(Untitled)

[taxidermied]

I'm saddened by California's supreme court ruling to ban same sex marriage. I have many gay friends who have more stable love lives than I would hope to ever have. Why has it become ok to hate one group more than others? Why is it ok for religious groups to mandate what is acceptable and what is not? Do you think gay people chose that lifestyle

Comments

[tsuki_reiko]

The number one thing that irritates me is when people say that all homosexuals "chose" to "be that way". Some might, sure, but what about the people who live (or have lived, through the ages) in places where they could be stoned or burned alive for it? Yeah, I'm so sure that they want to peg their entire lives for some fun and games.

[lostreality]

actually the most significant predictor of someone's views on gay rights is whether you believe it's a choice or not (it's even a bigger predictor than knowing someone who is gay).

[ginasketch]

Some might, sure

Erm...what? You can't choose your sexuality.

[nefaria]

Sexuality is very complicated, for some folks the genetic-environment influence is so strong that they have no choice, for others it's a conscious decision based on free will and preferences. It's a continuum, not a light switch.

I believe k.d. lang said she used to date men but she got into a couple of abusive relationships and tried lesbianism instead and immensely preferred it. Some would argue that she was a lesbian her whole life and just came to realize it, but I think it was more of a choice in her case.

That's irrelevant to the marriage rights issue, however. Religion is a free choice, and religion is a recognized right; marriage should be too.

[dreamerunleashd]

California's Supreme court did not rule to ban same sex marriage

[sparta]

Best comment.

[count_01]

Thank you.

[ikichi]

::golf clap::

(I love the irony of my minister father being ok with my queerness (he doesn't "get it" but he says he doesn't have to to love me; and hell, he's had more gay congregates at his churches (he moved) than he knew and was on fab terms with all of them) but some person who's never met me and never will thinks my falling in love with a woman will somehow hurt their marriage.

Um, only if I fall in love with your wife.)

[dohmnaill]

I think a savage beating is in order...
The same people that seem to think that expanding the franchise of marriage is a threat, also believe in a very Nordic looking middle-eastern savior. They have a failed dead Jewish man nailed to a Roman torture device, or at least just the device, as a symbol of faith... and somehow they feel they have the right to dictate what is correct?

The bible is full of some messed-up things:
Matthew 10:34 - Do not think that I came to bring peace on earth. I did not come to bring peace but a sword!
One look at all the "God hates" sites is enough to make you believe it.

They doubt and attempt to debunk hard science, and then force changes in the school systems. Check out Ray comfort's banana argument sometimes... the man seems to believe that evolution suggests that both male and female "species" evolved separately - then came together. He uses this as his argument that evolution makes no sense... just crazy.

And somehow people who act differently are supposed to be the problem.

[ikichi]

You know, I never got the whole "no evolution" thing. I mean, their origin story starts with the universe, the planet, water and land, less complex animals to more complex animals. Aside from timing, which I hardly want to count since we're dealing with something written before "billions of years" existed as a concept the two don't really seem to contradict to me.

[dohmnaill]

I don't get it either... I once actually stopped an argument regarding this by asking someone to explain it. I simply asked how exactly evolution undercuts religion...

The thing that gets me is the denial of science in specific applications, but the acceptance in others.

It is a bit of a rant, but I think this sums it up:
http://www.process.org/discept/2009/05/17/and-six-thousand-steps-back/#more-443

[angelfaerieh]

I keep hearing "the rule of the people," as if to say that overriding anything the general public votes for is against their best interest.
If allowed, people would vote to do stupid things. Courts NEED to step in and Force people to stop allowing the loud minority to Force their views upon the majority.
So what if the votes are only seperated by 4%? That doesn't mean it was a real majority rule, just means some people should get out and actually vote.....something which many have lost faith in.

[nefaria]

All constitutional amendments should require a super-majority, 66% minimum and preferably 75%. 50% + 1 is just stupid, you end up rewriting a big slice of the laws every time the political wind shifts.

[count_01]

I hesitate to do this (indeed, I have only done it this once, and I'm not sure I like the precedent) but there is much teal deer here, in response to the whole Prop 8 question. But it's the short version of my thinking on the matter.

The long version is annotated, with USC citations.