Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: MP-Ryan on August 04, 2010, 10:37:05 pm
-
http://www.cnn.com/2010/US/08/04/california.same.sex.ruling/index.html?hpt=T2
Glad to see the rule of law trumps regional bigotry. Hopefully the higher courts will uphold the same principles.
-
I been celebrating all day!
The decision was heavy on factual findings which appeals courts aren't allowed to touch, so odds of an appeal reversing this decision are low.
-
TAKE THAT CONSERVATIVE LUNACY!
Maybe we can keep the E-bay exec from being elected too.
-
Cheers California!
-
Fantastic! I am gonna be in San Francisco this weekend, it's gonna be such a great atmosphere.
-
Eat it, bigots.
-
Yay. Let's just hope the Supreme Court upholds the decision.
-
i really dont care what happens to california. it can sink into the ocean for all i care.
-
anyone want to go get gay married?
-
oo me
-
oo me
That's hawt. :P
-
You want to be Object Oriented?
Damn, I'm a nerd.... Besides, in Zack's case, that could almost be considered true... :p
-
now, if california could just legalize weed as well...
-
i really dont care what happens to california. it can sink into the ocean for all i care.
Aside from their cows, I agree.
We'll be needin' tah' rustle them thar' cattle a'fore it'n joins 'lantis in tha' deep, else the price of milk will skyrocket. And, hey, free ribeye for the roadtrip.
-
we win we win! but I'm still not voting for you Newsom
-
i really dont give a **** if gays marry or not. its not like marriage is what it used to be. divorce is such big buisness that there are now national chains of divorce mills. furthermore i believe that marriage should have nothing to do with the government (and vice versa). as an old conservative i used to know liked to point out, it was really all about money and that the government didnt want to give benefits to their employees' families if these families were gay spouses (the same applies to the private sector as well). then there's a matter of tax codes. could you claim a gay spouse as a dependent on your taxes if he was the home maker in the relationship? could two lesbians file jointly if they pool their income? i personally think that gay marriage would only require minor revisions to the tax codes. then theres a matter of gays with children. a few gay men may have children from failed relationships with women, but most will need to adopt. there are massive pools of kids in temporary foster care would would benefit from stable households regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents, in this case gay marriage actually helps to solve an existing problem.
-
i really dont give a **** if gays marry or not. its not like marriage is what it used to be. divorce is such big buisness that there are now national chains of divorce mills. furthermore i believe that marriage should have nothing to do with the government (and vice versa). as an old conservative i used to know liked to point out, it was really all about money and that the government didnt want to give benefits to their employees' families if these families were gay spouses (the same applies to the private sector as well). then there's a matter of tax codes. could you claim a gay spouse as a dependent on your taxes if he was the home maker in the relationship? could two lesbians file jointly if they pool their income? i personally think that gay marriage would only require minor revisions to the tax codes. then theres a matter of gays with children. a few gay men may have children from failed relationships with women, but most will need to adopt. there are massive pools of kids in temporary foster care would would benefit from stable households regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents, in this case gay marriage actually helps to solve an existing problem.
That last bit is part of why I think gay marriage is good, but begs the question, if gay marriage becomes widespread, what's to stop mothers with unwanted children saying 'throw 'em in an orphanage, some homo will adopt them'
-
i really dont give a **** if gays marry or not. its not like marriage is what it used to be. divorce is such big buisness that there are now national chains of divorce mills. furthermore i believe that marriage should have nothing to do with the government (and vice versa). as an old conservative i used to know liked to point out, it was really all about money and that the government didnt want to give benefits to their employees' families if these families were gay spouses (the same applies to the private sector as well). then there's a matter of tax codes. could you claim a gay spouse as a dependent on your taxes if he was the home maker in the relationship? could two lesbians file jointly if they pool their income? i personally think that gay marriage would only require minor revisions to the tax codes. then theres a matter of gays with children. a few gay men may have children from failed relationships with women, but most will need to adopt. there are massive pools of kids in temporary foster care would would benefit from stable households regardless of the sexual orientation of the parents, in this case gay marriage actually helps to solve an existing problem.
That last bit is part of why I think gay marriage is good, but begs the question, if gay marriage becomes widespread, what's to stop mothers with unwanted children saying 'throw 'em in an orphanage, some homo will adopt them'
There are so many kids already in need of adoptive parents that any increase in the supply will be a good thing.
And that scare tactic you're suggesting is at the moment totally baseless. Any data to support?
-
those women with unwanted children would clearly not make good parents anyway. there is clearly something wrong with them. most women get totally brainwashed when they have kids and wouldn't give them up for any reason. i dont think gays getting married and being allowed to adopt children will have any effect on the number of babies that get thrown out by their mothers. it might even motivate some of them to keep their babies.
-
Would that be better or worse than dangerous abortions?
-
Who wouldnt want kids to grow up in totally fabulous homes?
-
Well, I don't know anything about California's laws or this law in particular. In my country there was a debate a few weeks ago about same-sex marriage, and it was finally approved. So please, allow me to speak from that viewpoint.
Would that be better or worse than dangerous abortions?
Exactly. This is an excellent alternative to abortion in many cases. And the more chances of getting an adoption, the better for those children.
Nevertheless, it should be noted that we don't know for sure how many same-sex couples will adopt.
Regarding benefits... well, I don't see the point in that argument. If every person in this world was heterosexual, and a majority of them were to get married, there would still be families and benefits to give.
-
for the record,
adoption isn't an alternative to abortion, it's an alternative to caring for a child
the only alternative to abortion is carrying the pregnancy to term
-
for the record,
adoption isn't an alternative to abortion, it's an alternative to caring for a child
Technically, you're right.
-
adoption isn't an alternative to abortion, it's an alternative to caring for a child
abortion is an alternative for careing for a child also, no child no problem.
-
Hmmm... now I'm getting second thoughts about having said that. This is going to open a can of worms, and there should be a reason why we haven't debated this before (or at least not lately, though I've missed a few things around here in the last weeks).
But anyway, I guess this topic is about celebrating the equalization of rights amongst people, regardless of their sexual orientations. So maybe it's not the right place nor the right moment to discuss such things. Sorry if I spoke without thinking thoroughly about the potential consequences first.
-
I didn't particularly want to change the topic, it's just a pet peeve of mine.
But yeah, I think we'll see gay marriage accepted by the US federal government in our lifetimes. Bigotry is dying with the elderly and religion.
-
I didn't particularly want to change the topic, it's just a pet peeve of mine.
But yeah, I think we'll see gay marriage accepted by the US federal government in our lifetimes. Bigotry is dying with the elderly and religion.
Be nice if you ladies and gents joined the rest of the progressive free world =)
-
i find that everyone under the age of 25 is a liberal hippie douche anyway. just remember anything that can be changed can be changed back.
-
i find that everyone under the age of 25 is a liberal hippie douche anyway. just remember anything that can be changed can be changed back.
:confused:
That's not only a baseless generalization, but it's also wrong right here.
I identify myself as a center-right person with an slightly verticalist mindset and a high priority for social stability (or whatever is the opposite of social unrest in English) and mutual respect, and for a well-exercised, impartial authority.
My economic thoughts... you all know those already.
I'm also usually viewed as far-right and a bit authoritarian by pretty much everyone else I know, with just a few exceptions, though I don't agree with such opinions of myself.
So just because someone thinks in a different way than you do, or is a bit more liberal in the social sense, it doesn't makes them a hippie/communist/terrorist/anarchyst/whatever you might want to label them.
Though I have to admit, the political spectrum varies from country to country.
By the way, I thought you agreed with same-sex marriage, or at least that's what I interpreted from your previous posts in this thread.
-
nuke is trying to ruin the thread, ignore everything he says forever
-
nuke is trying to ruin the thread, ignore everything he says forever
If I had to apply the same rule to you... :lol:
-
that was a joke, in case you couldn't figure that out. it was also engineered to piss off iamzack. that second part now, that was important.
nuke is trying to ruin the thread, ignore everything he says forever
dont trust the vagina people!
-
Maybe we can keep the E-bay exec from being elected too.
To borrow from South Park, our gubernatorial election will be between a turd sandwich and a giant douche, and I'm not sure who is what.
/offtopic
-
Well done.
Congrats. Less competition is always a good thing.
:yes:
Bisexuals are just greedy though.
Genuinely pleaseds for those who benefit though.
-
but begs the question
No it doesn't. You do.
-
Don't know why we had Prop 8 in the first place.
Rights shouldn't be up for a vote. That's why they're called "rights". And every Californian who's screaming and *****ing about the court overturning that vote can fornicate themselves with a hot iron.
-
or enact some other legislation as a '**** you' to the courts, maybe a federal law will come out of this that you don't like, maybe a federal amendment.
-
Maybe monkeys will fly out of my butt and strangle you with their tails.
-
yeah, well, there isn't a majority in a democracy that wants that, so it's less likely than the thing I was talking about.
-
Well nothing that has happened for the past 2 years has been because of the majority wanting it, so there's still a very good chance.
-
or enact some other legislation as a '**** you' to the courts, maybe a federal law will come out of this that you don't like, maybe a federal amendment.
This isn't about pissing off the courts, it's not about passing legislation. It's about a group of people who just want a chance at happiness being told by a larger group that they're inferior and that their love is somehow immoral.
I'm gonna say it again--rights aren't up for a vote.
-
I dont see what business government has in regulating marriage. If two people regardless of gender want to get married or divorced, that's a private matter.
-
I dont see what business government has in regulating marriage. If two people regardless of gender want to get married or divorced, that's a private matter.
It matters because there are a lot of financial and legal implications that come with marriage.
-
You also need to bear in mind the campaign that went on from before the vote, I recall there were some very dodgy accusations flying around about Gay marriage, which were being spread by the people who proposed the bill, in an effort to turn public opinion against the idea of it.
The problem with a majority decision is that it assumes that the majority are in possession of the facts in an un-altered form.
-
link (http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/a/benefits.htm)
Also, since when do conservatives give a damn about what the majority wants? See 2000 Prezzy election. Sheesh.
-
I dont see what business government has in regulating marriage. If two people regardless of gender want to get married or divorced, that's a private matter.
It matters because there are a lot of financial and legal implications that come with marriage.
Social implications too, which is why the issue gets so sticky. I'm guessing a good chunk of people against gay marriage are more bothered by the social implications than the financial and legal ones.
-
Social implications too, which is why the issue gets so sticky. I'm guessing a good chunk of people against gay marriage are more bothered by the social implications than the financial and legal ones.
What social implications? The usual ones that get thrown out to stop gay marriage just got blown out of the water by a federal court; that's why the ruling is so fact-heavy. Rather than confront gay marriage as a legal theory issue the judge tackled it from a practical one of if the usual social and socitial objections were valid, and they turned out not to be.
-
Fact is, there's still a lot of homophobia in the civilised world, lots of people are still terrified of homosexuality.
It's like the whole 'calling people and things gay' thing on the Internet, as I've pointed out before, claiming it's anything other than a homophobic-based insult is blatant, out and out bull****, and it's amazing (and a sign of how institutionalised Homophobia has become) that people get away with it by claiming such.
-
Social implications too, which is why the issue gets so sticky. I'm guessing a good chunk of people against gay marriage are more bothered by the social implications than the financial and legal ones.
What social implications?
10 Reasons Why Gay Marriage is Wrong
01) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning.
02) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.
03) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.
04) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.
05) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were allowed; the sanctity of Britany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.
06) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.
07) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.
08) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.
09) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.
10) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.
-
link (http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/a/benefits.htm)
Also, since when do conservatives give a damn about what the majority wants? See 2000 Prezzy election. Sheesh.
Ya know, with what is going on now, maybe we shouldn't be singling out what particular political leaning cares about the majority.
-
since when do conservatives give a damn about what the majority wants? See 2000 Prezzy election. Sheesh.
the same as the democrats, since the majority agreed with them, when this is not the case both sides refer to it as having good "leadership"
-
link (http://gaylife.about.com/od/samesexmarriage/a/benefits.htm)
Also, since when do conservatives give a damn about what the majority wants? See 2000 Prezzy election. Sheesh.
Ya know, with what is going on now, maybe we shouldn't be singling out what particular political leaning cares about the majority.
Wait don't the Democrats control a majority of Congress as well as the presidency? It is a representative democracy.
It'll swing back Republican soon enough, it always cycles.
-
I was referring more to the policies and laws being enacted by both the president and congress going against the majority of the populace. our representatives are NOT representing us. approval ratings for the pres and congress are plummeting across the board, not just the republicans.
i'm derailing here. sorry.
ontopic: i'm honestly glad for gay people who want to get married in california. it really makes no difference to me one way or the other though.
-
I was referring more to the policies and laws being enacted by both the president and congress going against the majority of the populace. our representatives are NOT representing us. approval ratings for the pres and congress are plummeting across the board, not just the republicans.
That always happens, though; approval ratings inevitably plummet. The mechanism for handling this problem is voting them out of office.
My dad probably has some nice graphs to this effect. I should go find his blog.
-
(http://9gag.com/photo/20620_540.jpg)
-
I was referring more to the policies and laws being enacted by both the president and congress going against the majority of the populace. our representatives are NOT representing us. approval ratings for the pres and congress are plummeting across the board, not just the republicans.
That always happens, though; approval ratings inevitably plummet. The mechanism for handling this problem is voting them out of office.
My dad probably has some nice graphs to this effect. I should go find his blog.
yeah, i know. but we still have to put up with it for 4 years. and congress will likely never change. the overwhelming majority of voters don't pay the slightest bit of attention to congress, they just check off next to the incumbant. hell most of the time they run unopposed. i have no illusions of everything being roses even if EVERY member of congress was voted out.
-
I love America. Eventually, they mostly do the right thing, you know, after trying out the wrong thing for a while.
-
Emphasis on the wrong thing first. :P