California Proposition 8

[Mare Tranquillity]

Sorry, I was returning to the thread's title and just finding another way to phrase the debate. On the one hand, you're almost battling for your right to exist unprejudged, just as anyone else with a simple birth defect. The other side of the argument seems to be that since the "birth defect" (for lack of a better term) in question has a certain behavioral component, severe restrictions need to be applied.

You two, the two principals in this debate, aren't really convincing each other (from what little I've read) one way or the other, and for most of the rest of us, it's just too tedious to want to follow for very long. I suppose that all I'm really trying to do is point out various reasons for the impasse.

Medically, I'm aware that there are individuals born with the various "configurations" that cause these circumstances, and that judging them harshly isn't "right". And beyond that simple medical fact, I don't know what to tell you besides what criteria others are likely to use in their own minds for what decisions they're going to make. When you embark on a mission to educate others, it's often a very good exercise to attempt to argue from their point of view.

I think the biggest difficulty (this might be a mistake) in this one is both sides trying to paint a multifaceted issue with too broad of a brush. Let's just say for the sake of argument that:

1) there really ARE evil b*stards out there who have a real issue with needing to sexually dominate other guys and predate other individuals they deem are ripe for the picking; and,

2) there really ARE non-evil individuals with gender identity issues due to bonafide medical realities.

In an arbitration scenario, opposing sides would each have to cede a point and then have to figure out how to proceed. I think it'd be interesting to run that exercise.

What you are proposing is a compromise between the Aryan Nations/American Nazi Party and the Jews, between the Ku Klux Klan and the black people. Of course there are sexual predators, there are in all groups, but you don't see anyone being singled out for denial of legal rights except us. The worst scum-sucking child molestor has the right to marry and have kids legally, murderers, drug dealers, hired killers, Mafia Dons, anybody has the legal right to marry, has equal protection under the law--except us. I don't know if you've read my posts on this thread--it's way too tedious, of course--but there is no credible source supporting the hatred and persecution of gay and transpeople, all the current science is on our side. I'm not sitting on the back of the bus anymore. If it's tedious, then don't read it, we're just the modern day n1ggers, it's no skin off your nose, right? That's why any civil rights movement takes so much time and effort, there are just an awful lot of people willing to throw others off the back of the sled because it's easier than doing what's right.

It's highly likely that in the very near future "The ultimate goal will be to survive, even if it means doing the wrong thing."

Of course, most people will look out for #1, it's always been that way--doesn't make it right. Gutless self-interest is always easy to come by, but who do we remember? The guy who ran away or the one who jumped on the grenade to save his friends? The woman who froze or the one who dived in front of the car to save someone else's child? History is full of examples where people made excuses for being "less than", but who among us grew up dreaming of being "less than".

All in all, Pidgey, I think it's more honest when someone is willing to stand up and say, "I don't care about you, I care about me, and if you lose it's better than me losing." I think that's contemptible, but at least it's honest. Siho is trying to make up for feeling "less than" by bashing us, by making us seem even less than she is, but she calls it something else--and anything else will do as long as she appears to come off a little better.

It's difficult to learn that one of the basic paradigms of the culture in which you live is based on a lie. But for the vast majority of people it's easier to live with a comfortable lie than confront an uncomfortable truth.

 

[Sihouette]

Hey you have a (dubious) research sample of one.

That is conclusive proof of the conclusion you were seeking.

The desperation of christian 'logic'.~dawk

How many x-tians you know watch Southpark?

 

[Pidgey]

I've had a few gay friends and acquaintances, but I don't think I've known a trans. Come to think of it... there was one kid who probably should have been classed that way but I never heard the end of that story.

Usually ya' bring extreme examples into a debate for the express purpose of hammering a point home that the other party's not really willing to accept anyhow. And that very often gets the rhetoric into the ridiculous. I suppose at this point, I'd like to see the full text of Prop 8 and see what language could have been modified, inserted, deleted or whatever to make a compromise acceptable. Or, if that wouldn't actually address the full issue, then to bring out the full text of the existing codification that Prop 8 would have addressed.

An exercise just for the fun of it.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I've had a few gay friends and acquaintances, but I don't think I've known a trans. Come to think of it... there was one kid who probably should have been classed that way but I never heard the end of that story.

Usually ya' bring extreme examples into a debate for the express purpose of hammering a point home that the other party's not really willing to accept anyhow. And that very often gets the rhetoric into the ridiculous. I suppose at this point, I'd like to see the full text of Prop 8 and see what language could have been modified, inserted, deleted or whatever to make a compromise acceptable. Or, if that wouldn't actually address the full issue, then to bring out the full text of the existing codification that Prop 8 would have addressed.

An exercise just for the fun of it.

Prop 8 essentially denies us full legal rights, specifically all the rights associated with legal marriage at the Federal level. State marriage rights can be granted to gays through a State civil unions bill, but since it's not "marriage" we are still denied more than 1049 specific rights and privileges guaranteed under Federal law.

Women have equality under the law, black people have equality, we want equality since there is no logical reason to disenfranchise us.

I'm not even gay, I'm legally married and our marriage is at risk because people like Siho don't know any better. Hell's bells, even my brothers don't know any better.

 

[Pidgey]

So... research into this deal is going to start someplace like here:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

So... research into this deal is going to start someplace like here:

http://www.gao.gov/new.items/d04353r.pdf

Okay, 1138 laws requiring or refering to legally married people. About 4-5% of the population are denied the right to marry their loved one due to religious dogma against homosexuals. There is no religious dogma refering to transsexuals in the Bible, Torah, or Book of Mormon. To date no one has provided any rational reason to ban homosexuals from the institution of marriage. Since marriage is a legal contract in US law it is covered by the equal protection clause of the US Constitution which requires all citizens to be equal before the law--homosexuals are denied this equality.

What compromise do you propose that does not make homosexuals and transsexuals 2nd class citizens? Please note the malice in these two anti-gay marriage amendments to State Constitutions which not only bar marriage but anything approximating the benefits of marriage as well.

"This Commonwealth and its political subdivisions shall not create or recognize a legal status for relationships of unmarried individuals that intends to approximate the design, qualities, significance, or effects of marriage. Nor shall this Commonwealth or its political subdivisions create or recognize another union, partnership, or other legal status to which is assigned the rights, benefits, obligations, qualities, or effects of marriage." Commonwealth of Virginia Ban on Gay Marriage

"To secure and preserve the benefits of marriage for our society and for future generations of children, the union of one man and one woman in marriage shall be the only agreement recognized as a marriage or similar union for any purpose." Michigan Gay Marriage Ban

 

[Pidgey]

So, let's tally the possible economics of the basic issues if the bans were dropped:

1) A new income stream into the GLBT community where public money is used to fund "widows", etc.

2) Access to various welfare and social services previously not provided.

3) Access to insurance money previously not provided.

4) Public money diverted in the court system to handle divorces (somebody's gotta' pay for those judges, you know).

5) Access to the GLBT community's money by divorce lawyers (probably would be a very large net transfer of wealth, which is why many lawyers would welcome the lifting of the ban).

Is that the worst of it? What am I missing?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

So, let's tally the possible economics of the basic issues if the bans were dropped:

1) A new income stream into the GLBT community where public money is used to fund "widows", etc.

2) Access to various welfare and social services previously not provided.

3) Access to insurance money previously not provided.

4) Public money diverted in the court system to handle divorces (somebody's gotta' pay for those judges, you know).

5) Access to the GLBT community's money by divorce lawyers (probably would be a very large net transfer of wealth, which is why many lawyers would welcome the lifting of the ban).

Is that the worst of it? What am I missing?

Are you intending to just list what you perceive as being the negative impacts or do the positive impacts count as well? Are you suggesting that an extra few percent of the population being allowed to marry will damage the US economic system in a substantial way?

If we are not using a double standard, then why are we talking about the financial impacts of equality when those are not a determining factor in anyone else's right to marry?

GLBT people pay all the same taxes as everyone else, why shouldn't they have the same benefits?

Study: Gay Marriage Boon To Business

(Los Angeles, California) Giving same-sex couples marriage rights will be good for the economy, according to a new study, released Wednesday.

"The Effect of Marriage Equality and Domestic Partnership On Business and the Economy," was prepared by the Williams Institute at the University of California Los Angeles.

The study says that gains to businesses from happier and healthier workers that would outweigh new costs for benefits. The economy would also gain from the positive effect of equality on state government budgets it says.

"Policymakers and businesspeople have not fully recognized the enormous potential gains to the economy from treating same-sex couples equally," noted Dr. M. V. Lee Badgett, study co-author and research director of the Williams Institute.

"Our study shows that equal treatment of couples in the business world attracts heterosexual employees and creates more productive workplaces for gay, lesbian, and bisexual employees."

The study documents numerous research findings on different aspects of the economy.

Gay, lesbian, and bisexual (GLB) employees who get domestic partner benefits are more open in the workplace and have better mental health outcomes than employees that do not get such benefits according to the report.

Most importantly, it says, partner benefits increase job satisfaction and job retention, reducing recruitment and training costs for companies. Although businesses will have some one-time administrative costs, ongoing added costs to employee benefit plans will be low, since few employees will have new spouses or partners to cover.

The economy gains in other direct ways, as well the study found.

"Spending on new weddings alone would generate $2 billion for businesses in the wedding industry," reported co-author Gary J. Gates, senior research associate at the Williams Institute. "Places that allow same-sex couples to marry have reported noticeable boosts in business for hotels, caterers, florists, and other wedding-related businesses. Our study reports the expected wedding impact for each state."

The study notes that differences across states in policies toward same-sex couples can be confusing and costly for businesses. Complexity and uncertainty make it difficult for employers to know how to treat employees and their partners across jurisdictions. Employers also risk losing employees to jobs in states with more favorable policies.
http://www.365gay.com/Newscon06/10/101106economic.htm

 

[Pidgey]

I thought about adding something like that kind of stuff but decided I'd let you type it out instead, sorry.

Yeah, I know--the GLBT community are taxpayers, too (how not?). In theory, if you pay the taxes, you should also be allowed the benefits of your tax dollars as well. That said, is the GLBT community's per capita cost on parity with... the standard models? I would imagine that a lot of voters have some ideas about that, right or wrong.

It's all academic to me--if I had my way, I'd strip out all the taxes, payouts and governmental graft for all that crap. When I got through with it, there wouldn't be a reason to get married short of an excuse to throw a party.

Don't worry about the US economic system being damaged in a substantial way by the GLBT community--it's already received a mortal blow and will be eventually descending to pure chaos soon enough to make all this one heckuva' distant memory.

 

[Sihouette]

Think of the revenues for that matter from NAMBLA members being allowed to marry the ones they "love"? Or bigamists..tons of divorce fodder there too...

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Think of the revenues for that matter from NAMBLA members being allowed to marry the ones they "love"? Or bigamists..tons of divorce fodder there too...

You keep trying to inject your fascination with pedophilia into the discussion, but it won't work. We (the adults on this discussion site) are addressing the issue of ALL consenting adults being allowed equality in marriage.

 

[Sihouette]

There you go again, purposefully misinterpreting what I said to fashion it into an ad hominem. I made it perfectly clear that I'm concerned about legal precidents once the word "love" is used to justify being allowed to marry outside of a one-on-one heterosexual bond.

Please keep your wilfull misinterpretations and personal attacks/insinuations down to a dull roar will ya?

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

There you go again, purposefully misinterpreting what I said to fashion it into an ad hominem. I made it perfectly clear that I'm concerned about legal precidents once the word "love" is used to justify being allowed to marry outside of a one-on-one heterosexual bond.

Please keep your wilfull misinterpretations and personal attacks/insinuations down to a dull roar will ya?

You are the only one who continually tries to change the subject by pushing the idea that marriage equality will result in legal child molesting. This is a horror-fantasy of yours with no support in reality. You're afraid, we get that, but projecting your fear onto others will not ultimately help you deal with it.

Why don't you start a thread about child molesting? You could give us all the examples of places in the world where legal gay marriage has opened up the floodgates and they now have legal child molesting. Let's see, Canada, Spain, Belgium, Holland, Sweden, and Massachusetts all have gay marriage--do any of them have legal child molesting?

 

[Pidgey]

I don't get how the child molesting keeps coming up, either...

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

I don't get how the child molesting keeps coming up, either...

Anita Bryant's religious group made a crusade out of labeling all homosexuals as child molestors, and at least one of the people on this site appears to believe that.

The child molesting angle is often brought up in connection with gay people as a "guilt by association" tactic--even though gays are no more likely to be pedophiles than anyone else. Every perversion you can think of gets brought up in discussions of gay marriage as a way of derailing it and clouding the issue.