WEATHER »

Comments by joshanders_84

Previous | Page 2 of 2

Posted on November 19 at 1:13 p.m.

drowsysb, good point, i agree with you. It's not acceptance per se, but being allowed to live their life without fear of harm or retribution from others in society or the government itself. Live and let live.

On None

Posted on November 19 at 1:02 p.m.

*sigh*

"I decide every day of my life to be of the straight variety. I could choose otherwise, but do not feel that is what is best for my life."

You could choose otherwise? I don't think I could. So I guess you fall in the middle of the scale I mentioned above then? Or did you not look at it?

I don't think you realize it, but what you are saying is actually extremely offensive to me as an ally of the homosexual community, and I would presume for the homosexual community itself. Of COURSE homosexuals want to be accepted. What's wrong with that? Doesn't everyone want to be accepted for who they are? And how does it affect you if homosexuals are treated equally and fairly? And what's wrong with teaching about homosexuality in schools? It's found in hundreds of species in the world, not just humans. It's a natural fact. This includes creatures humans would never say had the cognitive abilities to "choose" their sexual orientation. And ignoring homosexuality doesn't make it go away. it just breeds ignorance, fear, and hatred of an entire group of people. Or at least that's the way I see it.

On None

Posted on November 19 at 12:21 p.m.

Tell me, PangZhu, when did you decide you were going to be straight?
I know I never made a choice to be straight. It just happened that way.

Have you heard of the Kinsey scale?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kinsey_s...

What about the theory of a sliding scale of sexuality in general? While some people do fall in the middle and find themselves attracted to both genders (often labeled as "bisexuals"), most people fall closer to one extreme or the other, and are attracted to those of either the same or opposite sex with no choice in the matter. Homosexuals "choose" to be attracted to people of the same sex in the same way that heterosexuals "choose" to be attracted to the opposite sex: it's innate.

On None

Posted on November 19 at 12:14 p.m.

Jenn, in my opinion, you have obfuscated the point a bit. Yes, you are right, marriage is the name of a religious ceremony. It is also the name of a civil contract which unites two people. You are implying (or perhaps it's just my inference) that these two words are equivalent. While in a literal sense they are the same word, a civil marriage and a religious marriage represent wholly different items. You can have either without the other, which to me clearly shows they are not the same thing. As I mentioned above, I don't think it's the word that matters -- only that the word be fairly applied to all people in our society. If that word isn't marriage, that's fine -- but I don't believe we can say that the STATE can marry some people and civilly union others, as that is discrimination. Either all people can get civilly married, or all people can have an equivalent construct with a different name, but it can't be one group gets A, and the other B. All people are people, regardless of their sexual orientation, and deserve to be treated equally as citizens of this state (and nation).

It should also be noted that this in fact goes both ways. Heterosexuals are currently unable to obtain domestic partnerships unless one of the partners (or both?) is over the age of 62. I think this is also unfair, but it is only a reaction to the fact that homosexuals cannot get married. We can kill two birds with one stone if we make all relationships registered with the state between two adults the same -- regardless of the gender of those adults.

And again, NO ONE is asking that homosexuals be allowed to be RELIGIOUSLY married, only CIVILLY married. And as stated (by many) above, there are still differences between civil unions and civil marriages in our state.

On None

Posted on November 19 at 10:37 a.m.

Rainebow, while I agree with you in some respects, I think saying that people just need a dog to kick is trivializing this extremely important issue. Homosexuality has been taboo in our society for a long time, and it is finally being accepted more and more. The good news? One exit poll I saw said people in the 18-25 age range voted 66% against prop 8. Homosexuality is finally starting to be recognized for what it is: attraction to the same sex. Nothing more, nothing less. Homosexuals are people the same as any other, they just aren't attracted to the opposite sex. Who cares? Why would we strip rights from someone for this reason? It's as arbitrary, to me at least, as selecting any other group of people (say folks with black hair) and telling them they can't get married. But change is coming, because young folks clearly have much less aversion to homosexuals, and I believe this acceptance will grow with each generation.

Additionally, I would say essentially all the arguments I have heard in favor of prop 8 boil down to "it's immoral" or "it's gross." I don't believe either of those are reasons to legislate. In fact, I would apply both of those terms to the arguments for prop 8. So it's clearly subjective, and as Typo put it above much better than I ever could: "It is not your right to legislate subjectively."

On None

Posted on November 19 at 10:22 a.m.

I'm all for getting rid of marriage as the term for a civil contract joining two people (which, after all, is the only thing homosexuals are asking for), and calling it something else. Religion can keep its word that way. Of course, the problem is that a civil contract between two people to obtain the benefits they do is called "marriage" in this society. Ergo, we either need to include ALL people in the civil marriage (obviously no one is trying to force religious groups to marry homosexuals in "the eyes of God"), or we need to let no one have civil marriages and call them something else. The status quo, however, is not acceptable, because it truly is a case of "separate but equal", which as we all know is always the former, but rarely (if ever) the latter.

Also, for those who think civil unions/domestic partnership are currently completely equal to marriage, I would encourage you to visit the following links:

http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/weddi...

"Marriage V. Domestic Partnership" PDF on http://www.letcaliforniaring.org/site...

On None

Posted on October 29 at 8:34 a.m.

Being gay is not a choice. Period.

"The fact is: Homosexuality is not a choice any more than being left-handed or having blue eyes or being heterosexual is a choice. It's an orientation, a part of who you are...There is no scientifically valid evidence that people can change their sexual orientations, although some people do repress it. But because being gay is not a disorder, there is really no reason to try to change yourself."
-- http://www.yffn.org/admin/ncod/facts....

"New research indicates that sexual orientation is at least partly physiological...The cell cluster [in the brain is] reliably larger in heterosexual men than in women and homosexual men...It should not surprise us that brains differ with sexual orientation... Although we find it convenient to talk separately of psychological and biological explanations, everything psychological is simultaneously biological."
-- http://www.soulforce.org/article/644

And what about gay animals, which we don't consider to have the brain capacity to make a "choice" about being gay?

Penguins: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article... .

Or any of these birds: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...

Or any of these mammals: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_...

Drinking and driving is a choice. Being gay is not.

On None

Posted on October 28 at 12:09 p.m.

AShaw:

I would posit that this is completely about rights. While in its most simplistic term it's a discrepancy over a word, ultimately you're drawing a line and saying people on this side are legally allowed to do x, while people on the other side can do y, and though y and x have different names, they're the same. Then why not just call them both x, if they are truly equal? And I personally do not believe it is selfish to desire true equality under the eyes of the law.

howardwater:

What specifically about the founding fathers or any of their writings are you saying is relevant here? Are you saying because the original vote was overturned? The vote was creating a law that was unconstitutional. It was the duty of the judges to overturn a law that was disallowed by our state's constitution. If anything, this is praise for the fundamentals of our democracy. The law was interpreted based on our state's constitution, and was found to go against it. Now there is a bill that will amend the constitution to allow the original law to be enacted. While I think this is errant, and fundamentally flawed, it is most certainly a right of our democracy to change that which we as a society deem incorrect. I just hope society falls on my side of the proposition 8 fence (as you hope it falls on your side). We will see next week.

On None

Posted on October 28 at 9:08 a.m.

howardwater, I think the point is missed on both sides then. Would you honestly tell someone they cannot do something solely because of the way they were born? I would not purport to tell you that because you have brown hair (let's just suppose for the case of example) that you are not allowed to marry because people with brown hair are sinful and an abomination to god. I guess you could dye your hair, but underneath, it's still brown (Kinda like when gay people "convert" to being straight because they can't find acceptance within their religious faith for their homosexuality...and to be clear, no, I do not believe all religions or all churches are anti-gay). I would posit that you're focusing on the lesser of the points about proposition 8: the word. Are you really so tied to a word that you're willing to try a re-hashing of separate but equal? So tied to a word you would take away others' rights? So tied to a word that you would amend our constitution to have your way? Forgive me for believing our constitution is better than that.

And lest I forget: "We must stay the course and hold firm the values of the builders of this nation."

I honestly believe, sir, that our founders would not support the stripping away of anyone's rights. They fought and died to found this country on the principles of all men created equal (though it should have been all people), and I don't believe either of us should speak on their behalf. It's far too common an argument to fall back on, and they aren't here to clarify their positions, so it's moot. Let's stick on point: all people should be considered equal, and have equal rights and protections under the law, regardless of which sex they find attractive. Period.

NO on Proposition 8.

On None

Posted on October 27 at 2:19 p.m.

"Yes the Calif. Constitution has to be changed when voter's choices are not validated. Going to the poll making thier (sic) choice only to be changed by a few that could not get thier (sic) way. Let me take my ball home becuse (sic) I lost. The 8 year old would say."

The problem here, and one that I think has been grossly overlooked in this whole proposition's campaign, is that the "activist" (new code word for "conservative?") judges who overturned the original vote did so on the grounds that it was UNCONSTITUTIONAL to discriminate based on sexual orientation. This means that what we are voting on here is to make it LEGAL TO DISCRIMINATE BASED ON SEXUAL ORIENTATION. Few amendments have ever been passed that have stripped rights. One that did? Prohibition. I think we saw how that worked out.

Also, if you are upset that your vote was overturned, I understand, but it was an UNCONSTITUTIONAL law. So now we're going to change the constitution just so you can get your way? Talk about taking your ball and going home.

Even if you are against gay marriage based on religion or "morality" (I put that in quotes as I don't believe it is moral to discriminate based on biological differences), you should still understand why it is oh so dangerous to take away a whole group's right to marry. If you replace the fact that the discrimination of marriage is based on homosexuality, and change it to "Jewish people can't marry" (it's Ok to say, I'm Jewish) or "white people can't marry," (it's OK again, I'm white, too lol) I have a feeling it would garner much less support.

I urge everyone to vote NO on PROPOSITION 8, as it is a veiled attempt to strip the rights that people are already married to (pun obviously intended), and a right that is a basic expression of love between two people. NO ON 8!

On None

Previous | Page 2 of 2

event calendar sponsored by: