Oregon's Supreme Courts Rules Gay Marriages Null and Void

Hey, I think the North American Man/Boy Lover's Association would agree with you there. And, hey, I know 15yos with jobs who pay taxes-so, by your definition, and NAMBLA's they should be able to marry the 30yo man of their dreams.

People are so quick to speak and act without really taking the time to consider the consequences. I hope this has opened some eyes.

As to the primary topic-the Oregon ruling-I'm happy to see the will of the people was finally upheld vice the will of some Liberal judge.

-Kiamat Dusk

I was wondering what took you so long.

Kiamat - you miss and perpetuate a MAJOR difference in this issue. We're talking about two, consenting adults - not a child and an adult.

Homosexuality and Pedophelia are two COMPLETELY different topics - your mention of them in this discussion shows your lack of knowledge around these issues.

They are not the same, so please, keep it on topic.

Sometimes (as has happened many times in our history) the will of the people is and must be put aside to ensure that the rights of the minorities are upheld. This is one such case.

Oregon may have tossed it out, but rest assured Kiamat, it's definately not over.

Over a year ago, a judge in CA also tossed out the marriages as they were preformed illegally. As a result, a judge just recently ruled that withholding marriage licenses from same-sex couples was unconstitutional under the states constitution which bans discrimination based on, among other things, sexual orientation.

In his ruling, the judge noted “It appears that no rational purpose exists for limiting marriage in this state to opposite-sex partners.."

So, my friend Kiamat... it's just a matter of time until, at least here in CA, the will of the majority is moved aside to protect the rights of the minority.

What does child abuse have to do with the subject being discussed here? As a practicing (though I do seem to be getting better at it) homosexual, I've never seen the need for some legal or public recognition of my relationship, but, since it's nobody's fucking business but mine and my companion's, I should have the right to make that decision myself. As a parent, I favour mandatory torture of child molestors, followed by a public hanging.
You know, teenaged boys don't have this universal allure to fairies that everyone seems to suppose. For one thing, enduring their converstion is almost impossible, and they very often literally stink. Of course being the parent of one has probably destroyed a lot of the charm! Citing some organisation as ancient and totally fringey as NAMBLA is practically the same as expressing the fear that if same sex marriages are allowed, polygamy and bestiality are sure to follow.

Juro,


My remarks about NAMBLA were relevant to his comment "Love is love no matter how you slice it and its NEVER wrong". This is statement was woefully naive and I felt the need to point that out.

As for the gay marriage issue: NOW we're talking about two consenting adults. BEFORE it was a MAN and a WOMAN. So what's to say what will come LATER if gay marriage is legalized across the board? Next it could be an issue between two consenting HUMANS, or TAX PAYERS, or maybe the argument will be why should the State determine who is an adult and who is not? So many people are just so eager to get what THEY want out of this debate that they are ignoring what could follow. They simply don't care what comes next just so long as they get what they want.

'the will of the people is and must be put aside to ensure that the rights of the minorities are upheld" Wow. I mean really-wow. If that's not the scariest thing I've heard in these forums, I don't know what is. Let me clue you in here, Juro. We live in a DEMOCRACY (hush, Kendra). That means MAJORITY RULES. Using your logic there, Juro, then we could rightfully overturn the outcome of a Presidential election because SOMEONE decided that "the will of the people is and must be put aside to ensure that the rights of the minorities are upheld". If that is the case-stop bitching about Florida and Ohio.

Well, there you have it, boys and girls. That's the Left's philosophy in a nutshell. "the will of the people is and must be put aside to ensure that the rights of the minorities are upheld". ...that is, when it comes to a matter that's important to *them*. I don't hear anyone waving this flag on the abortion issue.

-Kiamat Dusk
Protecting the will of the people from the Communists on the Left

*sighs*

Welcome back Kiamat.

http://www.sharedvoice.org/unamerican/

Yes, Scandinavian people have always seemed (to me at least, and from my brother's observations from his time in Denmark) quite independent and very open sexually. Getting married is not as important to them and has become less important as time goes on.

Gay marriage, honestly, never was an issue in Sweden: why should it be? I agree with what Champie has stated -- I've never come across a convincing argument against gay marriage. Most of what I hear is noise about morals and religion. Why is gay marriage even an issue? Why do people fear gay marriage?

A link for some interesting facts and statistics about gay marriage around the world:

http://www.upi.com/view.cfm?StoryID=20030714-073510-5671r

I also have a pointed question for Kiamat:

I understand your stance on majority rules.

However, are you personally against gay marriage? And if so, why?

Wow, thanks for that link, Lianne. I had not seen the video, before.

At any rate, I just spent the last several minutes reading the article Lo posted (hi buddy!), "Analysis: Gay marriage around the globe." It's a straightforward portrayal of gay experience and culture from around the globe. Kiamat would probably fall over dead reading the last few paragraphs, but it's interesting to look at this issue not only in the present tense, but also in the past tense. Thanks, Lo.

I find it irrelevent to our discussion here because you took that comment completely out of context and twisted it to show that indeed, sometimes love can be wrong - thus implying that love between two people (adults) of the same sex is also wrong. Next time, keep it in context.


I don't know where you've been or what you've been reading Kiamat - but it's always been in regards to ADULTS.


So, tell me Kiamat - what do YOU think would follow if conseting, same-sex, adult couples were allowed to marry?



Kiamat - there have been many instances, some even pertaining to marriage, where the will of the majority was set aside to ensure that the rights of the minorites are protected. Maybe you don't remember, but CA was the first state in the union to legalize marrige between the races. In that case, the popular opinion at the time was to keep it illegal. The courts felt that popular opinion (the majority) were placing an unwarranted burden on the minority. Are you suggesting that this logic is flawed and we should go back to those days?


Electing an official is completely different than putting up someones rights for a popular vote. Apples and Oranges.


Don't even get me started on that one. My 'liberal' ideas on that issue might just overwhelm your sensibilites.

Juro, you really shouldn't waste your time re-educating someone who so clearly doesn't understand the twin pillars of our society, Majority Rule and Minority Rights.

here is a section from usinfo.gov



now, stop wasting the time of thoughtful people, learn the meaning of phrases you wrecklessly throw around, and stay in high school, Kiamat.

edit to add: Juro you accepted so much more gracefully than I could the extreme ignorance and arrogance of Kiamat's posts. Thanks for being an excellent example of decency

Champie,

Thanks for that informative post. Frankly, that opened my eyes to a quite a few things including Juro's point of view. It's just a shame you felt the need to debase yourself with mudslinging and name calling. You could learn a thing or two from Juro who was mature enough to engage me in calm, rational debate. So your point, while valid, was sadly overshadowed by your need to try and trash me.

Juro,

In light of Champie's post, I must say I better understand your position on this matter. Even as a product of an interracial marriage, I'm not sure I *agree* with this idea of overruling the majority in favor of the desires of a minority. Again, I think that people are being incredibly nearsighted on this. It's all well and good to espouse these beliefs until *you're* the majority who's desires are being overruled from the bench. What about the majority of California citizens who wanted to keep the tiny cross on their state seal. Other than the ACLU, exactly which minority's rights were being protected then? I guess my question is-where do you draw the line?

Lo,

I'll come back and add the answer to your question, but I have to run to the horse farm atm.

<sarcasm> Thanks to everyone who welcomed me back. </sarcasm>

-Kiamat Dusk

In point of fact, Kiamat, we don't live in a democracy. Might wanna check a fact before you shout it all in caps next time. We never have lived in a democracy, nor America was never intended to be a democracy. We are a representative republic, which is a different beast alltogether. We have democractic elements to our government, such as how we elect our representatives, but in most respects are are not a democracy except on the smalest levels, and even then only for certain things. "Big stuff" is rarely handled in that fashion.

Kiamat - I personally think that your reaction is a bit over the top. I twice re-read Champie's reply to you, and indeed -- and in comparison to so many flame wars that regularly erupt in these forums -- his was a mild "dressing down." Only one phrase of one sentence might be construed as a direct affront, and even then, it evokes a sense of satire, not of outright debasement.

At any rate, we absolutely must allow contrarian voices to be heard. Can we all simply agree to adhere to a general level of civility, whether pro or con?

As I mentioned above, it is and was my hope that discussion wouldn't devolve into a political maelstrom. That said, can we focus on policy and/or process without lobbing straw man attacks on one another?

At any rate, with regard to overruling the will of the majority, I personally believe that is precisely why the US governmental process includes so many checks and balances. Neither tyranny of the majority nor minority bully pulpits should have free reign to run rough shod over the law of the land. However, given the examples both Juro and Champie have cited, I think they were clearly referring to issues of tyranny by majority, not the tacit overruling of the majority on all matters of benign public policy.

In closing, I did a quick Google search, and came up with a few related quotes. Perhaps these will help to re-frame the discussion?

"The ideal tyranny is that which is ignorantly self-administered by its victims. The most perfect slaves are, therefore, those which blissfully and unawaredly enslave themselves." -- Dresden James

"A nation of well informed men who have been taught to know and prize the rights which God has given them cannot be enslaved. It is in the region of ignorance that tyranny begins." -- Benjamin Franklin

"Democracy, which began by liberating men politically, has developed a
dangerous tendency to enslave him through the tyranny of majorities and the
deadly power of their opinion." -- Ludwig Lewisohn

Over and over and over, still yet again!

"An here I sit so patiently
Waiting to find out what price
You have to pay to get out of
Going through all these things twice.
Oh, Mama, can this really be the end,
To be stuck inside of Mobile
With the Memphis blues again."
Bob Dylan, sayith in 1966

This is repeating some things above , BUT ill say it anyway -----

Majority Rule can not be an excuse for State Sactioned Discrimation.

I believe theres is enough proof that when such Discrimantion has existed, that the minority rights are upheld.

The problem is discrmation based on sexual orientation is not seen as wrong by the majority of people.

Not that long ago , discrimation based on race was upheld by majority rule also.

That was wrong. And it was correctly overturned.

Unfortunately it seems unlikely the courts will step in to the level they did then. At least any time in the near future.

Kiamat,

Champie's post provided a great example of the point I was attempting to make. If we were to take your parents situation as an example, their relationship and everything that came from it, including yourself, is a perfect case of the government protecting the rights of minorities while setting aside the will of the majority. It's hard for me to imagine (because of my age and the way in which my parents raised me) a country where it was illegal for your parents to marry. At the time, most in the U.S. were against the legalization of interracial marriage, but the courts here in CA and eventually across the U.S. felt that there was no good reason to continue denying interracial couples the opportunity to marry. I, for one, am glad that the courts made this decision and I feel that our country is better off for it. I can imagine that the nay-sayers at the time were expressing thoughts and feelings similar to what you and others who are unsure or against gay marriage are expressing now: what's next?

I'm going to go off on a slight tangent here to attempt to try to express why I feel it's important for gay couples to have the same opportunities as straight couples.

(Please note: the following is not intended to be the opinion of every gay American, but is solely mine based on my own observations and opinions formed from them. I do not speak for the gay community as a whole.)

From my own experiences in the gay community and from living in the heart of gay mecca, San Francisco (and in the Castro, at that) - I've seen a side of the community that not many are not willing to talk about yet needs discussion to get the community on the right track to rectify some of these issues.

The community suffers from a plague of issues from substance abuse, spouse abuse, infidelity... boy, the list could go on. While the majority of gay men and women lead lives free from these issues, the rates are among (if not THE) highest of any demographic group in the U.S.

Many people have theories as to why these issues plague the community, but I'd like to offer up mine: Being gay in the U.S. can be and often is a life full of ridicule and hate. In my own situation, I rarely had to deal with this because of where I live and because my family is pretty socially progressive. I have plenty of friends who have had completely different experiences ranging from minor run-ins with a neighbor who's a homophobe to complete abandonment by thier family.

Those social pressures and the lack of any strong role models in the media provide a situation where the need for some sort of escapism (through drug use or alcohol use) is in high demand. Try to imagine a situation where your family has abandonded you and you have govenment representatives and community leaders attempting to craft legislation that would deny you the same rights (employment, housing, marriage, children, etc) as every other American. One can easily see where it would be a slippery slope into a situation where one would rely on substances to relieve and escape the stress.

These social pressures are also capable of fostering an environment of self-hatred. If you hear phrases over and over again, you might be apt to begin to believe. There are also situations (although in my experience this is pretty rare) where people are angry at themselves or others for being gay. Wrap all of this up with the other social pressures and you have a dangerous stew that is ripe for self destruction. Most make it through the gauntlet, many do not and fall prey.

I see gay marriage as one avenue to not only show people who have little to no exposure to gay Americans that we are as normal as they are, but also as a first step to ridding the community of these problems. Creating an atmosphere where we bring gay relationships to a level equal to straight relationships will help rid the 2nd class status of gay men and women in this country and might (crosses fingers) just show people that we're just like everyone else.

I truly don't think that gay marriage will affect the institution of marriage in any negative way, but will help us all to be better people. If I thought, for a moment, that allowing gay couples to marry would have an adverse affect on the marriages of those I love (my parents, my sisters and brother and friends), I would not be spending my time discussing it here and with folks I know. I don't want to hurt anyone, I just want the same opportunities that y'all have and I would like to see my community pick itsself up and work to bring those of us who have paid the heaviest price, back into the fold.

I know this is a passionate issue for a lot of people and I'm proud of us all for keeping this thread flame-free. wweeeeee.

that's pretty lame.

impact? the erosion of rights and freedoms. governments telling you what to do, who to be, what to believe... and apparently getting away with it.

I wonder how long citizens of such a country can take it.

I'm curious as to what my Bush-supporting friends who have gay friends think of this.

Icon, I'm not quite getting your post. Do you think that allowing gay marriage will erode the rights and freedoms of Americans? Or, am I mis-reading your post?

I think he was actually responding to the first post in the thread ... not yours.

ahhhh.. ty Lo.

Haha, I thought the same thing, Juro, until I read Icon's post a second time.

Where were you all last Saturday! The Philosophy Club in SL had a discussion that was about gay marriage in both RL and SL. Unfortunately however, we didn't have anyone opposing it. I say unfortunate, because the discussion couldn't go far when we all agreed. Otherwise it's very good that no one opposed it =).

I live in Massachusetts where it's fully legal. I hate this state, but I gotta take my hat off to them on this issue.

you are right kiamat, the name calling serves no good purpose. In a moment of weakness, I took it too far. Please accept my apology.

Damn Juro and his decency makes me look bad

I'll try to do better.

Champie

Hahhah. No way, Champie. I'm just trying to keep my end of the bargain with Jeska and 'be good' on the forums.

We're all passionate about these topics here no matter what side we're on - but as I learned the hard way, flying off the handle and letting your emotions get to you does no one any good and *can* help you to take a short vacation from the forums (in my case, anyway).