California Court Upholds Prop 8

[quote]ZEB wrote:

And therein lies the problem. Do you understand the statistics on “committed gay relationships”? They are abysmal. In fact there’s almost no such thing statistically speaking.
I’d post some statistics on this to back up my argument, but as a long time lurker you must have seen the data before and have chosen to ignore it because you have friends that are gay and life is wonderful la dee da.[/quote]

I didn’t say life was wonderful. One of my managers who is gay, who believes homosexuality is genetic, frequently laments, “Why would anyone CHOOSE to be this way? To live with the stigma and hatred?” And don’t quote the absymal statistics of gay committed relationships when the divorce rate is 50%. Seems to me a “committed relationship” is becoming a rare thing in today’s world.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
I agree with ForLife though—it’ll be back on the ballot soon, especially with the ridiculous ease of changing the constitution. In that case, I’ll applaud court decisions upholding that amendment as well. As long as the bench doesn’t legislate. [/quote]

Lost in all the noise is the following inherent conflict generated by the court ruling.

The Court ruled that the initiative and Prop 8 were both legal and constitutional.
Therefore same-sex marriages made after the election have been annulled. (Just work that out, folks.)
But there are 18,000 marriages which the court ruled are still valid under California law.

So the Court in no way “outlawed” gay marriage, and neither did it indicate that marriage was a constitutional right which transcends the public right to make it legal or illegal. (In their opinion, if the election had negated a Federal constitutional right, that result might be illegal.) So those 36,000 people, as a class, have a right which is now denied others.

Is that not a civil rights suit?

[quote]Standard Donkey wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:
Fucking Christians

your point?[/quote]

They are all over this like flies on a turd

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

Lost in all the noise is the following inherent conflict generated by the court ruling.

The Court ruled that the initiative and Prop 8 were both legal and constitutional.
Therefore same-sex marriages made after the election have been annulled. (Just work that out, folks.)
But there are 18,000 marriages which the court ruled are still valid under California law.

So the Court in no way “outlawed” gay marriage, and neither did it indicate that marriage was a constitutional right which transcends the public right to make it legal or illegal. (In their opinion, if the election had negated a Federal constitutional right, that result might be illegal.) So those 36,000 people, as a class, have a right which is now denied others.

Is that not a civil rights suit?[/quote]

You raise a great point about the internal inconsistency - I would add that the inconsistency was caused by a court’s interpretation, and not the action a non-judicial branch of government. As such, the entity “denying” this privilege to the post-ruling gay couples is the same entity you would appeal to complaining of the denial.

As in, in a quirk - there doesn’t appear to be anyone to correctly sue.

So you think there is proof that people are “born straight,” huh? Let’s see this miraculous proof you have!

I know the Feds would love to stay out of this if they can.

[quote]Growing_Boy wrote:
orion wrote:
forlife wrote:
Rockscar wrote:
STOP trying to teach that being gay is good in our schools…STOP taking public school children to gay weddings…THEN you may have a chance. I see this ideal FORCED, and not debated. This turns me off as a voter. Perez on the Miss USA did not help either.

Fair enough, if you STOP extrapolating the tactics of a small minority to the rest of the gay population. None of my gay friends supported Perez in the Miss USA fiasco, and none of us have accosted any old women lately.

It’s like accusing all black people of supporting Malcolm X. Malcolm X’s politics may or may not have been effective, but his approach didn’t signify the views of the entire black population.

Did you just compare Perez Hilton to Malcolm X?

An obese, flamboyant, homosexual with the fashion sense of Liberace with Down Syndrome has been compared to one of the greastest men in African-American history? [/quote]

I know we don’t often agree on stuff but, Damn I feel you on that.

[quote]Growing_Boy wrote:
Standard Donkey wrote:
Growing_Boy wrote:
Fucking Christians

your point?

They are all over this like flies on a turd[/quote]

How do you mean?

[quote]orion wrote:
ZEB wrote:

But there is no proof that anyone is born gay. Does that tip you off to something?

That you cannot prove a negative?

Well, yes, I cannot prove that God does not exist.

You cannot prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.

He cannot prove that people are not born gay.

Oh, the things we cannot prove…[/quote]

I’m sorry I confused you on that one. If homosexuality was in fact genetic there should be proof to that end, there is none.

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
ZEB wrote:

And therein lies the problem. Do you understand the statistics on “committed gay relationships”? They are abysmal. In fact there’s almost no such thing statistically speaking.
I’d post some statistics on this to back up my argument, but as a long time lurker you must have seen the data before and have chosen to ignore it because you have friends that are gay and life is wonderful la dee da.

I didn’t say life was wonderful. One of my managers who is gay, who believes homosexuality is genetic, frequently laments, “Why would anyone CHOOSE to be this way? To live with the stigma and hatred?” And don’t quote the absymal statistics of gay committed relationships when the divorce rate is 50%. Seems to me a “committed relationship” is becoming a rare thing in today’s world.
[/quote]

You are confused on so many fronts I don’t know where to begin and probably shouldn’t even try.

Let’s start with all of the inforamtion you should have been reading had you been an attentive lurker:

If Not Genes,
Then What Causes Homosexuality?

Regent University’s Law Review for Spring, 2002, is entirely devoted to a discussion of various aspects of homosexuality, including the origins and causes of homosexual behaviors. The Law Review includes a study, " Homosexuality: Innate and Immutable?" by Dr. A. Dean Byrd and Stony Olsen.

After discussing the lack of evidence on the genetic origins of homosexuality, Dr. Byrd and his associate detail the various environmental factors that can lead a person into a homosexual lifestyle.

Gender Confusion: Dr. George Rekers, an expert on Gender Identity Disorders, is author of dozens of scholarly research papers on homosexuality and wrote Growing Up Straight: What Every Family Should Know About Homosexuality in 1982. He is also editor of Handbook of Child and Adolescent Sexual Problems, published in 1995. Dr. Rekers stated in 1995, that

"Gender nonconformity in childhood may be the single common observable factor associated with homosexuality.

(READ THIS IF NOTHING ELSE):

Some of the typical childhood factors leading to homosexuality are: feeling of being different from other children; perception of father as being distant, uninvolved and unapproving; perception of mother being too close, too involved; diminished or distorted masculinity or femininity; premature introduction to sexuality; and gender confusion.

(IT SEEMS THAT MOST HOMOSEXUALS FALL INTO ONE OF THE ABOVE CATEGORIES)

Failure To Internalize Maleness: Dr. Joseph Nicolosi, president of the National Association for Research and Therapy of Homosexuality has written: “Homosexuality is a developmental problem that is almost always the result of problems in family relationships, particularly between father and son. As a result of failure with father, the boy does not fully internalize male gender identity, and develops homosexuality. This is the most commonly seen clinical model.”

Dr. George Rekers, writing in Growing Up Straight, observes: “Many studies of homosexual patients as well as of nonpatient homosexuals have established a classic pattern of background family relations. The most frequent family pattern reported from the male homosexuals includes a binding, intimate mother in combination with a hostile, detached father.”

Sexual Abuse By Same-Sex Predator: In studies conducted by Diana Shrier and Robert Johnson in 1985 and 1988, males who had been sexually abused as children were almost seven times as likely as non-molested boys to become homosexuals.

Dr. Gregory Dickson recently completed a doctoral dissertation on the pattern of relationships between mothers and their male homosexual sons. His paper is entitled: “An Empirical Study of the Mother/Son Dyad in Relation to the Development of Adult Male Homosexuality: An Object Relations Perspective.”

Dr. Dickson’s study is reviewed on the NARTH web site. His study sheds new light on the relationship between early childhood sexual abuse and a child’s later involvement in homosexual behaviors. According to Dickson, an alarming 49% of homosexuals surveyed had been molested compared to less than 2% of heterosexuals.

His study affirms previous findings of Dr. David Finkelhor (1984), which found that boys victimized by older men were four times more likely to be currently involved in homosexual behaviors than were non-victims. As Finkelhor observed: “It may be common for a boy who has been involved in an experience with an older man to label himself as homosexual (1) because he has had a homosexual experience and (2) because he was found to be sexually attractive by a man. Once he labels himself homosexual, the boy may begin to behave consistently with the role and gravitate toward homosexual activity.” (Child Sexual Abuse: New Theory and Research, New York: The Free Press, 1984).

Dr. Dickson’s study suggests that sexual abuse should be considered in evaluating the factors that contribute to the development of adult homosexual behaviors. Dickson writes: “An experience of sexual abuse could possibly contribute to the sexualizing of the unmet needs for male affection, attention, and connection.”

Dr. Dickson continues: “Given the relational deficits [with his mother] experienced by the male child, it is also possible that the molestation, as devastating as it may have been emotionally, simultaneously may be experienced by some of the boys as their first form of adult male affection, as well as something relational that is not shared in common with his mother.”

Counselor Dr. Robert Hicks, author of The Masculine Journey, has written: “?In counseling gay men for twenty years, I have not had one yet whom I would say had a normative childhood or normative adolescent development in the sexual arena. More often than not I have found stories of abusive, alcoholic, or absent (physically and emotionally) fathers: stories of incest or first experiences of sex forced upon them by older brothers, neighborhood men, or even friends. I sometimes find these men have had early exposure to pornography?.”

Now let’s see what is your other argument, ah yes the divorce rate for heterosexual marriage is “50%” therefore homosexuals should be allowed to marry.

The divorce rate for heterosexuals who have already been divorced is in fact around 50%. However the divorce rate for those who have never been divorced is under 20%. This means that those who have been divorced more than once drive up the total rate.

Understand?

Regardless of the above one (heterosexual marriage) has nothing to do with the other (potential homosexual marriage).

I would post more statistics here but I just don’t have the time or desire, also nothing including cold hard facts will change your mind. You’re in your 20’s or 30’s liberal (most likely) and you have a certain mind set. It’s not like I enjoy the argument all that much anymore anyway I’ve done it to death.

All the best.

Zeb

[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:

So you think there is proof that people are “born straight,” huh? Let’s see this miraculous proof you have!
[/quote]

It is inane posts like this that have encouraged me to spend my time elsewhere over the past couple of years.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
orion wrote:
ZEB wrote:

But there is no proof that anyone is born gay. Does that tip you off to something?

That you cannot prove a negative?

Well, yes, I cannot prove that God does not exist.

You cannot prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.

He cannot prove that people are not born gay.

Oh, the things we cannot prove…

I’m sorry I confused you on that one. If homosexuality was in fact genetic there should be proof to that end, there is none.

[/quote]

It does not necessarily have to be genetic to create people that are born gay.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:

So you think there is proof that people are “born straight,” huh? Let’s see this miraculous proof you have!

It is inane posts like this that have encouraged me to spend my time elsewhere over the past couple of years.

[/quote]

This post is not inane. It just demonstrates that you demand the impossible.

[quote]orion wrote:
Did you just compare Perez Hilton to Malcolm X?
[/quote]

I compared the extrapolation of Perez Hilton to all gays with the extrapolation of Malcolm X to all blacks. I wasn’t saying Perez Hilton is the same as Malcolm X, lol.

[quote]Aragorn wrote:
So, in the end it doesn’t matter that it’s a small minority. Their actions hurt their cause, whether it “should” be that way or not. I can tell you I sure don’t respect their tactics.[/quote]

I agree, just wanted to state for the record that Perez Hilton isn’t the icon for the gay community, any more than Paris Hilton is the icon for the straight community.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
But there is no proof that anyone is born gay. Does that tip you off to something? [/quote]

False. There is no proof that genetics account for 100% of the variance in sexual orientation, any more than it accounts for 100% of the variation in any other human characteristic. However, there is substantial proof that genetics account for a statistically significant portion of the variance in sexual orientation. Biology absolutely plays a role, and saying it doesn’t is uneducated at best and dishonest at worst.

We do know that people don’t choose to be gay, as confirmed by the consensus of every major medical and mental health organization. But we’ve been down that path already, haven’t we?

Maybe we should follow the constitution, which dictates that equal protection should be extended to any arrangement that is “similary situated”.

The point was that the contest would likely have been overthrown if the couple had been married.

[quote] Do you understand the statistics on “committed gay relationships”? They are abysmal. In fact there’s almost no such thing statistically speaking.
[/quote]

Lol, I love how people quote “statistics” on the longevity of gay relationships in societies where it is illegal for gays to marry. Marriage improves the longevity of relationships, by virtue of the legal responsibilities and privileges that it entails. If you really wanted to improve the longevity of gay relationships, let them marry. Of course, that’s not your goal is it?

[quote]Grneyes wrote:
The fight for legalizing gay marriage is really for all the benefits civil unions are not allowed. I am all for legalizing gay marriage, but if we can’t do that, maybe we should extend the privileges allowed in civil unions. I know someone who had a partner who died of cancer and he could not visit his partner in the hospital, because the “next of kin,” his parents, denied him, because they believe homosexuality is a sin.

After the partner died, the parents contested the will and WON, taking away everything willed to my friend. The court basically said their partnership did not exist. I’m sure that if it had been a heterosexual couple, the courts would not have decided how they did.

I guess I just don’t see the big deal in not letting people who love each other and are in a committed relationship have the same rights and privileges I, as a straight woman, do when I get married.[/quote]

I’m genuinely curious about this. Under California Family Code, Section 297-297.5, registered domestic partners have the same rights as spouses. This law was enacted in 2005. If two people, regardless of sexual orientation, fail to take the necessary legal steps to secure their rights, what is the state supposed to do? Whether the route is state-sanctioned marriage or state-sanctioned domestic partnership, the proper hoops must be jumped through.

Legal cases often involve issues beyond the obvious ones. Had the couple in your example registered as domestic partners? Did the case occur before this law went into effect? Did the judge/jury simply do a bad job?

Depending on the facts, they might simply have not had the rights guaranteed by such registration, just as an unmarried couple living together would not have the rights guaranteed to a married couple (leaving out the extremely sticky common-law marriage issue which is often far from being cut and dried). Families fight wills all the time and it is not uncommon for the end result to be far different from what the deceased intended. To say that the case would turn out differently for a heterosexual couple without knowing all the facts is making assumptions.

Note that I’m not saying domestic partnership is exactly the same as marriage, just that a legal mechanism currently exists that ensures considerable marriage-type rights for those whose choose to take advantage of it.

Again, I’m not trying to pick a fight here. I’m just trying to understand where your post is coming from when it seems like the law already addresses the specific problems that you mentioned.

[quote]Forlife wrote:

Lol, I love how people quote “statistics” on the longevity of gay relationships in societies where it is illegal for gays to marry. Marriage improves the longevity of relationships, by virtue of the legal responsibilities and privileges that it entails. If you really wanted to improve the longevity of gay relationships, let them marry. Of course, that’s not your goal is it?
[/quote]

As usual forlife you’re wrong on all counts. Someone does not automatically become committed simply because they are able to marry. You have it backwards. You are basically claiming that because homosexuals cannot marry they are promiscuous. How foolish to make such a claim. As if there is something preventing a homosexual from entering a committed relationship right now.

The statistics for any sort of committed homosexual relationship are indeed very, very poor. You’ve read the facts that I’ve posted about 70 times right here on T Nation.

Stop pretending.

Youre arguments have not gotten any better over the years.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
Gambit_Lost wrote:
ZEB wrote:

But there is no proof that anyone is born gay. Does that tip you off to something?

So you think there is proof that people are “born straight,” huh? Let’s see this miraculous proof you have!

It is inane posts like this that have encouraged me to spend my time elsewhere over the past couple of years.

[/quote]

I’d say you were purposefully ducking the question, but perhaps it’s more of a subconscious thing?

YOU suggested that there should be proof that people are “born gay/straight” (I added it back in from where you cut it out). If you have it, let’s see it.

[quote]ZEB wrote:
You are basically claiming that because homosexuals cannot marry they are promiscuous.[/quote]

No. You cannot accurately conclude anything about the stability of gay relationships, while denying gays the right to marry. Why? Because marriage is specifically designed to improve stability, by virtue of the legal responsibilites and privileges it entails. It’s not rocket science. How do you expect to compare the stability of gay and straight relationships, without controlling for the influence of marriage on these relationships?