Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Moreover, Zogby polling is now starting to show that a majority of Californians are in favor of allowing gays to marry.<< Ti-iii-iii-iiime, is on our side Yes it is....
Originally Posted By Dabob2 I hadn't heard that they'd rejected the stay. That's excellent news. So now people will be able to marry from later this month till at least November? That will help put a human face on the issue when it comes time to vote.
Originally Posted By DAR I said either in this thread or one of the other threads about this topic, but getting Californians or New Yorkers or people from Massachusetts to approve gay marriage is like putting a bratwurst in front of me and then asking if I want a beer with it. Of course I do. The only way real progress is going to be made here is if the Montana's fall in line.
Originally Posted By Dabob2 Every state represents progress. And a majority of Californians and Massachusettsians (??) didn't used to favor it either.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>The only way real progress is going to be made here is if the Montana's fall in line.<< People in Montana don't like beer with bratwurst? What's the matter with them?
Originally Posted By DAR <<Every state represents progress. And a majority of Californians and Massachusettsians (??) didn't used to favor it either.>> Right but I think California is your "Normandy Beach."
Originally Posted By Dabob2 MA is already first. CA is very important, though. One in 9 Americans live in CA, I think. The sheer numbers mean that within a few years quite a few married couples will be moving elsewhere, where all of a sudden they're "not married." It may take a few decades, but eventually I think SCOTUS will have to look at it the way they did with interracial marriage, where some states allowed it and some didn't (which lasted for decades) and said that was untenable.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder "So now people will be able to marry from later this month till at least November? That will help put a human face on the issue when it comes time to vote." Yes, exactly. Those wedding bells will never be unrung. No residency requirements, either.
Originally Posted By SingleParkPassholder And even if the ban would passes, there would likely be legal challenges to it. <a href="http://www.metnews.com/articles/2008/inmyopinion052108.htm" target="_blank">http://www.metnews.com/article...2108.htm</a> The article spells out why the proposed amendment could be illegal to begin with and how those arguments could be used to challenge it in court, so yet another avenue of attack in addition to the merits of equal protection.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <How about overt displays? Should that be banned?> Depends on how overt. I definitely think that some of the things that go on during the SF gay pride parade go over the line. <Before going there, "overt displays" meaning the same sort of "overt displays" of heterosexuality you might see in public.> I think for now most people are going to have a little more tolerance for heterosexual displays than homosexual displays. <I won't even try to paraphrase the rest, it's WAY too prejudiced and I don't even want to copy/paste the filth.> Oh brother.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <Well, no I didn't, and you haven't been able to show I did.> Anybody taking the time to actually read the article will see that you did. And I'm not the one confusing things. <What he does is offer his OPINION why factor a or b is "not a cause." That's not proof, that's opinion. Once again, you can't seem to tell the difference.> When did I ever say it was proof? It's you that keeps conflating proof and opinion. <Um, I did. There have been no negative effects in Massachusetts.> Then present the numbers. Show me the numbers of out of wedlock births in the years before it was mandated, and the ones after. Show me the marriage rate in the years before, and the ones since. Saying that Massachusetts has a low rate compared to the nation is useless; we need to see if or how it's changed. You can't show it hasn't had a negative effect just as I can't show it has; we don't have the numbers. Until we do, it's useless to point to it for anything.
Originally Posted By X-san ***I think for now most people are going to have a little more tolerance for heterosexual displays than homosexual displays.*** Of course. That would be the definition of "intolerance", wouldn't it Doug?
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh No, not really. I'm sorry that some people don't want to have to explain homosexuality to their young children, and that I understand and sympathize for those people. But that's the way it is and that's not intolerance.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Show me the numbers of out of wedlock births<< But Doug, that would be heterosexual activity, and largely teenagers. Unless the thought of gay marriage is some extra turn-on for sexually activity teenagers, one doesn't have anything to do with the other. That's what you seem to be missing. This idea that straight couples are suddenly going to say, "Well, gays are marrying now, so now marriage is ruined. Let's just forget it and just live together." is ludicrous. If that's even happening (which I strongly doubt) it's would be such an extraordinarily low number of people that think that way it wouldn't be statistically significant. It just doesn't make any kind of sense. All that said, people ought to be getting married because they intend to love, honor and cherish their mate. If the only reason someone is getting married is because it's a reinforcement that heterosexual relationships matter, that's a pretty weak basis upon which to build a marriage. I married my wife because we loved each other and I wanted to spend my life with her, grow old together. Nearly 26 years later, those feelings have only grown stronger. Bob and Steve getting married isn't going to change that. Even if marriage goes out of fashion (and the rates always fluctuate) it doesn't affect me. You're looking for reasons that we shouldn't allow gay marriage. Try looking at all the reasons why we should instead.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan 26? Uh.... do i ever need an edit feature now... We have been together for 28 years, married for nearly 23.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>I'm sorry that some people don't want to have to explain homosexuality to their young children<< So am I, because that makes it all a bigger deal than it really is. It is part of life. I think most children would understand, to the level they can, that two boys or two girls love each other. It doesn't have to be "The Talk." I agree that there are public displays that are not appropriate for children. There are things in prde parades that go way too far, just like in Mardi Gras or spring break festivities.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <This idea that straight couples are suddenly going to say, "Well, gays are marrying now, so now marriage is ruined. Let's just forget it and just live together." is ludicrous.> And yet, that is what seems to be happening. Marriage is evolving from a special relationship between a man and a woman where the pledge themselves to each other forever and the foundation of a family to a legal thing two people who want to live together do in order to get benefits. <It just doesn't make any kind of sense.> I don't think you want it to make sense, so it doesn't. <I think most children would understand, to the level they can, that two boys or two girls love each other.> I agree. But because I understand that some people do not doesn't make me an agent of intolerance. There is a double standard in this world, and people can't wish it away overnight, and I'm not sure society is best served by getting rid of it.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>And yet, that is what seems to be happening.<< "Seems to" is an important qualifyer there, isn't it? Correlation is not causation. >>There is a double standard in this world, and people can't wish it away overnight, and I'm not sure society is best served by getting rid of it<< Double standards = discrimination. People were sure interracial marriage would be the undoing of us, and it didn't happen. Such concerns seem really, really silly in retrospect, don't they? >>arriage is evolving from a special relationship between a man and a woman where the pledge themselves to each other forever and the foundation of a family to a legal thing two people who want to live together do in order to get benefits. << No, it isn't. The legal argument is about benefits and such, but it still will be a special relationship between two adults who pledge themselves to each other forever and the foundation of a family. IF we can open our eyes and hearts and minds to that, and quit trying to bar it from happening.
Originally Posted By DouglasDubh <People were sure interracial marriage would be the undoing of us, and it didn't happen. Such concerns seem really, really silly in retrospect, don't they?> The two situations aren't similar, so it's impossible to draw parallels. As to the rest of your post, you're not saying anything new, so there's no point in my repeating anything.
Originally Posted By utahjosh I also agree that the parallels between gay marriages and interracial marriages are not as strong as advocates feel. They are not the same.
