Judge overturns California's ban on same-sex marriage

Mrmoe

Mrmoe wrote: »

How will it bias the curriculum? Is there a particular subject that will be affected? Is same sex marriage even mentioned/discussed in French, Irish, English, Geography, History, Science, Business,Maths classes?

Any answer to this, Jakkas?

drkpower

Jakkass wrote: »

If they were in fact unconstitutional, it would be still anti-democratic, but there would be some grounds for it I guess. .

There would be 'some grounds' for overturning a decision by the people to prevent others from professing their faith in private, or from wearing short skirts....?

'Some grounds, I guess........' - that is pretty pathetic, Jakkass - anyone with an ounce of sense would be praising a judge for that decision. As would you.

Jakkass wrote: »

The point is, it's a bit of a stretch to suggest that this is unconstitutional given the US-wide precedent, and it is anti-democratic.

Ive explained this to you already Jakkass, but you just cant take it in. The fact that noone has ever challenged the law in other States is not a 'US-wide precedent'; it simply means that noone has challenged it. If the Courts are not asked a question, they cannot answer it. So another of your 'points' disposed of.

And finally, you now say this aspect of the issue is 'your point'........ A few posts ago, your point was that it was 'anti-democratic' - are you shiftin uncomfrotably, Jakkass...? Ive dismantled both of your points now, insofar as ever had one.

philologos

drkpower wrote: »

And finally, you now say this aspect of the issue is 'your point'........ A few posts ago, your point was that it was 'anti-democratic' - are you shiftin uncomfrotably, Jakkass...? Ive dismantled both of your points now, insofar as ever had one.

It's still pretty much anti-democratic. I'd like to see it go to the Supreme Court, because the issue really needs to be settled. The system seems to allow for such huge legislative messes to begin with.

The best option would have been to put it back on the November ballot to see if the people in California have changed their mind.

Edit: My position is pretty much that the people should have a right to decide over matters of family structure and the potential upbringing of children.

drkpower

Jakkass wrote: »

Edit: Surely it would have been a much better option to put it on the November ballot with the mid-term elections.


What would that acheive?
Do you know how the US Constitution is amended, Jakkass?

Jakkass wrote: »

The best option would have been to put it back on the November ballot to see if the people in California have changed their mind.

Lol!
You miss the point so badly, its hilarious. If this proposal is repugnant to the Constitution, askin gthe people to vote again is entirely irrelevent.

Sheeps

next they need to pass proposition 420 free da weed man

philologos

drkpower wrote: »

Lol!
You miss the point so badly, its hilarious. If this proposal is repugnant to the Constitution, askin gthe people to vote again is entirely irrelevent.

That's if it is yes. As you can tell, I'm not entirely convinced that it is particularly given the wide range of opinion in California at the minute on the ruling.

drkpower

Jakkass wrote: »

It's still pretty much anti-democratic. I'd like to see it go to the Supreme Court, because the issue really needs to be settled. The system seems to allow for such huge legislative messes to begin with. .

If overturning a popular vote (in & of itself) is 'anti-democratic', how does the Supreme Court deciding to overturn a popular vote make it any less anti-democratic...?!!?

philologos

drkpower wrote: »

If overturning a popular vote (in & of itself) is 'anti-democratic', how does the Supreme Court deciding to overturn a popular vote make it any less anti-democratic...?!!?

That's where it is headed now, you're correct it is about as anti-democratic as the other, but I'd like to see the issue settled once and for all.

I think there are issues with the system itself, which is pretty much why I criticised judicial activism towards the start of the thread.

drkpower

Jakkass wrote: »

That's where it is headed now, you're correct it is about as anti-democratic as the other, but I'd like to see the issue settled once and for all.

So to re-cap:

1. One court overturning a popular vote is 'anti-democratic'; but you welcome another court deciding to overturn the same popular vote (or not)......:D

2. A court ruling that a vote criminalising the profession of faith is anti-democratic but, all the same, you can 'see some grounds for it, I guess.' - your religous brethern will be delighted with your position:D

3. A court ruling that a vote criminalising the wearing of skirts is anti-democratic but you can 'see some grounds for it, I guess.'

Ahhhh, the wondeful make believe nonsensical world of Jakkass. How is it possible to put so much time and thought into these issues and yet still come to such ridiculous conclusions......

Jakkass wrote: »

I think there are issues with the system itself, which is pretty much why I criticised judicial activism towards the start of the thread.

Do you know what judicial activism is.....? Do you know why you criticise it?

Annasopra

Jakkass wrote: »

The law prior to 1983 was constitutional, because the constitution itself was silent on whether or not LGBT sexual acts were permissible.
The law after de-criminalisation was constitutional, because the constitution itself was silent on whether or not LGBT sexual acts were permissible.

The topic of LGBT sexual acts is entirely different to that of same-sex marriage, and particularly the California context.

You're still refusing to answer my question

Mrmoe

Johnnymcg wrote: »

You're still refusing to answer my question

Mrmoe wrote: »

Any answer to this, Jakkas?

And me too:(

LookingFor

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed, this is the point.

I'm failing to see it. It's very difficult to argue that the circumstances of these children are anything but enhanced by allowing their parents - as in their gay parents, the people who have committed to raise them - to marry.

Jakkass wrote: »

It's a pretty big difference to the situations where children will be placed.

WRT adoption I addressed that further down as you note.

Jakkass wrote: »

As for children being raised already outside marriages, I'm more than aware of this. I would regard marriage as being the best option for a child, and I think the State should do more to encourage marriage above and beyond all other family structures, precisely because it is best for a child.

But that still dodges the question of how to best accommodate children outside this context. The only way this is relevant is if you're saying that the remedy for children of gay parents is for one or other parent to marry a person of opposite gender. That's not a realistic remedy. Gay people aren't going to turn around and marry a person of the opposite gender if they cannot marry a person of the same gender, they'll simply continue as they are now, with their children having none of the legal rights that children of heterosexual couples have.

Jakkass wrote: »

While I respect single-parents for the huge effort that they put in in terms of raising their children, children are best raised with both a mother and a father in a stable marriage.

I've answered so far under the assumption that this true and why even if it were true it doesn't necessarily advance the welfare of children to reserve 'marriage' exclusively for heterosexual couples. But I'll just take the opportunity now to note that saying this doesn't make it true. Appealing to tradition does not make it true. Or, I should say, make it true that children raised by gay parents are at any disadvantage.

It's fine to make this claim but it has to be scrutinised. The evidence so far does not appear to support that claim.

Jakkass wrote: »

I think the point as I would see it would be to give as many children, the best possible upbringing.

At the moment, the bar on gay people marrying is not in any way enhancing the upbringing of children of heterosexual couples and is only diminishing the legal situation of children of homosexual couples. I don't see how this is a net gain, unless you are trying to discourage gay people from having children. The the point I raised becomes relevant over why you are doing so, and whether you believe it is better for such children not to exist than to be raised by gay parents.

Jakkass wrote: »

Just because it is "happening already" doesn't mean that it is of necessity good, or that we should further erode such family structures.

It wouldn't erode any family structures. It would 'at worst' be an additive situation.

Jakkass wrote: »

What about the other biological parent in such situations? Do they have zero contact with their child? That's where another problem would arise for me, I guess.

It's typically the exact same situation as heterosexual couples who involve a third party. Gay people aren't blazing a trail here.

Jakkass wrote: »

If the answer is no, of course. If it isn't, and if children are better off with both mother and father, then the adoption system should show preference to families that will give the child both a mother and a father. If such decisions involve the welfare and best upbringing of another human being, then I support positive discrimination in that case.

I say let the adoption system work this out. What I am saying though is not to disqualify gay couples at the door. I think the only reasonable answer to the question put there is no. The gender mix of the couple in question simply couldn't be a universal trump card in the face of all other circumstances.

Jakkass wrote: »

Indeed, and claims that being raised without a mother or a father won't have any impact on a child also need to hold up under scrutiny. In this case personally I don't think that this is the case.

Indeed, but what one thinks and what's supported by the evidence may not converge.

To bring this back to the context of the topic, here is some of the judgment's commentary on these arguments. All of this discussion we're having here, as you'd expect, played out in court.

At oral argument on proponents’ motion for summary
judgment, the court posed to proponents’ counsel the assumption
that “the state’s interest in marriage is procreative” and inquired
how permitting same-sex marriage impairs or adversely affects that
interest. Doc #228 at 21.

Counsel replied that the inquiry was
“not the legally relevant question,” id, but when pressed for an
answer, counsel replied: “Your honor, my answer is: I don’t know.
I don’t know.”

Id at 23.
Despite this response, proponents in their trial brief
promised to “demonstrate that redefining marriage to encompass
same-sex relationships” would effect some twenty-three specific
harmful consequences. Doc #295 at 13-14. At trial, however,
proponents presented only one witness, David Blankenhorn, to
address the government interest in marriage. Blankenhorn’s
testimony is addressed at length hereafter; suffice it to say that
he provided no credible evidence to support any of the claimed
adverse effects proponents promised to demonstrate. During closing
arguments, proponents again focused on the contention that
“responsible procreation is really at the heart of society’s interest in regulating marriage.” Tr 3038:7-8. When asked to
identify the evidence at trial that supported this contention,
proponents’ counsel replied, “you don’t have to have evidence of
this point.”

Proponents’ procreation argument, distilled to its
essence, is as follows: the state has an interest in encouraging
sexual activity between people of the opposite sex to occur in
stable marriages because such sexual activity may lead to pregnancy
and children, and the state has an interest in encouraging parents
to raise children in stable households. Tr 3050:17-3051:10.

The state therefore, the argument goes, has an interest in encouraging
all opposite-sex sexual activity, whether responsible or
irresponsible, procreative or otherwise, to occur within a stable
marriage, as this encourages the development of a social norm that
opposite-sex sexual activity should occur within marriage. Tr
3053:10-24. Entrenchment of this norm increases the probability
that procreation will occur within a marital union. Because same-
sex couples’ sexual activity does not lead to procreation,
according to proponents the state has no interest in encouraging
their sexual activity to occur within a stable marriage. Thus,
according to proponents, the state’s only interest is in opposite-
sex sexual activity.

Plaintiffs presented eight lay witnesses, including the
four plaintiffs, and nine expert witnesses. Proponents’
evidentiary presentation was dwarfed by that of plaintiffs.
Proponents presented two expert witnesses and conducted lengthy and
thorough cross-examinations of plaintiffs’ expert witnesses but
failed to build a credible factual record to support their claim
that Proposition 8 served a legitimate government interest.

Psychologist Michael Lamb testified that all available
evidence shows that children raised by gay or lesbian parents are
just as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by
heterosexual parents and that the gender of a parent is immaterial
to whether an adult is a good parent. When proponents challenged
Lamb with studies purporting to show that married parents provide
the ideal child-rearing environment, Lamb countered that studies on
child-rearing typically compare married opposite-sex parents to
single parents or step-families and have no bearing on families
headed by same-sex couples. Lamb testified that the relevant
comparison is between families headed by same-sex couples and
families headed by opposite-sex couples and that studies comparing
these two family types show conclusively that having parents of
different genders is irrelevant to child outcomes.

Lamb and Blankenhorn disagreed on the importance of a
biological link between parents and children. Blankenhorn
emphasized the importance of biological parents, relying on studies
comparing children raised by married, biological parents with children raised by single parents, unmarried mothers, step families and cohabiting parents. Tr 2769:14-24 (referring to DIX0026 Kristin Anderson Moore, Susan M Jekielek, and Carol Emig, Marriage from a Child’s Perspective: How Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do about It
, Child Trends (June 2002)); Tr 2771:1-13 (referring to DIX0124 Sara McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What Hurts, What Helps (Harvard 1994)).

As explained in the credibility determinations,
section I below, none of the studies Blankenhorn relied on isolates
the genetic relationship between a parent and a child as a variable
to be tested. Lamb testified about studies showing that adopted
children or children conceived using sperm or egg donors are just
as likely to be well-adjusted as children raised by their
biological parents. Tr 1041:8-17. Blankenhorn agreed with Lamb
that adoptive parents “actually on some outcomes outstrip
biological parents in terms of providing protective care for their
children.” Tr 2795:3-5.

Who is Michael Lamb?

Michael Lamb, a psychologist, testified as an expert on the
developmental psychology of children, including the developmental psychology of children raised by gay and lesbian parents. Lamb offered two opinions: (1) children raised by gays and lesbians are just as likely to be well-adjusted as
children raised by heterosexual parents; and (2) children of
gay and lesbian parents would benefit if their parents were
able to marry. Tr 1009:23-1010:4.

a. PX2327 Lamb CV: Lamb is a professor and head of the Department of Social and Developmental Psychology at the University of Cambridge in England;

Lamb was the head of the section on social and emotional development of the National Institute of Child Health and Human Developmentin Washington DC for seventeen years;

Lamb has published approximately 500 articles, many about child adjustment,has edited 40 books in developmental psychology, reviews about 100 articles a year and serves on editorial boards on several academic journals;

Lamb received a PhD from Yale University in 1976.

Who is David Blankenhorn?

Proponents called David Blankenhorn as an expert on
marriage, fatherhood and family structure. Blankenhorn received a
BA in social studies from Harvard College and an MA in comparative
social history from the University of Warwick in England.
Tr
2717:24-2718:3; DIX2693 (Blankenhorn CV). After Blankenhorn
completed his education, he served as a community organizer in low-
income communities, where he developed an interest in community and
family institutions after “seeing the weakened state” of those
institutions firsthand, “especially how children were living
without their fathers.” Tr 2719:3-18. This experience led
Blankenhorn in 1987 to found the Institute for American Values,
which he describes as “a nonpartisan think tank” that focuses
primarily on “issues of marriage, family, and child well-being.”
Tr 2719:20-25. The Institute commissions research and releases
reports on issues relating to “fatherhood, marriage, family
structure [and] child well-being.” Tr 2720:6-19. The Institute
also produces an annual report “on the state of marriage in
America.” Tr 2720:24-25.

Blankenhorn has published two books on the subjects of marriage, fatherhood and family structure: Fatherless America:Confronting Our Most Urgent Social Problem (HarperCollins 1995),DIX0108, and The Future of Marriage (Encounter Books 2006), DIX0956. Tr 2722:2-12. Blankenhorn has edited four books about family structure and marriage, Tr 2728:13-22, and has co-edited or
co-authored several publications about marriage. Doc #302 at 21.

Plaintiffs challenge Blankenhorn’s qualifications as an expert because none of his relevant publications has been subject to a traditional peer-review process, Tr 2733:2-2735:4, he has no
degree in sociology, psychology or anthropology despite the
importance of those fields to the subjects of marriage, fatherhood
and family structure, Tr 2735:15-2736:9, and his study of the
effects of same-sex marriage involved “read[ing] articles and
ha[ving] conversations with people, and tr[ying] to be an informed
person about it,” Tr 2736:13-2740:3. See also Doc #285
(plaintiffs’ motion in limine). Plaintiffs argue that
Blankenhorn’s conclusions are not based on “objective data or
discernible methodology,” Doc #285 at 25, and that Blankenhorn’s
conclusions are instead based on his interpretation of selected
quotations from articles and reports, id at 26.
The court permitted Blankenhorn to testify but reserved
the question of the appropriate weight to give to Blankenhorn’s
opinions. Tr 2741:24-2742:3. The court now determines that
Blankenhorn’s testimony constitutes inadmissible opinion testimony
that should be given essentially no weight.

It's not that Prop 8's proponents didn't try to rustle up better witnesses. They did, but...when they gave testimony on video, it ended up supporting the plaintiffs. They had to withdraw these two witnesses:

Young has been a professor of religious studies at McGill
University since 1978. PX2335 Young CV. She received her PhD in
history of religions and comparative religions from McGill in 1978.
Id. Young testified at her deposition that homosexuality is a
normal variant of human sexuality and that same-sex couples possess the same desire for love and commitment as opposite-sex couples.
PX2545 (dep tr); PX2544 (video of same). Young also explained that
several cultures around the world and across centuries have had
variations of marital relationships for same-sex couples. Id.

Nathanson has a PhD in religious studies from McGill University and is a researcher at McGill’s Faculty for Religious Studies. PX2334 Nathanson CV. Nathanson is also a frequent lecturer on consequences of marriage for same-sex couples and on gender and parenting. Id. Nathanson testified at his deposition that religion lies at the heart of the hostility and violence
directed at gays and lesbians and that there is no evidence that
children raised by same-sex couples fare worse than children raised
by opposite-sex couples. PX2547 (dep tr); PX2546 (video of same).

Proponents made no effort to call Young or Nathanson to
explain the deposition testimony that plaintiffs had entered into
the record or to call any of the withdrawn witnesses after
potential for contemporaneous broadcast of the trial proceedings
had been eliminated.

Anyway, more on the witnesses they did call.

Blankenhorn’s second opinion is that a body of evidence
supports the conclusion that children raised by their married,
biological parents do better on average than children raised in
other environments. Tr 2767:11-2771:11.

The evidence Blankenhorn relied on to support his conclusion compares children raised by married, biological parents with children raised by single parents, unmarried mothers, step families and cohabiting parents. Tr
2769:14-24 (referring to DIX0026 Kristin Anderson Moore, Susan M
Jekielek, and Carol Emig, Marriage from a Child’s Perspective: How
Does Family Structure Affect Children, and What Can We Do about It
,
Child Trends (June 2002)); Tr 2771:1-11 (referring to DIX0124 Sara
McLanahan and Gary Sandefur, Growing Up with a Single Parent: What
Hurts, What Helps
(Harvard 1994)).

Blankenhorn’s conclusion that married biological parents
provide a better family form than married non-biological parents is
not supported by the evidence on which he relied because the
evidence does not, and does not claim to, compare biological to
non-biological parents. Blankenhorn did not in his testimony consider any study comparing children raised by their married
biological parents to children raised by their married adoptive
parents. Blankenhorn did not testify about a study comparing
children raised by their married biological parents to children
raised by their married parents who conceived using an egg or sperm
donor. The studies Blankenhorn relied on compare various family
structures and do not emphasize biology. Tr 2768:9-2772:6. The
studies may well support a conclusion that parents’ marital status
may affect child outcomes. The studies do not, however, support a
conclusion that the biological connection between a parent and his
or her child is a significant variable for child outcomes. The
court concludes that “there is simply too great an analytical gap
between the data and the opinion proffered.” Joiner
, 522 US at
146. Blankenhorn’s reliance on biology is unsupported by evidence,
and the court therefore rejects his conclusion that a biological
link between parents and children influences children’s outcomes.

Blankenhorn was unwilling to answer many questions
directly on cross-examination and was defensive in his answers.
Moreover, much of his testimony contradicted his opinions.
Blankenhorn testified on cross-examination that studies show
children of adoptive parents do as well or better than children of
biological parents. Tr 2794:12-2795:5. Blankenhorn agreed that
children raised by same-sex couples would benefit if their parents
were permitted to marry. Tr 2803:6-15. Blankenhorn also testified
he wrote and agrees with the statement “I believe that today the
principle of equal human dignity must apply to gay and lesbian
persons. In that sense, insofar as we are a nation founded on this
principle, we would be more American on the day we permitted same-
sex marriage than we were the day before.” DIX0956 at 2; Tr
2805:6-2806:1.

And finally, just some other stuff to chew on wrt raising the protection of children in arguments against gay marriage.

Historian George Chauncey testified about a direct
relationship between the Proposition 8 campaign and initiative
campaigns from the 1970s targeting gays and lesbians; like earlier
campaigns, the Proposition 8 campaign emphasized the importance of
protecting children and relied on stereotypical images of gays and lesbians, despite the lack of any evidence showing that gays and
lesbians pose a danger to children. Chauncey concluded that the
Proposition 8 campaign did not need to explain what children were
to be protected from; the advertisements relied on a cultural
understanding that gays and lesbians are dangerous to children.
This understanding, Chauncey observed, is an artifact of
the discrimination gays and lesbians faced in the United States in
the twentieth century. Chauncey testified that because homosexual
conduct was criminalized, gays and lesbians were seen as criminals;
the stereotype of gay people as criminals therefore became
pervasive. Chauncey noted that stereotypes of gays and lesbians as
predators or child molesters were reinforced in the mid-twentieth
century and remain part of current public discourse. Lamb
explained that this stereotype is not at all credible, as gays and
lesbians are no more likely than heterosexuals to pose a threat to children.


Katami and Stier testified about the effect Proposition 8
campaign advertisements had on their well-being. Katami explained
that he was angry and upset at the idea that children needed to be
protected from him. After watching a Proposition 8 campaign
message, PX0401 (Video, Tony Perkins, Miles McPherson, and Ron
Prentice Asking for Support of Proposition 8), Katami stated that
“it just demeans you. It just makes you feel like people are
putting efforts into discriminating against you.” Tr 108:14-16.


Stier, as the mother of four children, was especially disturbed at
the message that Proposition 8 had something to do with protecting
children. She felt the campaign messages were “used to sort of try
to educate people or convince people that there was a great evil to
be feared and that evil must be stopped and that evil is us, I
guess. * * * And the very notion that I could be part of what
others need to protect their children from was just —— it was more
than upsetting. It was sickening, truly. I felt sickened by that
campaign.” Tr 177:9-18.

Sorry about the formatting. There is much more I quote on these issues from this case. Suffice to say, in terms of what was presented at this case, all roads led to Rome on this matter, so to speak.

There is a also an awful lot there about what marriage is, the benefits and protections it affords the adult partners in a marriage (vs a 'civil partnership' too), the benefits to society of allowing gay people to marry and so on and so forth. Lots. Practically any point you can conceive of in this matter was entertained in this case, so it makes for a pretty good overview of the state of the arguments.

AnonoBoy

Watching someone shift the position of their argument so much in a gay marriage debate is a little dance I like to call the Right Wing Shuffle.

It's fun to watch for a while, but boy oh boy, does it get tiring after a while.

coffee_cake

Jakkass wrote: »

bluewolf - Again, a constitutional republic is a form of representative democracy.

One which is designed to have legislation overrule majority vote.

If you don't like the system go onto politics and complain about C.R. vs democracy, but what happened is perfectly valid under their system. Complaining that it's anti-democratic has nothing to do with what's happened here.

hairyeggs

Jakkass wrote: »

Having restrictions on how much the Constitution can be altered, or having a set requirement of supporters like in Switzerland should do the trick. Ultimately there will have to be some form of judiciary to interpret the Constitution, but adding or removing articles should be down to the people. It is the people who define the character of the country.

Jakkass wrote: »

Disallowing minarets on mosques is a denial of religious freedom, as such calls to prayer are an essential practice of Islam.We need to have a higher standard in the West than in certain states such as Iran and Saudi Arabia.

Referendums are good when you're with the majority and bad when you're in the minority.

GLaDOS

Can't be arsed to read through the same old crap that's spouted every time gay marriage/adoption comes up, just like to say that I'm delighted with this decision.

Jazzy

Jakkass - whats so wrong with gay marriage? surely good people trying to move this forward is to the benefit of the human race and any red tape in the way is just jargon put there by the paranoid few

Up de Barrs

I've never heard anyone who is against gay marriage adequately explain how allowing two citizens (of the same sex) who love each other to make that commitment formal in the eyes of the law could be anything other than a very good thing. If heterosexual marriage is a good stabilising influence on society (and I think it is) then surely giving gay couples the same opportunity will have similar positive benefits.

AnonoBoy

Up de Barrs wrote: »

I've never heard anyone who is against gay marriage adequately explain how allowing two citizens (of the same sex) who love each other to make that commitment formal in the eyes of the law could be anything other than a very good thing. If heterosexual marriage is a good stabilising influence on society (and I think it is) then surely giving gay couples the same opportunity will have similar positive benefits.

Oh no I've heard very well explained arguments.

Example:

"Eh.... something about undermining nature and how democracy has been the way that works and not natural and eh..... not homophobic just think it's wrong and I don't want them to have rights, eh, wait, no I don't think that, it's just that if they can get married then I'm undermined as someone who eh.... is already married and against nature and eh..... something about God..... actually I'm not against it I just don't think they should adopt."

MagicMarker

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Oh no I've heard very well explained arguments.

Example:

"Eh.... something about undermining nature and how democracy has been the way that works and not natural and eh..... not homophobic just think it's wrong and I don't want them to have rights, eh, wait, no I don't think that, it's just that if they can get married then I'm undermined as someone who eh.... is already married and against nature and eh..... something about God..... actually I'm not against it I just don't think they should adopt."

''err, marriage is a precursor to procreation, but, errr, it's alright for infertile hetero couples to marry because, err, that's different blah blah mindless waffle''

philologos

drkpower: It seems you are more into condescension and patronising rather than actually entering into a discussion, which is regrettable.

If you read back a few pages ago, I mentioned why I felt that political activism wasn't ever the best way to deal with such disputes on things that can radically change an entire society and its workings (marriage being one of the fundamentals which society itself hinges on).

I went on to say that I had studied politics for a year at university where we dealt with things such as political institutions in respect to Ireland and globally.

I'm willing to discuss with people if they are willing to do so in courtesy, if not I quite frankly could be doing better things with my time. Discussing about the big issues is one of the things I like doing, but only in the right context.

hairyeggs wrote: »

Referendums are good when you're with the majority and bad when you're in the minority.

Nice quote mining - On minarets on mosques in Switzerland, it was wholly democratic. It is possible to disagree with how the people vote in a referendum, but it is overall a good system.

In that case I think it was a bad decision, but it is up to the Swiss to decide how they wish to deal with Islam.

Karl Hungus

Just reposting this from A&A, because it's quite beautifully put.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ChanTFSmqao

Sir Digby Chicken Caesar

keith olbermann isn't dead yet?

crying shame

seannash

ive got a question.

so we made slavery illegal,cool

interracial marriages is also okay,cool

being gay is socially acceptable now,cool

they want to have there relationships recognised,meh whatever i think your nitpicking at this point but im not against it.


now a few hundred years ago these ideas would have been considered unthinkable,perverse even.


so where is the line drawn

i know gay people dont choose to be gay,i understand that but what if in a few hundred years support grows for another sexual orientation that right now seems unthinkable and perverse.

just to add.i dont care either way on the marriage thing(gay or straight ones).i have alot of very good gay friends but im not rejoicing in the good news because i doesnt really affect me

Karl Hungus

seannash wrote: »

what if in a few hundred years support grows for another sexual orientation that right now seems unthinkable and perverse.

It's a logical fallacy to believe that one thing must lead to another, and it cannot be argued that there's some endless sliding scale of what's allowable here, but lets look at it for a moment. We'll take an example of a current sexuality that is "unthinkable and perverse" in this moral climate, lets just say paedophilia for arguments sake. I would imagine that it is something that will never be acceptable, and it's very clear to see why because the act directly infringes upon the rights of another person, namely the child.

So any kind of sliding scale that might exist, that acceptance of homosexuality will lead to acceptance of something else, there is a very obvious cut-off point that is sure to come into play: Infringing upon the rights of another. Two gay men getting married doesn't hurt anyone, nor does it effect anyone. Someone raping a child does unfathomable amounts of hurt to that child.

The only thing this could pave the way for, is any other sexual orientation that people might be uncomfortable with, yet exists between two consenting adults. Consenting adults is the key here.

seannash

Karl Hungus wrote: »

It's a logical fallacy to believe that one thing must lead to another, and it cannot be argued that there's some endless sliding scale of what's allowable here, but lets look at it for a moment. We'll take an example of a current sexuality that is "unthinkable and perverse" in this moral climate, lets just say paedophilia for arguments sake. I would imagine that it is something that will never be acceptable, and it's very clear to see why because the act directly infringes upon the rights of another person, namely the child.

So any kind of sliding scale that might exist, that acceptance of homosexuality will lead to acceptance of something else, there is a very obvious cut-off point that is sure to come into play: Infringing upon the rights of another. Two gay men getting married doesn't hurt anyone, nor does it effect anyone. Someone raping a child does unfathomable amounts of hurt to that child.

The only thing this could pave the way for, is any other sexual orientation that people might be uncomfortable with, yet exists between two consenting adults. Consenting adults is the key here.

no i agree the word consenting is key.

paedofilia will never be acceptable but maybe something like having multiple wives.
again this is a harmless ask really but im sure would evoke a heated reaction

part of me is all "yay go gheys" but it does annoy me when pro gay people cant accept another point of view.

some people are very religious and think it goes against god.thats cool,let them be that way but dont try and change there beliefs because its not in keeping with what gay supporters believe.

i think the institution of marriage is a bit silly in alot of ways and dont see what the fuss is about having a relationship recognised by the state.

anyway none of this changes anything in anyones day to day life imo

Mrmoe

Karl Hungus wrote: »

It's a logical fallacy to believe that one thing must lead to another, and it cannot be argued that there's some endless sliding scale of what's allowable here, but lets look at it for a moment. We'll take an example of a current sexuality that is "unthinkable and perverse" in this moral climate, lets just say paedophilia for arguments sake. I would imagine that it is something that will never be acceptable, and it's very clear to see why because the act directly infringes upon the rights of another person, namely the child.

So any kind of sliding scale that might exist, that acceptance of homosexuality will lead to acceptance of something else, there is a very obvious cut-off point that is sure to come into play: Infringing upon the rights of another. Two gay men getting married doesn't hurt anyone, nor does it effect anyone. Someone raping a child does unfathomable amounts of hurt to that child.

The only thing this could pave the way for, is any other sexual orientation that people might be uncomfortable with, yet exists between two consenting adults. Consenting adults is the key here.

I agree to a certain extent that there is no continual sliding scale. I think you are correct in saying that paedophilia will never be tolerated as you quite rightly point out that consent can never be given. However, I think probably the most controversial issue instead of paedophilis would be incestual relationships between consenting adults. Todays society would never accept this and probably will not for the foreseeable future. There will always be a taboo associated with this regardless of whether it is right or wrong

Karl Hungus

seannash wrote: »

some people are very religious and think it goes against god.thats cool,let them be that way but dont try and change there beliefs because its not in keeping with what gay supporters believe.

Now, here's the point where Karl the cynical auld atheist has to disagree completely.

In my eyes, it is not cool if people are very religious and think that two fellas or two lasses getting shacked up together are a slight against god (and I'd have to add it's fairly insulting to a higher being to think that he would be as utterly petty to be concerned one way or another with what two people who love each other decide to do with their brief time in this existence), but I would sternly say that the religious have no business claiming the institution of marriage for their own.

Marriage exists under law, and it is nothing other than the law of the land by which two people are considered wed, and it is by the same law that the various rights afforded to married couples are upheld. Anything further than that, a religious ceremony, that's just sprinkling fairy dust over what is really a contract in law between two people. Marriage is upheld by society, not some imaginary sky wizard, so to claim that this is a religious institution is surreptitiously laying claim to what is plainly a social institution.

amacachi

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Watching someone shift the position of their argument so much in a gay marriage debate is a little dance I like to call the Right Wing Shuffle.

Please don't confuse a right-wing outlook, one based on freedom from government control and/or interference with bigotry.

Anyone who ever tries to bring "god" or "religion" into rights and laws should instantly be derided tbh.

Karl Hungus

Mrmoe wrote: »

I agree to a certain extent that there is no continual sliding scale. I think you are correct in saying that paedophilia will never be tolerated as you quite rightly point out that consent can never be given. However, I think probably the most controversial issue instead of paedophilis would be incestual relationships between consenting adults. Todays society would never accept this and probably will not for the foreseeable future. There will always be a taboo associated with this regardless of whether it is right or wrong

Now there's a point. Incest has and always will be extremely taboo, and truthfully, I can't see there being a point where incest is as accepted as homosexuality. There's just some taboos that aren't going to be broken, take nudity for example. I don't ever see it becoming acceptable for anyone to walk around in public in the nude.

Realistically, if we were going to look at the breaking of taboo and cultural acceptance that we can compare to homosexuality, then we need look no further than AH's topic du jour transsexuality.