Gay and Lesbian Marriage

Discuss events that have an impact on you and the world today. A home for honest, serious, and open discussion.

Re: Gay and Lesbian Marriage

Unread postby Tigger of Kai » Wed Nov 05, 2008 5:06 pm

Looks like California's Proposition 8 is going to pass by a slim margin. Interesting info:

Black Voters Save Proposition 8
by Byron York

In California, it looks like Prop 8 has a good chance of passing. With 92 percent of precincts reporting, the gay marriage ban is winning 52 percent to 48 percent. And if it does pass, it will be because of black and, to a lesser extent, Latino voters.

According to exit polls, whites opposed the amendment 53-47. But blacks supported it 70-30, and Latinos supported it 51-49. The polls have blacks at 10 percent of the electorate for this issue, with Latinos at 19 percent and whites at 63 percent. (Asians, at six percent, opposed the proposition 53-47.)

Similar initiatives also passed in Arizona and Florida.
Last edited by Tigger of Kai on Thu Nov 06, 2008 2:33 am, edited 1 time in total.
Mithril! The dwarves tell no tales. But just as it was the foundation of their wealth, so also it was their destruction. They delved too greedily and too deep, and disturbed that from which they fled.
User avatar
Tigger of Kai
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4171
Joined: Sat Dec 06, 2003 12:26 am
Location: Scarborough, Canada

Re: Gay and Lesbian Marriage

Unread postby James » Wed Nov 05, 2008 5:47 pm

Proposition 8.
Interesting that the African Americans are so thoroughly opposed to this...
Kongming’s Archives – Romance of the Three Kingdoms Novel, History and Games
“ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
  — Ben Franklin
User avatar
James
Sausaged Fish
Sausaged Fish
 
Posts: 17999
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 3:21 pm
Location: Happy Valley, UT

Re: Gay and Lesbian Marriage

Unread postby Antiochus » Wed Nov 05, 2008 11:46 pm

I always found those particular moments sad. It feels like a step backward when it comes to gay rights.
If they can abolish fanaticism, let us pray for the advent of the sceptics.

Raymond Aron
The Opium of the Intellectuals
User avatar
Antiochus
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 2573
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 5:29 pm
Location: Sherbrooke

Re: Gay and Lesbian Marriage

Unread postby James » Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:05 am

Antiochus wrote:I always found those particular moments sad. It feels like a step backward when it comes to gay rights.

Because it is a step backward. And it isn't potential progress being turned down, it is a constitutional amendment. Something that really bothers me about it is the interest of religious institutions such as the Mormon church to devote considerable money and time lobbying specifically to push this through. Stunts like that really make me dislike those religious institutions. Fortunately it seems the vote in favor of the amendment was strongest among older age groups (outside the anomaly associated with African Americans) so it probably steps in part from old-school thinking (in addition to religious and Republican/conservative ideals). At least that will improve with time.

It is going to be interesting to see the fallout. Gavin Newsom is a crackpot and doesn't play by the rules. He'll find some way to create serious headaches for anyone trying to change the way things are done in San Francisco.
Kongming’s Archives – Romance of the Three Kingdoms Novel, History and Games
“ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
  — Ben Franklin
User avatar
James
Sausaged Fish
Sausaged Fish
 
Posts: 17999
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 3:21 pm
Location: Happy Valley, UT

Re: Gay and Lesbian Marriage

Unread postby Antiochus » Thu Nov 06, 2008 12:30 am

True, but the real victims here are the homosexual community, who once again had its private life held on trial based on a very narrow-minded and paradoxal moral code.
If they can abolish fanaticism, let us pray for the advent of the sceptics.

Raymond Aron
The Opium of the Intellectuals
User avatar
Antiochus
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 2573
Joined: Fri Mar 28, 2003 5:29 pm
Location: Sherbrooke

Re: Gay and Lesbian Marriage

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Thu Nov 06, 2008 3:24 am

Antiochus wrote:True, but the real victims here are the homosexual community, who once again had its private life held on trial based on a very narrow-minded and paradoxal moral code.


Private Life? I thought this proposition was dealing with the ban on marriages, something quite in public sector?

I won't even begin to enter into a debate on the morality of this sort of legislation, partly because in large part I agree the morals which influence people's decision making processes are entirely arbitrary, but it does pose an interesting question. When the state decides they want to embrace the idea of non-neutrality on an issue (something they do anyway, regardless of a supposedly neutral stance) are they acting completely unjust? I can think of plenty of instances where we would all assume they were, but I'm not positive there wouldn't be arguments made for the other side.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4388
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: Gay and Lesbian Marriage

Unread postby James » Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:52 am

Shikanosuke wrote:Private Life? I thought this proposition was dealing with the ban on marriages, something quite in public sector?

Public only in the sense that it garners public interest...
But the marriages between homosexual people have absolutely no impact on the lives of other people.
It is a matter relative to their private life. And you don't get to exaggerate about the consequences of what would have happened because it has been happening, and it hasn't been hurting a soul.
Kongming’s Archives – Romance of the Three Kingdoms Novel, History and Games
“ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
  — Ben Franklin
User avatar
James
Sausaged Fish
Sausaged Fish
 
Posts: 17999
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 3:21 pm
Location: Happy Valley, UT

Re: Gay and Lesbian Marriage

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Thu Nov 06, 2008 4:56 am

James wrote:
Shikanosuke wrote:Private Life? I thought this proposition was dealing with the ban on marriages, something quite in public sector?

Public only in the sense that it garners public interest...
But the marriages between homosexual people have absolutely no impact on the lives of other people.
It is a matter relative to their private life. And you don't get to exaggerate about the consequences of what would have happened because it has been happening, and it hasn't been hurting a soul.


And public in the sense that it requires public sanctioning. Public in the sense that its consequences (being legally married, not just existing as homosexuals engaging in relationships) are public as well be they: social consequences (even incorrectly perceived), insurance rights, hospital rights, inheritance rights, or anything else which requires a reworking of the legal framework done in a public atmosphere.
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4388
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

Re: Gay and Lesbian Marriage

Unread postby James » Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:15 am

Shikanosuke wrote:And public in the sense that it requires public sanctioning. Public in the sense that its consequences (being legally married, not just existing as homosexuals engaging in relationships) are public as well be they: social consequences (even incorrectly perceived), insurance rights, hospital rights, inheritance rights, or anything else which requires a reworking of the legal framework done in a public atmosphere.

This was a constitutional amendment. It was sanctioned. And more to the point, it was taking place in San Francisco where it was strongly supported—as was demonstrated by the voting on Proposition 8. And the rest of that is nonsense. Especially the gibberish about reworking laws. We have to rework laws now that it has passed. If it hadn't passed, the status quo would have been maintained. Your argument works against you here.

And more to the point, homosexual marriage is no problem as long as it follows the same rules as heterosexual marriage. The system just recognizes a marriage and that is it—and that is how it should be. Absolutely no special treatment in favor or against. They suffer the same consequences in separation, they enjoy the same benefits together.

Psh... if it had failed, pretty much nothing would have changed.
Kongming’s Archives – Romance of the Three Kingdoms Novel, History and Games
“ They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.”
  — Ben Franklin
User avatar
James
Sausaged Fish
Sausaged Fish
 
Posts: 17999
Joined: Fri Jun 14, 2002 3:21 pm
Location: Happy Valley, UT

Re: Gay and Lesbian Marriage

Unread postby Shikanosuke » Thu Nov 06, 2008 5:22 am

James wrote:This was a constitutional amendment. It was sanctioned. And more to the point, it was taking place in San Francisco where it was strongly supported—as was demonstrated by the voting on Proposition 8. And the rest of that is nonsense. Especially the gibberish about reworking laws. We have to rework laws now that it has passed. If it hadn't passed, the status quo would have been maintained. Your argument works against you here.


Perhaps I misunderstood this, was this to the state constitution? Anyhow, These are all matters effecting the public sphere, these are not matters (as antio suggested) which are directly regulating what people do in their bedrooms. These are matters regarding what people want to be sanctioned. States often make decisions, as bodies, as to what they want to endorse and what they dont. It flies in the face of any attempt at trying to stay "neutral" as neutrality rarely exists, but it happens.

And more to the point, homosexual marriage is no problem as long as it follows the same rules as heterosexual marriage. The system just recognizes a marriage and that is it—and that is how it should be. Absolutely no special treatment in favor or against. They suffer the same consequences in separation, they enjoy the same benefits together.

Psh... if it had failed, pretty much nothing would have changed.


You seem to think that people exist in a moral vacuum. Where no one's lifestyle or perceived lifestyle is effected by another, as if negative liberty is the only aim of any citizen or state. I, inherently, as an American citizen share your love for negative liberty, but I realize we also often utilize positive freedoms to the disservice of certain groups (and often negative liberties to the disservice of groups rights).
User avatar
Shikanosuke
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 4388
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2006 2:22 am
Location: US

PreviousNext

Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved