrimination then perhaps they should institute a civil union with same rights and tax codes as for marriages, but not call it a marriage
Seperate but equal? That didn't work.

Call it marriage, if it's the same legal thing you can call it the same thing.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one.
 
  • #36
cronxeh
Gold Member
961
10
Townsend said:
Exaclty...
Religion belongs in the Churches/etc, and to those who use it I have to say this: "go back to Church and dont come out until Jesus returns"

TRCSF said:
Seperate but equal? That didn't work.

Call it marriage, if it's the same legal thing you can call it the same thing.

If you don't like gay marriage, don't have one.

How do you not get this? I dont care what you think
 
  • #37
60
0
cronxeh said:
Religion belongs in the Churches/etc, and to those who use it I have to say this: "go back to Church and dont come out until Jesus returns"

How do you not get this? I dont care what you think
What about churches that want to marry gays?

Oo, somebody's getting a little upset. I must have hit a nerve.
 
  • #38
Art
Townsend said:
Not a bad idea....

Taking the religious aspect out of it is a good start.
This has already been done long ago for those who want it. Many people these days get married in civil ceremonies which have nothing to do with religion.

The idea behind marriage is to create the basis of a secure family unit which is believed to be the best environment to raise children in.

Some folk question whether a same-sex union is a good environment for children and so the state is reluctant to grant official status / approval to such relationships. The consequences of this for people in 'unsanctioned' unions are that they have inferior inheritance rights, tax rights and adoption rights etc..
 
  • #39
vanesch
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
5,028
16
Townsend said:
Why shouldn't we accept bigamy? Why does a person's personal life have to be socially acceptable?
Oh, but I didn't have anything a priori against bigamy either. The point is that the civil marriage gives certain rights to a group of (2 ?) people ; it is in fact the only reason to subscribe to a civil marriage.
They are essentially 2-fold:
1) financial aspects, like lower taxes on heritage when one of the partners dies
2) co-parentship when (one of the?) females in the couple gives birth.

Now, there's a long-standing tradition of 1 man and 1 woman as such a basic cell which doesn't even find its origin in religion but finds it in Darwinism: promote the chances of transfer of the genes to the future generation. The optimal team is then of course a man and a woman, because their kin has 50-50 gene content, so this man and this woman will optimize the transfer of their genetic material to the future (will care best for their kin).
All other combinations will do less good. In a situation of one male with several females, the females who didn't give birth to certain children will have of course all advantage to care more about their own children than of the children of the other spouses of their male ; on the other hand, the male would like to see ALL its children cared for (he has 50% of the genetic material in all of them). So this situation is only advantageous if the male is very dominant over the females. In fact, what males hate the most are unfaithful women because then they are caring about kin that has NOT their genetic material - hence the usually very harsh conditions that are put traditionally on adulterous women by a male-dominated society.
See, all tradition (cast into iron by religious traditions) have to do with optimal gene transfer to the next generation, and marriage is one of those traditions, and explains why those traditions have a strong preference for the 1man-1woman situation.
From the moment you leave that reason (such as gay marriages) you can relax in fact all conditions, and have a general kind of contract between members of a group.
 
  • #40
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,970
131
honestrosewater said:
The government currently grants marriage rights to people.
Correct, and that is the basic issue here.
The same rights that are granted couples married in a church are also granted to those couples who merely go to the public registrar (or whatever his title is).
So no, marriage between a man and a woman is NOT a solely religious matter.
What type of unions a religious sub-community chooses to celebrate, is basically their own affair.

The debate over whether or not the state ought to confer benefits (judicial&fiscal, mainly) to any particular union, or if all such benefits should be withdrawn, is another matter.

However:
By extending these rights to gay couples by no means reduce these rights to straight couples (i.e, the majority), so a woolly argument against "special" privileges to small groups simply doesn't hold.
 
  • #41
221
0
Art said:
The idea behind marriage is to create the basis of a secure family unit which is believed to be the best environment to raise children in.
I don't think the government knows what is best for me or my kids...(I don't actually have any kids but if I did..)

So far the American government has not impressed me with their wisdom and I really don't care for their wisdom on how to best raise kids.

I think we can all agree that the governments job is not to micro manage people's personal lives. :smile:
 
  • #42
356
2
I completely agree Townsend. I don't trust the government to pave roads. Why would I trust them to raise my kids?
 
  • #43
60
0
The issue really isn't about raising kids.

It's about pandering to homophobes.

People used to make the same argument about kids when interracial marriages were illegal. "Oh, all those poor kids are going to be so confused."

Baloney. Those people didn't want interracial marriages because they hated black people. Pure and simple. Arguments about kids were just a deflection. A phony excuse.

Same thing here.
 
  • #44
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,970
131
Art said:
The idea behind marriage is to create the basis of a secure family unit which is believed to be the best environment to raise children in.

Some folk question whether a same-sex union is a good environment for children and so the state is reluctant to grant official status / approval to such relationships. The consequences of this for people in 'unsanctioned' unions are that they have inferior inheritance rights, tax rights and adoption rights etc..
So why are these rights granted to heterosexual couples where the female is past her menopause at the time of the marriage ceremony, then?
(Tens of thousands such marriages happens every year in the US, if not hundreds of thousands, so this is no silly hypothetical example)
There won't be any children in these unions..
 
Last edited:
  • #45
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,970
131
Smurf said:
I completely agree Townsend. I don't trust the government to pave roads. Why would I trust them to raise my kids?
If they disappoint you; vote them out of office. :smile:
 
  • #46
Art
Smurf said:
I completely agree Townsend. I don't trust the government to pave roads. Why would I trust them to raise my kids?
There was a controversy in the UK a few years back when a left wing authority in a borough of London insisted the schools under it's control use readers for the very young with titles such as "Tom lives with Dick and John."

As the title suggests the book was intended to show children being brought up in a homosexual family unit as being a normal everyday event. Many parents with children at these schools were (in my view understandably) livid.

At christmas this same authority advertised for a black, lesbian Santa Claus. :rolleyes:

The point being whilst homosexuality is fine and the vast majority of people have no problem whatsoever with what 2 (or more) consenting adults get up to together they still represent a small but very vocal minority of the population and most people would prefer if they were to stop forcing their sexuality onto everybody else.
 
  • #47
arildno
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
9,970
131
Art said:
The point being whilst homosexuality is fine and the vast majority of people have no problem whatsoever with what 2 (or more) consenting adults get up to together they still represent a small but very vocal minority of the population and most people would prefer if they were to stop forcing their sexuality onto everybody else.
And when did demanding the right to visit my dying lover in the hospital, irrespective the wishes of his blood-kin become forcing my sexuality down your throat?
 
  • #48
Skyhunter
Townsend said:
Why shouldn't we accept bigamy? Why does a person's personal life have to be socially acceptable?

Gay couples don't harm me, heterosexual couples don't harm me, what people do with their personal lives should be up to them.

I say the government has NO business involving itself in the institution of marriage, what so ever. Why should two (or more) people need a license to get married?

Besides all of that, isn't marriage a religious institution? What business does the government have with the regulation of religious practices?
Originally government involvement in the US was simply to record the marriage.

I agree with Townsend. If people want to be married, all they should need to do is commit to one another using whatever vows or church or rituals they deem appropriate. And there sex or numbers should be of no ones concern but the consenting adults. I do have a problem with arranged marriages, especially when they involve children.

The idea that society would be harmed by allowing gay couples to enjoy the same rights as hetero couples is ludicrous.

I didn't vote for Arnold. I was not happy with Davis, he seemed to spend more time fund raising than governing. I voted against the recall, and for the porn queen (don't remember her name). I did argue that we needed to support him because he took on a tough job and needs support to be effective. However he has shown himself to be just another pandering politician. This veto is just another example.
 
  • #49
Skyhunter
cronxeh said:
How many gay people are there in the United States?
How many straight people are there in the United States?

http://www.newdirection.ca/a_10per.htm

Apparently not that many. So why should the government support the ~2% at all times - be they the filthy rich ones or the extremely homosexual ones?
Extremely homosexual?

What does that mean?

I that like extremely pregnant?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #50
Skyhunter
cronxeh said:
Well if its an issue of discrimination then perhaps they should institute a civil union with same rights and tax codes as for marriages, but not call it a marriage
This is my suggestion.

Classify all government sanctioned marrriages as civil unions. Let the Churchs or whatnot add other labels if they like.
 

Related Threads for: Scwarzenegger announces veto on Californian gay marriage bill

Replies
5
Views
2K
Replies
6
Views
2K
Replies
28
Views
4K
  • Last Post
4
Replies
77
Views
8K
Replies
39
Views
4K
  • Last Post
Replies
12
Views
10K
Replies
24
Views
6K
Top