You hit it right on the head ...

Gays want extra protection!!! ... uh .... WHAT? What EXTRA protection?

 

People choose to be all sorts of crazy things (think skinheads). My parents own a business in an industry heavily dominated by gay males and I can say all the ones I have met deal with zero bigotry. It's very easy in today's soceity to have almost zero interaction with groups of people you don't want to deal with especially in a big city. And not gay ghettos. Would you call Laguna Beach a gay ghetto?

 

Having read a number of your posts, I see that all or nearly all of your arguements are legal in nature. The people voting against gay marriage are not making a legal judgement, but rather a moral judgement. You can argue the law until you are blue in the face, but you will not change the perceived morality.

Have no personal opinion about gay marriage. In Sweden, where my forefathers are from, they have allowed gay marriage for quite some time. I think they are doing OK there so I don't see a problem with it. I chose to not vote at all on Prop 8, the only amendment I did not vote on because I think it's not a votable issue. I could not care less what the State says about my relationship with a man or a woman.

 

You're right that the heart of my argument is legal, because I think that has the greatest potential to lead to progress in the short-term. But in the end, I'm all about trying to change hearts and minds and persuade people to tolerance. I think that if the law hadn't changed in the civil rights era, we would still have states in the south with institutionalized segregation, and the states we see as relatively tolerant and multicultural might not have come as far in the last 45 years.

My point is that society changes law, but law also changes society. Ordinary people only get a chance to change their mind about some group when they have the opportunity to interact with them in ordinary situations. Striking down laws which prevent such interaction breaks down stereotypes and confronts people with their prejudices.

I don't want to put all of my eggs in one basket, though. Certainly, changing minds through politics without involving the law is a better solution, because it undermines a lot of divisive counterarguments from the right: "Activists Judges," "States Rights," etc. Maybe that will work in some states, but certainly not in others.

 

It has been medically proven to be BS. It is not a gene, but rather a hormonal imbalance. As for Prop8, those voting AGAINST prop8 are voting for the legal aspects while those voting FOR prop 8 are voting for the moral aspect. Neither side will ever budge.

 

I have been curious to this myself, do you know the studies that have proven its not genetic?

 

As I wrote (much, much) earlier, there was a story on Sixty Minutes some months ago about identical twins: one heterosexual, one homosexual. With identical genetics, that seems like prima facie evidence that homosexuality is not genetic.

 

Anecdotal evidence of one person who has been "cured" of homosexuality by finding Jesus, or the above-mentioned example of twins are hardly "proof" that sexuality -or gender- is not genetic. Homosexuality was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Psychiatry after doctors agreed that it could not properly be classified as a "disease."

Yeah, please do cite where you have seen it "proven" to be a "hormonal imbalance." Last I checked, we allow people who have been diagnosed with other "hormonal imbalances", like depression, anxiety, insomnia, bipolar disorder, etc. to marry and raise children... (I don't concede the point that it is NOT a medical disorder, but if it were, why should it be treated differently?)

 

If by "gender" you mean being male or female (properly, "sex", not "gender"), that's pretty much been proven to be genetic. Otherwise, it's hard to fathom what you mean by that part of the sentence.

I didn't say that the example of twins was proof; I said that it was evidence. There is more than one example of heterosexual / homosexual identical twins; I offered one that is probably easy for most people here to access.

 

FAMILY.CODE
SECTION 297-297.5





297. (a) Domestic partners are two adults who have chosen to share
one another's lives in an intimate and committed relationship of
mutual caring.
(b) A domestic partnership shall be established in California when
both persons file a Declaration of Domestic Partnership with the
Secretary of State pursuant to this division, and, at the time of
filing, all of the following requirements are met:
(1) Both persons have a common residence.
(2) Neither person is married to someone else or is a member of
another domestic partnership with someone else that has not been
terminated, dissolved, or adjudged a nullity.
(3) The two persons are not related by blood in a way that would
prevent them from being married to each other in this state.
(4) Both persons are at least 18 years of age.
(5) Either of the following:
(A) Both persons are members of the same sex.


297.5. (a) Registered domestic partners shall have the same rights,
protections, and benefits, and shall be subject to the same
responsibilities, obligations, and duties under law, whether they
derive from statutes, administrative regulations, court rules,
government policies, common law, or any other provisions or sources
of law, as are granted to and imposed upon spouses.


Hello! CA gays, as long as they register, have all the legal rights, but the word "marriage," heterosexual couple do not get any of those rights until they marry.