George Takei Speaks Out Against CA Supreme Court Ruling on Prop 8 [UPDATED] May 26, 2009
by TrekMovie.com Staff , Filed under: Celebrity, TOS , trackback
Last September the original Sulu, George Takei wed his long-time partner Brad Altman (see TM story), but in November California voters amended the state’s constitution to ban same-sex marriage. Today the California Supreme Court upheld Proposition 8, but also declared marriages completed before Prop 8 (like Takei’s) to be valid. However, Takei is still not happy about the ruling and has made a statement. [UPDATED: more Takei statements on video]
Takei talks out
This afternoon Takei tells TV Guide:
They decided to be indecisive. It was a ruling that doesn’t resolve anything because there is still inequality. It’s like [George Orwell's Animal Farm] — some pigs are more equal than other pigs. We’re more equal than some of the other gays and lesbians.
Takei remains hopeful that voters will change their mind with a new Proposition in 2010, or the the US Supreme Court will overturn the state ruling.
More on the California Supreme Court ruling at LA Times, More on Takei’s reaction at TVGuide.
Brad and George at the September wedding joined by Nichelle Nichols and Walter Koenig (AP)
UPDATED: Takei on Video
George Takei has given more statements today regarding the ruling. Here is one from AP:
And here is Takei debating the issue with Rev. Lou Sheldon on KTLA:
Loading ...
Comments»
I am sad to hear that institutionalized inequality is still practiced in this country.
We see it in laws regarding marriage and those who decide to serve in our military.
The government really needs to get its nose out of relationships, who one loves, etc.
Hopefully, in TREK’s time this will all be a historical footnote.
California has voted. After all, the US is a democracy and the majority has spoken. Good luck Brad and George.
I would hope that all posters below remain respectful, despite opinions on both sides.
I can see his point, even though I disagree with their life choices. It’s not my place or the states to determine who can marry, IMO.
Fortunately, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, so to speak. The fact remains that a future ballot initiative could re-establish marriage equality. 2% is a pretty narrow margin.
The ruling was stupid… and how appropriate that Takei speaks out against it. I’d love to see the idea of homosexuals (among others) with the exact same rights as everyone else.We’ve a LONG way to go to reach the utopia of Trek’s Earth, but it’s so appropriate to have Takei as a cast member speaking out. The cast still stands as an excellent representation of a melting pot of equality.
I’ve heard people elsewhere comment that they hope for his own sake that he moves to a more tolerant place. I hope he stays in my state and fights for his rights.
The problem with what just happened in CA is that they have allowed tyranny of the majority over the minority. This can, and has caused all kinds of problems throughout human history.
California has voted Brad?
To those who are opposed – stop and think what Star Trek stands for – diversity and tolerance, not just phasers and photon torpedoes. It stands for a world where everyone has the right to be with the being they choose – same sex, opposite sex, Vulcan, Romulan, Hologram – and so on.
To those who would say, well it doesn’t affect ME, so why care – you have to ask yourself, what if it WERE me? Or what if the ruling said that Blacks or Hispanics could not get married – would you be so quick to support Prop 8?
#2-
Actually, the US is a representative republic with its representatives (officials) chosen by a democratic process. Just sayin’.
And saying, as you did, good luck to Brad and George. Continued best wishes!
Of all the things for the government to get all hedged up and confused about. You have two people who love each other and are willing to make a commitment that IN NO WAY takes away from anyone else’s commitment. And the government, and by the same token, fearful populace, can’t let go of their incorrect pre-conceptions about someone else’s lifestyle to allow them to make their commitment to each other legal.
What a sad day it is when ignorance and fear wins out over love.
7. Claystation:
So, can we say the same about Obama’s election?
9. THX-1138
Sooo true. When will the ignorance and fear over polygamy, pedophilia, and incest ever end? It’s all about love!!
I honestly hope that ALL the posts here remain respectful. As for the matter of gay marriages I think it’s none of the state’s nor the majority’s business how other people decide to live their lifes. So I totally agree with Mr. Takei.
Anthony,
I’d prefer that we leave articles of this nature out of TREKMOVIE.com.
George is 100% entitled to his comments and I support his stance. I’m certain we’ll get to the point that any two people, regardless of gender or any other difference, will be allowed to have a full, legal union recogonized by the state.
However, the ruling today was about the voters right to use the proposition system to adjust the constitution. It was not about same-sex marriage, even though that is the immedate effect.
So, please report it properly, or leave it out.
This is not the forumto debate these issues.
I don’t know what kind of canon-defending Gene Roddenberry Trekkie would step up and disrespect George Takei here…
Can’t really picture Mr. Spock as an opponent of equal rights.
I’m gay. I’d like to get married some time. When can I look forward to voting on straight peoples’ rights?
I’d hate to live in the USA, bible bashing government just as bad as a Muslim state. They’ll be stoning gays in America next !!!! Glad George got in quick (”,)
We should eliminate the state’s ability to regulate marriage… If a union is sanctioned by the state, it’s a Civil Union… if you want to be “married’, find a church that will perform the ceremony. The bigger issue is not what California decides, but whether the Federal Government will move to make same-sex unions recognized, which would then allow for sharing of benefits between partners. California already has such laws on the books, so that partners within recognized “civil unions” have the same rights as married individuals (though not by the same name). Even if the California Prop was overturned, married couples in California would not get their same-sex partner’s Social Security benefits, etc. The prop really didn’t do anything except define marriage as between and male/female couple, but civil unions in our state carry the same general benefits. This is not true in other states, but the Federal issues are much bigger.
#2 ……Your right the majority did speak in California…….Just like the Majority spoke in all of the Southern and some Northern States in the first part of the 20th century in numerous laws taking numerous rights away from African Americans, and had it not been for the Federal Supreme Court FORCING states to desegregate, we could still have Legally, Majority voted for Segregation against African Americans.
It was not until 1999 that an interracial couple could marry in South Carolina. There certainly was not a “Moral Majority” in South Carolina that overturned that law, I suspect had their been a voter referendum here in South Carolina in 1999 it would have upheld that law with a similar majority to California’s Prop. 8. But as you said, we are Democracy, so as long as we vote in Majority to discriminate it’s ok.
Funny, I don’t think Spock would follow that logic, I know I don’t.
=== decloaking ===
15. Cheka
By voting against Prop 8, you are voting on straight people’s rights.
Actually, if it were up to me, the government would have no say in anyone’s marriage. Government involvement takes an agreement between two people who come together in love into a legally binding contract (with men getting the short end).
But then government involvement is what Obama is all about.
=== recloaking===
Let me just throw a question out there…
Forget the California constitution for the time being. Would Prop 8 stand under the Federation Charter and other Trek law that we’ve seen discussed about over the years?
Maybe there’s something about marriage rights in the Fundamental Declarations of the Martian Colonies…
#2
And it never comes to your mind that most people are just plain stupid? If you have the opportunity to vote for one of two options and one option is as massively advertised and supported like it was with Prop 8, most people who actually don’t have an opinion will vote for that option.
“By voting against Prop 8, you are voting on straight people’s rights.”
#19, can you explain that to me please? Correct me if I’m wrong, but allowing same-sex couples to marry does nothing to heterosexual marriages.
Dunsel Report:
Can’t really see Spock or the Federation advocating the killing of innocent, unborn human life, but I’m fairly confident that’s the default position here.
Besides,this argument is not about equality anyway. This is about legitimizing and forcing a particular lifestyle upon the public. We all have the same, equal right to marry any person of the opposite sex we choose.
(Just to show you how the argument would go in Star Trek)
Worf and Jadzia’s marriage should be invalidated!!!
We must protect our children from the savageness of Klingon culture!
If Worf and Jadzia are allowed to get married, the whole fabric of our society will come unraveled!!
21. Markus:
Yeah. Like there’s no adverstising or mass media campaign on tv and movies and the news all pushing the gay marriage agenda. Please. We are practically bullied into agreeing with it.
Hey
I don’t understand how a basic human right can become something to be voted on. What’s next do you vote on taking away existing rights? Do you vote on a woman’s right to vote?
A proud Canadian
V.
=== decloaking===
22. Cheka
See 23. JH
===recloaking===
TO ALL THOSE WHO SAY THIS IS NOT THE RIGHT FORUM TO DEBATE “SOCIAL ISSUES”:
Take it from Gene Roddenberry Himself;
“Mass communications is our language today between one another, and we can’t say, ‘Well, let’s not talk about anything serious on television.’ That is a criminal statement and a criminal intention. In my opinion, the audience is way ahead of our government leaders. I think the government leaders should catch up with our audience, and then we’d have 21st century dreams right now.”
“We grow – we humans actually grow.’” (In reference to the fact that women didn’t like a fellow woman as second-in-command in the original pilot).
“I have always been reasonably leery of religion because there are so many edicts in religion, ‘thou shalt not,’ or ‘thou shalt.’ I wanted my world of the future to be clear of that.”
“Although we were in a seemingly simplistic medium (television), this simplistic medium allowed us to really ask very deep questions. And we didn’t always give deep answers, because it wasn’t possible. That’s why the audience, over the last 25 years has stayed with ‘Star Trek’.”
The Creator of Star Trek said all of that, not me………..
#11 –
What can I say? Your ignorance is simply amazing!! In your twisted, very little mind gay marriage between two loving and commited people = polygamy, incest, and pedophelia?
#27
That’s just offensive. Allowing gay marriage does not “force a particular lifestyle” (and I’ve never liked that word – I can tell you honestly, it is not a choice. With the amount of bullying I got in school because of it I sometimes wished I was straight). Nor does banning gay marriage make said “lifestyle” disappear.
If gay marriage was legalised, we would simple have the equal right to marry the person we love, whoever they are.
#23: Spock, anti-abortion? But he’s from a planet that lets its seven-year-olds risk being killed by monsters in the desert during the Kahs-Wan ritual. I doubt the Vulcans are locking up OB/GYNs.
Prop 8 was passed by:
1) An explosion of the Hispanic population in CA in recent years. Most of them are Catholic, have as many kids as possible, and see homosexuality as a sin.
2) An overwhelming percent of African Americans voting for Proposition 8, which is ludicrous since they were once a repressed minority
“Sooo true. When will the ignorance and fear over polygamy, pedophilia, and incest ever end? It’s all about love!!”
Well…this is evidence that IGNORANCE hasn’t ended.
“This is about legitimizing and forcing a particular lifestyle upon the public. We all have the same, equal right to marry any person of the opposite sex we choose.”
It’s not a “lifestyle” and how exactly is it forcing it on YOU anyway? I’m a straight woman and it’s pretty clear that hets have no moral ground to stand on when it comes to marriage!
Good luck George! And I’m glad your marriage is still reconized.
The sad matter of fact is that governments cannot legislate what is an innate component of a person’s life–but it tries; it cannot legislate a person’s feelings–but it tries; it cannot legislate a person’s opinion(s)–but it tries.
Government cannot legislate acceptance–this comes from maturity, which, we as a people, has trouble achieving.
What government can do is protect individual rights when it comes to matters of one’s being (that should be a private matter)–but it doesn’t try hard enough.
Another sad matter of fact is that this argument always seems to devolve into angry voices, largely stemming from bigotry, misunderstandings and a lacking of empathy of anything that doesn’t fit into a perceived norm.
An argument always seem to come up that people choose this (which empirical evidence concludes is not the case), but even so, is this not the tenant of what our country was founded upon? — the freedom of choice and the right to lead a life with dignity, peace and happiness.
Sadly, what too many folks forget is that when the government steps in permitting and accepting institutional inequality and bigotry, it is just one step from denying other rights in some far off day.
Might does not make right yet some say this is democracy in action. BUT democracy does not mean we should accept the bullying of minorities. Democracy means protecting those who cannot protect themselves.
If one accepts this is democracy, then our government was not in the wrong when it permitted slavery, or when instructed its Army to destroy Native American populations; or when it permitted the rounding up of Japanese-Americans during WWII; or when it denied African-Americans voting rights (sadly, the list is too extensive to fully detail here).
Thank you, Anthony for not shying away from what will surely become a hotly contested topic and a headache as it has so often been in past threads.
To the people determined to be stuck in the dark ages:
Within a few decades, gay marriage will be a fact and it will be taboo to question it, just like how African Americans can now sit anywhere they want on the bus, use the same drinking fountains, and vote. Deal with it.
I have no clue how anyone can love the values that Star Trek represents yet hold such bigoted views about fellow human beings.
There had better be a gay guy or lesbian in the next Star Trek film…it’s pretty much bull-f’ing-sh*t that there hasn’t been an out character yet in a franchise that supposedly prides itself on its inclusivity.
It’s doubly frustrating because there are SO many gays that work behind the scenes (and likely in front of the camera, too…like perhaps Zachary Quinto, or so I’ve heard).
29. Brian Kirsch
You obviously missed the point. If this is all about love between committed people, why stop at gays? Aren’t YOU the one being small minded? Does love stop at numbers, or age, or genetics?
You see, your side has no argument. That why you always resort to name calling like “small minded” and “ignorant.”
11. No you can’t say the same about Obama’s election.
Is marriage really a right or a privilige?
Are rights granted by a God/Creator, or other humans?
These two questions must be answered clearly before an argument that gay marriage is a right.
Marriage is a curious thing when one thinks about it.
It is fundamentally an institution based on religious precepts, that has enough variations to become secular in the eyes of many.
The arguments against Gay Marriage are based primarily on the religious text of the Bible that classifies homosexuality as an “abomination”.
The arguments FOR Gay Marriage couch it as a Human Rights issue.
When I look at this, I see an unfairness, but no human right has really been violated, if Marriage is a privilege or right granted by God.
I also see that Christians who hold certain parts of the Bible to be true would find it offensive to have a fundamental part of their religious practice legally forced to allow something in violation of their faith.
This should be understood, and often isn’t taken for the faith-based opposition it really is, and more often is somehow attributed to Hatred and Bigotry.
Christian opponents to Gay Marriage, on the other hand, have to understand that Marriage is NOT unique to the Christian faith, and has a variable definition and rules associated with it.
Whether one opposes or supports Gay Marriage, one must take the time to understand the legitimate parts of each other’s positions, and to eliminate the preconceptions both sides have of each other.
Proposition 8 is constitutionally and legally correct. The Law is NOT morality, but a reflection of collective will.
Down the line, Prop 8 may be repealed, and again reflect the will of the people of California.
I know more homosexual couples with stonger, more honest and healthier relationships than I do straight couples. As a gay man myself, I really haven’t figured out if marriage is a route I’d be willing to take. But it’s an option I want on the table. Why should who I love, want to spend the rest of my life with and leave everything I have to be anyone’s business but my own. Where do other people, let alone the government, get off telling me how I can live my life and who I can marry?
Social change takes time, this I realize. It seems as though for every win that advances our cause we get hit with losses that take us three steps back. It’s not like if gay marriage were recognized the same as hetero marriage that everyone would suddenly be gay. Who thinks that? Why is the argument that legalizing gay marriage would destroy the institution? I don’t care what straight people do. Half of them get divorced anyway. How is this more destructive than that?
I think comparing homosexuality to pedophilia and incest is in extremely bad taste. And, unfortunately, ignorance always wins out over intelligence. Where’s the change the majority of this country voted for in November? Empty political rhetoric get us nowhere as a nation. It doesn’t help the economy and it certainly doesn’t help the gay movement. Actions are so much more powerful than words. It starts by standing up for your rights for free speech, freedom of association and the freedom to believe whatever you want and love whomever you want. Isn’t that what we all want? If it is, how can one group deny that to another group?
Okay, rant over. ;-)
There is one underlying falsehood in these arguments: the assumption that marriage is a right. Can someone point me to the article of the constitution that ensures marriage is a right that every American is entitled to?
The majority getting the vote seems like the most logical way to do it anyway. How else would you do it. If the majority decided gay marriage should be allowed and those votes won, that would still make sense. But I like some people’s comments on here like Jim’s on comment number 8. He’s got a good point.
JH –
You really aren’t that insecure in yourself, are you? How exactly does this affect you, personally? Does it harm your rights to marry whom you wish?
And, BTW, it’s a life, not a “lifestyle”. There is a BIG difference that maybe you can’t grasp. I laugh at people like you that attack the gay “lifestyle” as a choice. Just when did you choose the straight “lifestyle”?
#13: “This is not the forum to debate these issues.”
Why exactly would this not be the forum to debate these issues?
“Star Trek” has always been a forum for discussing human rights (although it hasn’t done a very good job of being inclusive of this very issue).
Should a forum exclude this topic because it is a sore subject for some? Should we exclude a topic because it offends your sensibilities, or that it is too easy to dismiss and ignore… This really is an issue that will not go away until a mature resolution has arrived– and Prop 8 is not it.
#41
The government has no reason to be involved in marriage whatsoever. It’s a religious institution.
It should provide civil unions for ALL couples, gay or straight.
And the Obama haters need to go kiss an ape’s harry a**.
One sad thing about it is that there’s going to be conflict either way. I hadn’t thought about it until last night but I realized, what if my aunt wants to get married at some point? I’d hate to see her denied a right that the rest of us have. So I have do sort of have a stake in this.
The problem is the California referendum model entirely. Not just with this issue. Proposition 13 has killed the state’s government for decades, and will soon be bankrupt because of it. This is why the founders chose representative democracy over referendum. Because that is how you protect the minority in any issue.
Nope. Just believe in defending traditional marriage, as it has always been defined throughout all of human history. No great thinker, philosopher, or religion has ever advocated for same sex marriage. I just wish for once your side would acknowlege that you are the radicals and extremists, not us. Seems to me it’s up to your side to make the case to us, not go around name calling and bullying your opponents.
Marriage is the foundation of civil society and I won’t stand by while those like you seek to destroy it for narcissistic purposes.
And I don’t care if you think it’s a life or a lifestyle. Even by scientific standards, it’s unnatural.
Now, everyone call me a bigot.
The real kicker here is that the marriages that took place before the Prop 8 ban ARE STILL LEGAL! The California State Government has just legalized discrimination! WHOLLY UNBELIEVABLE!
“A guarantee of equality that is subject to exceptions by the majority is no guarantee at all.”
It is sad to hear that state’s rights to govern themselves through the voices of people who voted in a democratic election are trying to get those results thrown out the window. The last time I checked, there are plenty of other states where Gays and Lesbians can wed. Plenty of heterosexuals go to places like Las Vegas for a quick or exotic wedding, why don’t the homosexuals stop whining and just have fun in the places with where they can get married?
(49) JH – you’re not a bigot. You’re just wrong.
Marriage doesn’t become any less of an institution if the boundaries include gay/lesbian couples. But if you want to enshrine it as a religious ’status’, then civil unions will do – and ultimately we’ll remove marriage as a function of government and put it back in the hands of the church.
The separation of church and state is important. It’s time we treated ‘marriage’ as a religious doctrine, not a law that discriminates.
You can’t have it both ways.
Websters;
bigot
One entry found.
Main Entry: big·ot
Pronunciation: \ˈbi-gət\
Function: noun
Etymology: French, hypocrite, bigot
Date: 1660
: a person obstinately or intolerantly devoted to his or her own opinions and prejudices ; especially : one who regards or treats the members of a group (as a racial or ethnic group) with hatred and intolerance
— big·ot·ed \-gə-təd\ adjective
— big·ot·ed·ly adverb
#49…..Yup, I would say that you saying that I am “unnatural” classifies as a bigot…..Congrats!!!
By the way – does this mean I can’t marry my Orion Slave girl?
@49 JH – Nobody has stood up for gay rights over time because in those times you would be killed in public for blasphemy.
Why did it take so long for someone to really stand up for Black rights?
Further more just because “traditional” marriage has been the standard doesn’t make the only option. The world wasn’t always flat you know. That was the standard for quite some time too.
Sadly we as a race are slow to accept new information, and even slower to except change. Maybe you are just unable to accept this kind of change. My Grandfather was never able to stop tossing out racial slurs. Just a product of his upbringing and generation.
Marriage is not written in stone and therefore malleable. It will take time, but it will change. Although to me marriage is a religious term that should only apply to religious ceremonies. Sadly it has become what Kleenex is to tissue paper.
OK JH, I’ll play along with your stupid game.
Suppose an Issue was proposed that stated: “Marriage shall be defined as a legal union of TWO consensual and committed ADULTS with all legal rights thereof of a married couple”
How would you vote? (I conveniently left out your “genetics” reference as that left me saying WTF?)
Nothing is written in stone for that matter. Why should anything be sacred? Why care about anything?
#49….”No great thinker, philosopher, or religion has ever advocated for same sex marriage.”
Hmmmmm, here’s what that “philosopher” PLATO had to say……
“When a person meets the half that is his very own, whatever his orientation, then something wonderful happens: the two are struck from their senses by love, by a sense of belonging to one another, and by desire, and they don’t want to be separated from one another, not even for a minute.”
He goes on to say, “These are people who finish out their lives together and still cannot say what it is they want from one another. No one would think it is the intimacy of sex – that mere sex is the reason each lover takes so great and deep a joy in being with the other. It’s obvious that the soul of every lover longs for something else; his soul cannot say what it is, but like an oracle it has a sense of what it wants, and like an oracle it hides behind a riddle.”
Plato imagines God asking them, “What is it you human beings really want from each other? Is this your heart’s desire – for the two of you to become parts of the same whole, as near as can be, and never to separate, day or night?”
49 – Homosexuality is perfectly natural. It doesn’t fit in with the initial design of the equipment (so to speak), but it is perfectly natural, and is observed in countless species.
One question. Why did homosexuals and bisexuals wait till Ellen came out on her show to come out themselves and demand to be able to marry? I’m not ridiculing or criticizing or anything, I’m just wondering, why wait till that point in time to start fighting for your rights?
#60….your right, almost 1500 species according to Wikipedia.
#62……Check out June 28th, 1969; “Stonewall Riots” in Wikipedia….we have been demanding equal treatment LONG before Ellen.
Look, I personally believe gay marriage should be legal, but the fact of the matter is that the people of CA voted, and a majority said no to gay marriage.
Instead of trying to get it over-turned in court and demonizing those who opposed it, just get it back on the ballot again in another 2 or 4 years. And if it fails, try again..and again.
Take it by a state by state basis, and let the American people decide. This is, after all, a democracy.
Just out of curiosity, how far does homosexuality and bisexuality go back in history? I didn’t know it existed until probably the late 90s or 2000s. Does it go back decades, centuries, millenia? OneBuckFilms and David Tester’s comments about various species observing those orientations got me wondering, about how long it’s been observed in general.
I know this is a touchy subject, but if you feel the need to label an entire group (any group) and disparaging them, I suggest you move on
and JH, ‘unnatural’ gets you a warning
60. – “Homosexuality is perfectly natural”
How many human beings have been created naturally through homosexuality?
Answer: None
How many animal species partake in homosexuality?
Answer: None
Doesn’t appear that natural to me. I don’t have a dog in this fight so no response is necessary. Just being an impartial observer.
#64…….www.yesonequality.com is doing just that!!!
#52
I suggest you study American history. Within the last 100 years women could not vote, nationally. Blacks could not vote, nationally. Racial discrimination was State the law in many states. Inter-racial marriage was banned in most states. And some of this was only 40 years ago. And much of it was based on “religion”. And bigotry. That didn’t make it right.
#65…..Greek Olympians were encouraged to only have homosexual sex until they could marry a Woman after competing…….
11 of the 12 Roman Caesars were Gay or Bisexual…….
We go back quite a ways into the history books……
I feel that it is absolutely ridiculous that equal rights-or human rights for that matter- are up for vote. Some things should not be decided upon by the whim of the “educated & enlightened” American voter.
Seriously where does this end?! Should the voters decide whether or not people of different races be allowed to marry? No! That would have every left-wing race-related advocacy group up in arms.
What these people who are against gay marriage fail to understand is this: the issue here has nothing to do with homosexuality. They claim that gays should not be granted special rights. I AGREE! NOBODY SHOULD HAVE SPECIAL RIGHTS! We are not talking about privileges granted to only a select few. We are talking about freedoms rightfully granted to everyone equally. And as much backlash as I may get from saying it, the Christian Right is the primary group to blame for the advocacy of same sex discrimination.
I say we petition to have a referendum put on the ballot that would allow or disallow Christians the right to marry or legally stay married. After all, most of them believe homosexuality is a choice and said choice precludes them from certain rights. Therefore Christianity- which IS a choice btw- should be placed under the same scrutiny and gauntlet of political red tape that has besieged the gay community for years.
Only when the shoe is on the other foot can we truly see the absurdity of this entire affair.
This is my first time posting here and I never thought my first post would happen on this topic, but….
First, the fact that our government is a rep republic has huge ramifications on what we think of “sad” or “backward” votes. You might find it sad that someone doesnt want to reccognize gay marriage or even find it backwards, but it is their right to vote that way. They in turn vote for reps that think like they do. If the majority of people thought that gay marriage should be recognized then it would have happened, same as it happened for women’s rights and african-american equality. California is thought to be a rather liberal and progressive state so if this issue has problems passing there, then there is little hope of it passing in many other states (like Vermont which passed it I believe).
Having said all of that, the court simply ruled that the people have the right, under their state’s government, to change the consitution by voting on these so-called Propositions. If the majority of people went out and took the time to vote on this issue because it meant something to them and it passed, then I don’t see what the problem is. If you don’t agree and you are a voter, then go out and change other people’s minds about it and vote. Get involved and rally support. This whole notion of sitting and whining about how people today are “sad”, “bigots”, “intolerant” and not doing anything about it is what makes me mad.
For the record, I don’t care one way or the other if gay people want to get married. I will abide by what the majority opinion is though. It should not be thrown out just because the side that lost doesn’t like it.
Land of the free my arsehole.
You have the right to freedom of speach, yet there is always a group waiting to censure whomever speaks out about anything. Even in this thread “this is not the apropriate place yacky yack……” So what happens? No one says anything and if they do they are berated.
An American Christian group even got a Heniz advert taken off air here, in the UK. It was never even shown in the States.
Didnt you guys flee the UK in the first place cos you were sick of the government telling you what you cannot do all the time?
“Sooo true. When will the ignorance and fear over polygamy, pedophilia, and incest ever end? It’s all about love!!”
Why why why? Why does bestiality, polygamy, pedophilia, incest, abortion et all, ALWAYS come up in a discussion about homosexuality?
Each of these topics are exclusive of the other. I know literally hundreds of gay people and have yet to see any practice any of these topics. None.
Is it a scare tactic to play on some people’s emotions? Mr. Spock once (and correctly) said… “Really Doctor, you must control your passions or they will be your undoing.”
Nuff said?
#60
1. Myself, for one.
2. Many, many, many.
Again, do some research man………..
#67…..actually as previously stated and estimated “natural” 1500 species are Homosexual according to Wikipedia……and no I don’t know of any human beings being created by “unatural Homosexuals”, but I promise you myself and My Partner of 10 years, plus every Gay person I know has tried.
If you don’t approve of gay marriage, don’t marry a gay person. But don’t restrict their rights to do so.
You tell ‘em George!
Why bother voting when the loser can take it to court? You lost this round the fight is not over JUST THE ROUND ! Get up take the 8 count and fight for what you believe. But don’t run to Judge Mommy if the people have spoken. Just try another approach.
1. Being gay is not a life CHOICE. If you think being gay is weird, stop using the excuse that you disagree with their life CHOICE! Because it is as much a choice as if you were told that straight people who are attracted to the opposite gender are wrong for their feelings and you should make the DECISION to be attracted to your own gender. Now think how impossible that would be for you if you are straight!
2. They are NOT scientifically “defected” humans. Period.
3. Marriage is a union between two people who LOVE each other. Why does gender and sexual preference matter? Why is this even a debated issue? Why are people so afraid of those who are different? Marriage should be decided by the church anyway… whatever happened to separating church and state?
For Star Trek fans who appreciate a Utopian society that does not discriminate or hate, and everyone is treated equal with equal rights… I’m surprised at how many star trek fans are just feeding the fire of inequality. Completely contradicting this Utopian society. It’s really disgusting.
I am very sorry but I do not watch Star Trek to be lectured about political matters or sexual proclivities. No wonder the various incarnations of “Star Trek: The Religion & Politics of Gene Roddenberry” were marginalized by the larger society, its disciples relegated to the fringe, and assumed (correctly, I’m afraid) to be a motley collection of misfits and outcasts.
Pity that truth hurts as it is an unarguable corrective to error. Without its unambiguous discipline, we would perish as a race — which California itself proves to an empirical certainty.
Sincerely,
C.S. Lewis
#67: There are actually many proven examples of homosexuality in nature. Check it out:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Homosexuality_in_animals
Anthony and Everyone on Being Gay and a Star Trek Fan too…..
America is split pretty much 50/50 on Gay Issues currently, which his a huge statistical leap from 10 years ago when more than 60% were “anti’ Gay……The bottom line is there is going to be plenty of hate speech in this thread or any other discussion about the topic. But thank God, just like with Women’s Rights and African American Rights, as the older generations die off, so does the majority of bigotry on the major issues…..When my Mom and Dad got married in South Carolina in 1965, being Gay was Illegal, Segregation WAS Legal, Interracial Marriage was Illegal, and My Grandmother was making 50 cents on the Dollar of her Male Co-Workers because she was a single Mom…..
Bottom Line, I could try to educate everyone on here all night long who think that I or any other Gay American is “unnatural” or shouldn’t have the same rights as anyone else, but the only thing that is going to change your mind is a better heart and better angels of human nature, or slowly dying off with the rest of those generations who have oppressed.
What a sad day for civil rights. :-(
Alexander the Great
Julius Caesar
Donatello
Lenoardo Da Vinci
Raphael
King Richard the Lionheart
Oscar Wilde
T.E. Lawrence (of Arabia)
George Takei
Sorry, my previous post was to #67, not 60. Duh! And I meant to say that homosexuals are created naturally. Double Duh!
I just got back from a wedding in Toronto this weekend. Like me, my friends who got married (they are both guys) left the United States over this very issue. The US is a Klingon-themed backwater that allows torture, jails people without cause, charges or trail, launches wars based on false evidence to control oil and changes it’s state’s constitutions to prevent them from being enforced in a way that would grant people the same treatment under the law regardless of gender. Hypocritical to the core when blabbing on about “freedom” and lacking compassion by being the only rich nation in the world that denies it residents health care, the United States is like the Klingon Empire (this is being said by a former American.) Canada is a “Federation” of provinces… and as a trekkie, I find this fact poetic. I moved to Canada because I don’t like living among savage war-mongering Klingons who know nothing of honour.
To all the other gay Americans tired of being chased with Batleths, cross the neutral zone and leave the Klingons to live in the Praxis of their own making.
^80 Mike write, wrongly,
“3. Marriage is a union between two people who LOVE each other.”
This is an ignorant position. Marriage has been about children and the raising of them within an identifiable kinship and secondarily, about the protection of women from predation. Those that subscribe to the above fallacy have spent too much time in Hollywood or under its fantastical influence.
(I hear the cries of objection even now… and rather than delve to their depths of indulgent minutia, I ask them instead to ponder the matter sans propaganda, sans selfish interests that are too easily stoked and manipulated, and to ponder why it is the institution of marriage has remained integral to civilization since the dawn of recorded history, whilst alternatives die with the civilizations that attempts them. The answer to that larger question will be self-evident, absent the hysteria of those demanding external affirmation of their not-so-private affairs.)
Sincerely,
C.S. Lewis
76. 80. 82. DON’T LET HOMOSEXUALITY BE THE ISSUE HERE PEOPLE!!!
Defending the validity of Homosexuality is exactly what its critics want. They refuse to touch the legality of refusing equality amongst all peoples. Instead they tell you that “Homosexuality is not natural, or that it is a sin, or that is is evil….and blah,blah,blah…”
Instead pose this question: IF HOMOSEXUALS DO NOT HAVE THE RIGHT TO MARRY, WHAT GIVES HETEROSEXUALS THE RIGHT?!
We are more knowledgeable in science than any time in our history, yet barely above tribal savages when it comes to how we treat our kind or listen to their opinion. There is so little respect for others among humanity.
I now agree with #13. This deserves a forum to discuss it, but this site is not it. Anthony, please consider shutting it down.
Whether we agree with gay marriage or not, I am glad that a small elite group of judges did not over rule the will of the majority (even if only 2%). As much as we might like or dislike Prop 8, it will be a horrible day when Judges usurp the will of the people instead of interpreting the law as it stands.
Personally, I believe in the separation of church and state and think that marriage is a religious institution anyway and that the civil government should have no say who or what gets married. No one would say anything against Christian churches not baptizing Muslims, or Jews not giving a bar mitzvah to a Christian — same should go for marriage. If marriage is left solely in the hands of religious institutions, then a gay couple, a polygamous couple, a triad, a man and his dog, can just find a religious group that will marry them. Get the government out of religions business.
The only thing that government should do is give benefits to any group of individuals living together and honor the contracts signed by those groups to act on each others behalf. Lets take the entire sexual orientation out of the equation. Then even a father and son, or two sisters, or two best friends can be roommates and benefit from benefits currently out allowed by those who are married.
#67: “How many human beings have been created naturally through homosexuality? Answer: None”
You are kidding? Right? That is, perhaps, the most stupid thing I have ever read.
Just exactly where do you think anyone comes from? Last time I checked no one has ever born from a machine, no cloning, no Frankenstein-type creations, nor through incantation, but through human conception.
80. mike – May 26, 2009
“Being gay is not a life CHOICE”
Mike, I apologize. I used the term in my post and stand corrected.
88. C.S. Lewis – May 26, 2009
“This is an ignorant position. Marriage has been about children and the raising of them within an identifiable kinship and secondarily, about the protection of women from predation. ”
Sorry, your answer is ignorant in other ways.
My sister got married to the man she LOVES and can’t have children and she’s not anyone’s prey. She shouldn’t have married? What century did you pull your opinion from, or am I misunderstanding you?
Many issues in addition this one have proved that California’s form of direct democracy is dysfunctional. Large societies need representative democracy because large governments are too complex for voters to be able to micromanage.
The idea that a state constitution can be modified by simple majority vote is ludicrous. Compare to the US Constitution which is very difficult to amend — in fact that difficulty is relevant to gay marriage because as soon as 13 states legalize gay marriage, there would presumably no longer be the 37 states necessary to amend the Constitution to exempt marriage from the Full Faith and Credit Clause. That clause theoretically requires states to recognize gay marriages from other states and makes the Defense of Marriage Act unconstitutional.
“Christians are those who love the Church enough to criticise it.” – South African Archbishop Desmond Tutu.
Words to live by. And perhaps one of the most eloquent (but gentle) criticisms of orthodoxy and dogma by a prominent religious figure in my lifetime. I’m not going to tell anyone what to believe. But I will suggest that before we start throwing around rethoric like “unnatural” and “perversion,” we need to reflect on why we care so much about somebody else’s domestic relations. Why is controlling other peoples’ lives – even those of atheists – so important to Christians? Are we really doing it for the glory of God? Or do we just love the power of collectivism a little too much?
#91 Yes, but government has to balance democracy against the Constitutional rights of the people. This is why your guns are safe if 90% of Californians vote to confiscate them.
96……congrats on an excellent point, I never have been able to figure out why anyone would give a d*mn about myself and my partner being married, us having equal protection under the law and receiving the same benefits of a heterosexual couple……
I think bottom line it grosses allot of truly straight people out and makes incredibly uncomfortable those who question their own sexual orientation…..
I look very forward to the day, a decade or two from now when the kids will look back and say “I can’t believe that was such a big deal”.
I’m surprised the argument of “perpetuating the species” hasn’t yet reared its ugly head… like this world doesn’t have enough people draining its limited resources… or that the believed 6-10% of the world’s gay population could make a dent in the rocket ride to 7 billion people.
My best friend is married, never with the thought that she or her husband would have a child. Does this mean she should not be married–nor not allowed to be married? That’s insulting.
It’s already been said… by me even… the government needs to get its nose out of the marriage business.
It certainly shows how insecure so many people are if they think permitting gays to be married is a threat to so-called traditional family values–those same folk who can marry not once, not twice, not three times, but as many times as they want yet work to deny others that very same right just once.
Yeah, that’s special all right.
96. JohnWA – May 26, 2009
” Why is controlling other peoples’ lives – even those of atheists – so important to Christians? Are we really doing it for the glory of God? Or do we just love the power of collectivism a little too much?”
I understand your comment, but don’t completely agree with it. Not all Christians are not against homosexual marriages. You can attempt to define those who have the concerns, but you’ll find them to be of differing backgrounds, religions and age. You can’t pin this on one group.
I’m sorry Mr. Takei feels that he requires state validation of the love he feels for his partner.
The ruling today was not based on the morality or same sex marriage, but whether the amendment was done correctly within the confines of the California constitution.
Frankly, the States need to get out of the marriage business and simply institute domestic partnerships instead.
Unfortunately neither side seems to want to pursue that avenue.
Anthony,
I think everyone has pretty much had their say. I don’t think you should have to spend your evening monitoring this thread for mean spirited or hateful posts…..(from either side). I am ok and I think George Takei would be fine with you calling this thread “case closed”.
All my best,
David Tester
Lifetime Star Trek Fan
Lifetime Gay American
#103 DAvid
agreed.
i’m sorry xai i wasn’t trying to single you out, i was just skimming the arguments people were posing and that happened to be a phrase that caught my attention. Your post was most definitely more respectful than a lot of people on this site.
Actually, I’m not sure that marriage is a fundamental right. Marriage has its roots in various religious practices.
More to the point, I’m not sure why the government is involved in the act of marriage at all.
As far as I’m concerned, willing parties (of any number) should be able to make civil arrangements for the sharing of property and medical access rights by way of civil contract without the “m” word coming into the picture.
Likewise, any ensuing ceremonies should be the domain of religious bodies or family groups.
Get the government the hell out of it.
As a conservative Christian, I don’t agree with gay marriage. However, this is, in theory, a free country. So from my vantage point, any gay couple or mormon cluster who wishes to consider themselves married should be free to do so. And Uncle Sam and his fifty daughters should find more fundamental things to deal with.
After all, how consenting adults live and love behind closed doors is their business. Let’s keep it that way.
100-
When did I say all Christians are against homosexual marriage? Or indeed, homosexuality in general for that matter?
I said Christians have a tradition of being tempted by political power (i.e. the ability to control others through force). I think, historically, I’m on solid ground in making such an assertion. And I’m challenging Christians, especially Catholics and “high church” Anglo-Catholics, to justify that authority – theologically, philosophically, morally, and yes, scientifically – which they have given themselves.
I don’t accept that authority as inherently justified. Neither does Archbishop Tutu.
But I’m not assigning sole responsibility for this particular issue to anyone. And as I’m not a Buddhist, Hindu, Jew, or Muslim, I can’t comment on what they’re doing. They have their own process, scriptures, and theological foundations. This isn’t a ecumenical effort on my part.
I have pondered this issue for quite some time. Many valid points have been made here, from both sides, and if a person is open-minded and non-bigoted (is that even a word?) it would be easy for them to support marriage rights for all. What concerns me, however, is how something like this affects society/civilization in the long run.
We are all animals folks. Animals have instincts. Many laws are put in place to keep our instincts at bay. To make us civil, as it were. As these laws are repealed or overturned, one has to be concerned where the line is drawn, so that our civilization can be maintained and not fail as a result of its degradation (a common factor in the fall of many a civilization).
Someone mentioned homosexuality is NATURAL in 1500 or so animal species. That may be true, however, just because something is natural doesn’t mean it lends itself well to the development of a civilized world. After all, it is NATURAL for males of a species to mate with females at, or shortly after, first menses. For some human females, that could be 8 or 9 years old!! That is definitely not a world I want to live in.
I’m 100% heterosexual and I believe that if the founding fathers had interpreted the constitution for homosexuals to be married then they would have done. As it stands they did not. I do not feel it’s my right to voice my opinion about what people do in the privacy of their own home, however I do believe strongly in the rights of all free citizens as it stands in the United States Constitution.
The issue for Star Trek fans is largely one of “tradition.” Is the new Star Trek movie good? That depends on how an individual viewer holds certain Trek “tradition.” Some fans here enjoyed the new movie and appreciated how it worked in both a respect for the past (by being more of a sequel to all that has come before in Star Trek than a prequel), and some fans dislike the new Star Trek movie because it does, effectively, set a new course of history over the events that traditional Star Trek has demonstrated. Among other variants, of course.
However, there is room enough in the real world for both. Those who prefer or at least enjoy the traditional Star Trek have DVDs/videotape/reruns/etc. and even new things set in the original, traditional universe (books/comics/Star Trek Online/etc.). Those who prefer or at least enjoy the JJ Abrams-flavored version have, well, DVDs/sequels/books/comics/etc. to enjoy, at least in the future.
On marriage, we really do have the same idea, although not “legally” available everywhere. In those countries and/or states that allow gay marriage, the people who live there can choose to stick with a traditional marriage, or take a non-traditional, more modernized “update,” if you will. If you don’t want a gay marriage, don’t have one.
Secondly, there are two specific issues with regard to marriage. The traditional institution of marriage, historically speaking, and the legal construct of marriage (which hasn’t existed as long as the form of marriage on which it is based). Personally, I’d be offended if the law required religious institutions to marry homosexuals regardless of that religion’s teaching. HOWEVER, the legal version of marriage is really what is at issue in these debates. The two forms of marriage, at least in the US, are not the same. Maybe the “legal” version should be called “civil unions” for all, including heterosexuals, I don’t know. But we, collectively, need to be able to distinguish the legal from the religious.
Keep gay marriage out of your church, if you want, but don’t keep the legal protections that come with a legal marriage restricted just to those who can marry in your church.
Or, keep enjoying Classic Trek, refuse to show JJ’s version in your church, but don’t block others from seeking out New Trek legally. ;-)
(Hey, I’m trying to keep the topic Trek-focused.)
Proposition 8 is a hate crime, simple as that. It interferes with the human rights of gays and lesbians that the straight folks have had for many generations.
Chris-
I too support the Constitution.
Where exactly does it mention marriage again? I forget?
Robert H-
Exactly how does it harm anyone?
Again, I don’t think the government has any business issuing marriage licenses as I think marriage is a private contract anyway.
I’m just curious, though, how the lack of a piece of paper harms someone.
Any body who wishes to share property rights and medical access rights may do so- gay, straight, or platonic. It just requires a few more forms,
To compare Prop 8 to beatings or stocking people into ghettos or setting crosses on fire on their lawns?
Dude, inconvenience isn’t a crime. Not even in spoiled, pampered America.
There’s something I don’t get, why is homosexuality permitted but bigamy or poligamy not only not permitted, but prosecutable as a crime?
Glad to see the court not setting policy but ruling on the law. The voters spoke.
“Does love stop at numbers, or age, or genetics? ”
Actually legally it does and it should. You can’t equate gay marriage — 2 consenting adults — with children or animals THAT CANNOT CONSENT.
“How many human beings have been created naturally through homosexuality? Answer: None”
Homosexuality does not exclude the ability to reproduce through other means — much like a lot of het couple do with test tubes, surrogates, etc. So should barren heterosexuals not be allowed to marry? And with more than 6 billion people on the planet now is this even a consideration?
“It is fundamentally an institution based on religious precepts, that has enough variations to become secular in the eyes of many.”
The concept of Legal Marriage came about as a business transaction. Men with property wanted a way to pass their wealth and be sure that the children were in fact theirs. Marriage in this country is secular — it is regulated by the STATE and confers thousands of benefits no other contract can equal. You can legally marry without Church involvement; however, if your minister performs a wedding ceremony without a license, your marriage isn’t legal.
Marriage has been evolving throughout man’s history and continues to do so. In the not too distant past in the Western world, women were chattel without any rights; there was no divorce no matter how terrible the marriage was; there was no such thing as “rape” in the marital setting, sex was his right even by force; people of different races couldn’t marry (but cousins could and still can in places, ack!)
I live in California, and love my state. That said, I wish to respond with: “A representative owes the People not only his industry, but his judgement, and he betrays them if he sacrifices it to their opinion.” -Edmund Burke
I to also feel that Government does not need to put it’s big foot in the Marriage argument. But I as see how marriage is and event to aid in the existence of a population that government is to aid in Governing. Marriage what crated to help promote continuance of existance of a species in an orderly fashion that educates existing knowledge so what has been learned is past on to the unknowing and thus not needed to be learned again.
Same gender boding is just that, their is no possible way for reproduction by natural nature. In the future natural ways may be altered by science with things like cloning, but that is not nature at work.
Laws try to define in words what nature, emotions. and other items mean. To me nature and natural reproduction rule and that is what defines the word Marriage. Any thing else is not natural and becomes personal. If and when Science make it possible these Unions are still self defined Unions so the word Marriage shall never me used for this form of Union.
In short Marriage is marriage because natural reproduction is possible with out the ad of science. Unions is a term ment when people personally reside to unite as a couple.
113, 114, 115…….
First off you have no idea that those “extra forms” don’t hold any weight in most states where blood kin holds the weight of the law like South Carolina.
I use my real name on here, and I am a Gay American with a Life Partner of 10 years. If I past away, or visa versa, either of our families could successfully challenge or take away everything we have worked together for from the surviving Partner. That’s not an “inconvenience” and it should be a crime but here it is the law. The voters don’t know the whole truth because they don’t have family members or friends like me. As more of them realize how badly we can be harmed financially and emotionally without these rights that heterosexual couples have, hopefully they will come to their senses.
I am here, real name and all……so you really think you have the right to rights I don’t just because I’m Gay?
Think about it, this is REAL people like me folks, not just an arbitrary argument about someone or some stereotype you imagine.
All my best,
David Tester
Lifetime Star Trek Fan
Lifetime Gay American
Prior to being elected Obama was asked what he felt about Gay Marriage. He replied that, although he believed that gay couples should have the same benefits as straight Married couples that his CHRISTIAN belief was that MARRIAGE should be between a man and a woman. This is not made up. It was in an interview cited by GLAAD with IIRC the Chicago Tribune.
The irony of Obama is that many in the Gay and Lesbian community (I daresay the MAJORITY) voted for him. Not only THAT but he brought out African American and Latino supporters in droves to the poles. It was these two groups that overwhelmingly voted for Prop 8. What surprises me is that I dont hear the GL community going after Obama or blacks and hispanics. They have focused their ire instead on the Mormons which I suppose is an easier target. I also hear words like TYRANNY and Fascism.
This is a Democracy. It is still the will of the voters. I didnt want Obama for my President but I was out voted. Now, conservative as I may be, I want the George’s and Brad’s to enjoy the same recognition (not just rights) as any other committed married couple.
As a combat veteran I served with closeted gays who proudly served their country and I think that same country needs to serve them as well. The GL community needs to change its tactics though.
Protest marches that block traffic and screaming about being a fascist or a bigot or a hater doesnt sway votes it alienates people and makes them feel justified in their marginalization of teh GL community. If you believe protests work then march on Washington and tell your President he is a hater and a bigot because HE doesnt believe that marriage is a GAY right because of his religious beliefs.
I propose instead better PR. Dont segregate yourselves as the ‘gay’ community but move out in to the WHOLE community and show the fearful what a healthy committed relationship is. Educate dont alienate and pick the right targets. When you try to SHOVE something down someones throat they often times tend to throw up all over you. It is a thoughtful process and it doesnt happen over night. It is coming, though, and hopefully as it does the detractors will see that its not going to affect THEIR ‘lifestyle’ and we really DO have much more pressing concerns then ‘who loves who’.
Star Trek really does need to do this in a healthy way too. Ive known George for decades and i was very happy for him and Brad. They are very happy together and i wish for all good people to be able to achieve that which brings them joy. Its what I fought for.
I didnt get my Combat Infantry Badge fighting for SOME Americans freedoms and right to happiness but for ALL Americans and I hated that some of those I served with had to hide who they were because they loved their country more then it loved them.
Personally Im not a big fan of marriage…Id LOVE to be part of a STRAIGHT civil union and get benefits without the religious trappings…but if marriage makes good people like George and Brad happy and adds to the quality of their lives then Im all for it.
#118 – I am a heterosexual male engaged to be married (to a woman) later this year. We cannot have kids naturally as we cannot reproduce naturally, despite having the right parts/right genders/whatever. Should we not be allowed to partake in marriage because one of us is sterile, especially since traditional marriage (in your argument) is centered around reproduction?
Yes or no, and why or why not, please.
#83:
Why is someon who disagrees with homosexuality said to be engaging in “hate speech”?
Why is it that someone who believes homosexuality to be wrong and says so, said to be engaging in “hate speech”? Such as Carrie Prejean?
Those of you who believe homosexuality to be correct and right want everyone else to be tolerant of your opinion and ideals, yet you show little to no tolerance for the opposing viewpoint. Folks such as JH above are called bigoted because they believe homosexuality to be wrong.
Why is this? This so-called idea of “tolerance” insists that all value systems, worldviews and truth-claims are equal does it not? Every individual is free to decide what is right for him or her, and no one has the right to say, ‘My way is better than yours.’ This means more than accepting the values of others, it means affirming those values, even praising them and never criticizing them. Right and wrong is not the issue. The most important tenet of tolerance is an open mind, because an open mind cannot hate.
All through this thread, I see people being tolerant of those with whom they agree, yet intolerant of those with whom they disagree, and these are the ones who claim to be tolerant. It seems to me that anyone who accepts any kind of moral absolutes is branded as intolerant. If someone says to one who is homosexual, ‘I accept you as a person, but I don’t agree with your lifestyle,’ then your value system–which those who agree with the tolerance doctrine claim is as valid as any other–is suddenly worth nothing. There are so many who wish to hold up Star Trek’s utopian view of the future as being the standard by which we all should aspire to, yet even in the Star Trek universe, tolerance still doesn’t reign supreme. Lines are still drawn. I mean if all values are equal, why not just let the Borg assimilate whomever they want? After all, this is what they believe to be right for them, is it not? To those who hold up tolerance as their banner, isn’t it true that everyone has the right to believe and live the way they choose? Why not the Borg?
Like it or not, there will always be people on both sides of this issue, those who believe homosexuality is right and those who believe homosexuality is wrong. If you believe in moral absolutes, then you will most-likely fall on the side of those who believe that homosexuality is wrong. Yet, if we are to be tolerant of all people, and believe that all beliefs and lifestyles are equal, then shouldn’t those who believe homosexuality is OK be tolerant of the opposite viewpoint as well? I ask again, why is their viewpoint referred to as “hate speech”?
It seems to me that tolerance only applies those with whom you agree.
#114: “There’s something I don’t get, why is homosexuality permitted but bigamy or poligamy not only not permitted, but prosecutable as a crime?”
Perhaps a more important– and telling question (regarding your character) is why are you comparing homosexuality to the others?
#11
Incest, polygamy and pedophilia involve injury to one or both parties and unwilling participants. To equate them with homosexuality is incredibly offensive, out of line and what most would consider a straw man.
#114
Because more often than not polygamy involves women being forcibly and unwillingly placed with cowardly old men trying to control them through the illusion of righteousness. No such disparity exists between consenting homosexual adults who simply wish to formalize their existing relationship.
#114: … perhaps that being gay is an innate component of one’s very being.. just as being straight is, whereas; poligamy or bigamy is a practiced and chosen behavior.
oh wait, you want to convince me that being straight is something you choose, right?
#124 Why do you find polygamy offensive? If there are 3 consenting adults, why shouldn’t the be allowed to form a union of 3?
#124/125… “they be allowed” that is. Again, 3 consenting adults, let’s say they are three women who are lesbian. You’re telling me two women can marry, but three cannot???
What if two men wish to marry one woman, and all 3 are consenting? Why do you have to portray polygamy as some sort of frontier arrangement that involves old men and teenaged girls? You’re offending those who believe in true polygamy and polyamory.
I think the issue of fair polygamy is one that must be considered if we’re talking equal rights for *consenting* adults. I don’t think you can reject polygamy out of hand. I’m sure that George and Brad would agree that polygamy is fair.
Also, in Star Trek, we have in the literature that Andorian couples involve 4 sexes. And *onscreen* we know that Phlox and most all Denobulans are polygamous.
Are you telling me Dr. Phlox is offensive?
“I ask again, why is their viewpoint referred to as “hate speech”?”
Uh, maybe cause….
Hate Speech — n. Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group.
“There’s something I don’t get, why is homosexuality permitted but bigamy or poligamy not only not permitted, but prosecutable as a crime?”
How ironic. Bigamy and poligamy are prosecutable as crimes because of the very law we are debating here — marriage is defined as between ONE man and ONE woman. You can’t have it both ways….
#123 They are the most common alternative sexual and partnership arrangements.
#124 Polygamy does not involve injury to one or both parties.
#125 Forced Polygamy is wrong, and that’s a hell of a characterization that some of my Mormon friends (female btw) would take real issue with, just as any sort of forced partnership is wrong. But just as arranged marriage doesn’t make marriage wrong…
#126 That is what several GLBT organizations state, however when you start discussing medical treatment for that genetic abnormality like you would genetic treatment for Down’s Syndrome it magically gets termed “hate speech”. They can’t have it both ways. Either it’s a genetic disorder, or it’s a legitimate choice.
#129:
“Hate Speech — n. Bigoted speech attacking or disparaging a social or ethnic group or a member of such a group.”
Why is someone who says that homosexuality is wrong said to be attacking or disparaging a social group or a member of such a group?
So is someone who would say that heterosexuality is wrong be engaging in “hate speech”?
The denial and erosion of rights for our gay sisters and brothers must STOP.
Interesting……no one willing to take on me on from #119
I guess when you realize there is a real life human being on the other end of the line it is much easier to “depersonalize” and argue based on your own morals, your own deep seeded feelings of what is so wrong about being Gay and how it affects heterosexuals in such a horrible “legal an emotional” way……..
Again I ask; how are equal rights for me (that every heterosexual couple has) harming any heterosexual couple?
The lack of equal rights certainly harms me. Argue that if you can, personally.
All my best,
David Tester
Lifetime Star Trek Fan
Lifetime Gay American
#130: oh so now you are saying homosesuality is a genetic disorder?
You funny funny man; I quote Captain James Kirk, “I’m laughing at the superior intellect.”
but by the same token, it is nice hearing you say that being gay is in the genes.. now we’re getting somewhere. It is patently improper, maybe even illegal, to legislate something that is genetic.
As to choice, I never said being gay is a choice, however, I will concede that choice does play a part… I choose to be honest, I choose to call bigotry for what it is, I choose to live my life with dignity, I choose to accept people for who they not, what I wish they were.
“So is someone who would say that heterosexuality is wrong be engaging in “hate speech”?”
#131– No, they would just be engaging in ridiculousness. You mock the seriousness of the issue with comments like this.
“Either it’s a genetic disorder, or it’s a legitimate choice.”
Being gay is genetic in the same way as someone having blue eyes or black hair. It’s not a “disorder” nor a “choice”.
David Tester — It’s always easy to hate a myth. Real flesh and blood is more problematic for most. Kind of like how those fire hoses and dogs in the 60s on people’s tv sets woke people up to what African Americans were experiencing.
#128, 130
The majority of polygamous arrangements involve multiple young women married to one older man. I am only referring to these sorts of polygamous arrangements that involve one or more individuals that are forced/coerced into the situation (frequently they are minors). I should have made that clear.
If three consenting adults wish to enter a polygamous arrangement, I have no issue with it (though if they were friends I’d probably try to talk them out of it, as odds/psychology say someone is going to get jealous and/or hurt).
If you have friends that object to that viewpoint, they aren’t part of the Mormon Church. They might belong to a break-off such as FLDS, but the Mormon Church has banned polygamy amongst its membership for nearly 120 years.
Well, there’s an element of ethnocentricism here. Not everything we believe must be true everywhere for all eternity.
I live in Washington State, so Canada is right next door. When I explain to Canadians how petitions, recalls, and ballot initiatives work in this country, for example, their reaction is usually a mixture of bemused and horrified. They start thinking that I’m pulling their leg. And when I assure them that I’m dead serious, they tend to say something along the lines of:
“Are you people insane? How can you and a few drinking buddies rewrite the Constitution? How can you recall a public official that still has the confidence of the government? How can you have the majority vote on minority rights?”
And these are our immediate neighbors. Same-sex marriage is mostly a European phenomenon. But polygamy and arranged marriages are still legal and practiced in many parts of Asia and the Islamic world.
And there are some interesting experiments elsewhere as well. Since the end of apartheid, the African National Congress has taken a “hands off” approach to marriage in South Africa. Under the Customary Marriages Act (1998) and Civil Union Act (2006), marriage is now open to all consenting adults. The parties can arrange it in any numerical or gender combination the parties deem appropriate. It remains to be seen how well this will work out in the long run, as they’ve only tried it for a few years. But this is what it would be if the Libertarians had their way.
Anthony and Everyone,
Welp, signing off from this argument (it is the East Coast here), and going to bed. Seeing as no one is willing to actually confront a Gay American with their bigoted beliefs; it just proves what I have said all along; The Next Generation will come and bring progress and equal rights with them, you will die off or your hearts will change. In the meantime I genuinely hope you all live long and prosper.
All my best,
David Tester
Lifetime Star Trek Fan
Lifetime Gay American
#134 About a decade ago I watched a speech made by a leader in the Rainbow Coalition and it was stated that homosexuality wasn’t a choice, it was how they were made, or something like that. I take that speech to be that their position is that homosexuality is genetic and not a moral choice such as how “The Church” was trying to present it. I’ve heard similar speeches by other organizations and read many news articles to the same effect.
If homosexuality is a choice, so be it, and I won’t consider it any different than polygamy, just an alternative partnership arrangement. But if it is instead a genetic disorder, then perhaps a genetic treatment can be developed sometime in the future and those who do not want to be homosexual could be treated for that.
What’s surprising to me is that organizations will on one hand blame the genes, but the defenders of homosexuality start spouting off about how it’s hate speech to discuss treating those genes.
Civil unions — YES!
Marriage — NO! That’s between ONE man and ONE woman ONLY!
And I don’t care who doesn’t like what I am posting!
#136 “The majority of polygamous arrangements involve multiple young women married to one older man”
The majority of monogamous arrangements involve a younger woman married to an older man.
Your point being?
#139
“But if it is instead a genetic disorder, then perhaps a genetic treatment can be developed sometime in the future and those who do not want to be homosexual could be treated for that.”
That is a truly scary road you’re headed down.
sean, sorry, I posted before reading your full post… wish this place had an edit button. Now that you mention it, they called themselves mormons, but the temple was a latter day saints of some type.
142-
Eugenics Wars scary.
#142 I’m not understanding how it’s a scary road that I’m headed down. Would it be scary to develop a cure for Downs Syndrome, or Alzheimers, or any other number of genetic disorders and then offer it on a voluntary basis? If homosexuality is genetic, how would it be any different? It is, by definition, an abnormality. Doesn’t mean it’s morally wrong, just an abnormality, and if it can be corrected to be normal on a voluntary basis, then why would it be a “truly scary road”?
#144 Eugenics Wars never happened, though would be if it did happen. Hitler’s so-called eugenics was scary, but it was hardly voluntary. At any point have I mentioned killing all homosexuals (Hitler’s solution) or forcing the cure on anyone? No.
#141
Aqua, I’ve made it clear that I’m ONLY referring to arrangements where someone is forced/coerced/pressured into entering it. If you’d read my entire post you would have realized that.
And I’m fully against ANY forced arrangement, so that goes for monogamous marriage as well.
#122: I agreed with your discussion as well as your points, in that all viewpoints need to be accepted, even if you don’t agree with them. However, I don’t agree that “I mean if all values are equal, why not just let the Borg assimilate whomever they want? After all, this is what they believe to be right for them, is it not? ” is correct. The Borg thrive on the destruction and suffering of others. This is where morals and values need to come into action. The most basic debate here, is do we deny the most basic civil rights of one group because another, a majority feels it is best for their civilization. We’ve seen this in Star Trek, many times: Star Trek-Insurrection (Federation decides the fate of the Baku), TNG-Homeward (Picard & Starfleet decide the fate of the Borlaans, TOS-The Cage (The Talosians decide the fate of humans), TOS-The Devil in the Dark (Humans decide the fate of Hortas and their young), TOS-Who Mourns for Adonais (Apollo decides the fate of humans), TNG-When the Bough Breaks (The Aldeans decide the fate of the Enterprise children)… the list goes on and on. The moral of the story: when opposing sides are uncompromising on their views, then one side loses. If both are to win, each side must be willing to help each other, not destroy each other. That’s the Borg’s job… or Dominion!
#145
Adjusting anyone at a genetic level is a terrifying idea. Curing a disease is an entirely different proposal. You are talking about altering personality traits and changing the fundamental nature of an individual. It is a massive responsibility and could easily be abused. It also equates homosexuality with a neurological disorder, something most people would find inaccurate (not to mention offensive).
146-
Do you honestly think a “cure” for homosexuality would be administered “voluntarily”?
Please tell me you’re not that naive.
And it wasn’t just Hitler trying to breed a better white race. Look up Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes’ comments on forced sterilisation or Madison Grant’s “The Passing of the Great Race.” These views were widely accepted by Americans at the time. We have a history of eugenics right here in America. It destroyed peoples’ lives.
#119, 133, 138. Why does someone have to “take you on” as you say in 133? You expressed your point of view in 119. Why do you have to work to bait someone with a viewpoint opposed to yours? I’ll “take you on” on an issue you didn’t expect. I think all adults should have equal adult rights. All adults should have the right, as South Africa has done. Any number and gender of consenting adults may legally marry. Do you support this position? Or are you only in favor of twosomes being allowed to marry?
I worry when I look at sean’s post at #130:
“If three consenting adults wish to enter a polygamous arrangement, I have no issue with it (though if they were friends I’d probably try to talk them out of it, as odds/psychology say someone is going to get jealous and/or hurt).”
Substitute a couple words and you get this:
“If two consenting adults wish to enter a non-traditional arrangement, I have no issue with it (though if they were friends I’d probably try to talk them out of it, as odds/psychology say someone is going to get jealous and/or hurt).”
When I see those advocating gay marriage also advocate fair, consenting, polygamy, I’m all ears. Unfortunately, I know far too many who stop at gay marriage, and attack me for advocating for true and full equality for consenting adults of all number. In the meantime, it’s a sad argument on both sides of the polar opposites. I hope in 100 years, partnerships of all types between consenting adults will be of the type Heinlein predicted.
Unfortunately, too many folks I know have the illusion that they can stop at certain points in granting rights we all hold. First it was those who attempt to stop interracial marriage. Now those who attempt to stop gay marriage. But what about those who refuse to allow consenting polyamory–many of them advocate for gay marriage, but then say… “oh, but you can’t let three marry.”
I prefer the quote from the end of “The Cage”: “She has an illusion, and you have reality. May you find your way as pleasant.” Unfortunately, too many people are living in their own illusions.
“Would it be scary to develop a cure for Downs Syndrome, or Alzheimers, or any other number of genetic disorders and then offer it on a voluntary basis? If homosexuality is genetic, how would it be any different? ”
What is scary is that you equate the two.
I’m not against the Gays and Lesbians in fact people deserve to practice what they practice its not my place to tell them so. The majority decided and that should be the end of it. Why not call Gay marriage something different?
To qoute Pholx: “If your going to embrace new worlds try embracing new ideas.”
Call it something different a union as it were but not marriage marriage is between a man and a woman.
Separate but equal, huh?
Yeah, that worked so well before……
Homosexuality is not a disease. That’s the difference.
Sad day for all civil rights indeed.
#135
“So is someone who would say that heterosexuality is wrong be engaging in “hate speech”?”
#131– No, they would just be engaging in ridiculousness. You mock the seriousness of the issue with comments like this.”
Are you kidding me? Mocking the seriousness of the issue? I’m trying to prove a point. You are either tolerant of all points of view or you are tolerant of nothing. As I pointed out, there are people who believe that homosexuality is wrong, along with people who believe that homosexuality is right. Which is it, because it obviously can’t be both. Where have the 2 opposing viewpoints come from? I am asking serious questions here. Do all people truly believe that heterosexuality is right? Who is to say?
Who decides which viewpoint is right and which viewpoint is wrong? If you hold to the idea of tolerance, then you believe that all viewpoints have value, that all value systems, worldviews and truth-claims are equal. Every individual is free to decide what is right for him or her, and no one has the right to say, ‘My way is better than yours.’
By this model, then both viewpoints are correct, are they not? Does anyone posting here not see the fallacy of such an argument?
#152 A genetic abnormality is a genetic abnormality is a genetic abnormality.
Get it? Nothing scary about the concept.
“Or what if the ruling said that Blacks or Hispanics could not get married – would you be so quick to support Prop 8?”
The fallacy of your argument is that you are equating sexual preference with race. Additionally, prop 8 does not ban homosexual behavior. Banning homosexual activity would ACTUALLY be the intolerance you speak of. Please be tolerant of the diversity of opinions on this matter :)
Anthony – I thank you from the bottom of my heart in allowing this type of news to touch Trekmovie. Gays have been ignored in Star Trek for too long. In allowing sensible debate here, you are helping to loosen positions and change minds ever so slowly. The best disinfectant for ignorance is information.
Thank you.
=]
It’s wrong. Period.
Look, I have some friends who are gay. They’re great people, but in my opinion it’s wrong. Morally wrong. I understand that it appears that it’s a lake of equal rights, but here’s the way I see it: I could site a hundred examples, but suffice it to say, morality is what’s at stake here. I truly do feel that without those morals in place society fails as does the family. I understand that there are those who would argue that gays in some ways are better parents than heterosexual couples, and I would say that it is true that there are those parents who don’t do a good job, but the foundation of a family is based on Fathers and Mothers (male and female) working together to raise a family. I’m sorry, but children raised in a gay household only confuses children’s sexuality.
Star Trek is about tolerance of other people and their ideas and beliefs. That goes for those of us as well who believe and feel this way. Calling us biggots and saying that we are without compassion is wrong and isn’t true. As passionate as some of you may be about gay rights, I am just as passionate for familial morality. I’m not against gays, but for the family.
111: It isn’t a hate crime to think that marriage should be between one man and one woman. I also think that marriage should be between an adult man and woman. Does that mean I’m committing a hate crime because I don’t think 16 or 17 year olds should get married even with parental consent? Or 10 or 11 year olds? I hate the fact that Christians are called hateful because they say marriage should be between men and women and yet no one ever says that some gays are hateful when they verbally attack those who defend a traditional position of marriage. Whatever happened to having a difference of opinions, defending each others right to have a differing opinion and respecting each other no matter how difficult it is to understand their perspective. I think that was one of the founding elements of our nation. Our country is being torn apart not because of differing views, but by an unwillingness to respect each other if we don’t agree.
I don’t agree with George Takei. Politically we are probably about as opposite as you can get. Yet you know what? I respect him and applaud him for fighting for what he believes in as long as he stays civil about it. And yet I couldn’t disagree with him more and I would debate him. At the end of the day, I would hope we could shake hands and if we were in the same social circles– be friends. HOW IS THIS HATE???
#151
Daoud, I could play the ’substitute a few words’ routine with most anyone’s statement and come up with something nefarious.
And as far as I’m concerned, I shouldn’t be in charge of such things anyway. I happen to think it’s an individual’s choice, and again, as long as everyone is consenting it should be up to them whether they do it or not. The main issue I have in all this is the government making these decisions for individual citizens. That’s what’s really dangerous for EVERYONE.
122-
To keep it rather short, why don’t you reconsider your list of questions – important ones – from the perspective of an historically marginalized group? When dealing with matters of marginalization – of majorities and minorities – the notion of “tolerance” falls apart very quickly. In terms of power – that is, who has the power or agency to act – the group with a majority stake in dictating policy has the power to be intolerant. In the case of same sex marriage in the United States, this majority is, largely, intolerant. When a marginalized group is advocating for tolerance, they are arguing from a very different perspective, then. They are arguing from one without agency, without the power to dictate policy (and, thinking beyond just the law, they are without the power to dictate broader, epistemological discourses on normality & sexuality).
To abstractly think about this issue as one free of the messy terrains of power and powerlessness is to assume there is a level playing field. Notions of tolerance are relevant to who is saying it, who has the power to say it, and how it is said. There is, in the issue of same sex marriage, not a level playing field. The world is not flat, and to assume it is a fallacy.
—-
As for those who have argued that homosexuality is unnatural, you can see homosexual behavior demonstrated in hundreds of species. As for those who have argued that homosexuals should not have the right to marriage because their relationships can not be consummated and result in reproduction, are, then, the marriages and relationships of the impotent and sterile heterosexual members of this society just as unnatural and worthy of legislative disempowerment? As for those who have gone a step further and argued that the recognition of homosexuality will constitute a long-term weakening of our society, I genuinely ask them to take a look back in time.
Look back at the literature produced by the anti-suffrage movement some decades ago. Look at the literature produced by the anti-African American bigots of the American South not half a century ago. Look at the literature produced by the so-called moral majorities of the East Coast cities that flatly rejected non-Protestant immigrants in the 19th century. Look today at the literature and discourse about the Chicano/Latino “problem” our country is facing — I encourage you to tune to the Rush Limbaughs of the world.
You’ll see an alarmingly similar argument in each of these situations. Different circumstances, same dogma. History has, time and time over (and even within the short history of this great nation, proven such dogma to be misguided and, ultimately, wrong.
#157
The problem is calling it a genetic abnormality.
@ 161
My point exactly. It’s not hate to desire to protect the sanctity of the family. I respect George, but I couldn’t disagree more with his viewpoint.
@2 Brad
The majority cannot be allowed to dictate the rights of the minority. What would you say if suddenly the majority decided to vote for a bill that took rights away from another group? Say, Prop 258493 makes it illegal for black people to go to school or women to go outside the house, and the majority of the voters supported it, passing it in to legislation. It’s called the tyranny of the majority.
Eventually, this will be struck down and rendered null and void. The US Supreme Court will find it unconstitutional.
I can’t say I can see where you are coming from. There is no agreeing to disagree here. I’m right, you’re wrong. Homosexuals are no less human beings than everyone else, and deserve all the rights and privileges that the rest of humanity enjoys.
I fully support Mr. Takei and homosexuals everywhere in their struggle to have their inherent human rights recognized.
@ 163 so now I’m a biggot because I feel different than you? Seems like your the hateful one. Look, we don’t have to agree, but have your opinion and quite ridiculing others.
PS It’s still wrong.
@ 166, no one says that gays are less human. Doesn’t make it right. A theif is still human. It’s not right. A murderer is still human, and I think we can all agree that it’s wrong. Look, I’m not trying to compare gays to murderers to say they are more evil or whatever, because I don’t believe that gays have malicious intent. Still, people need to know that just because someone does something, doesn’t make it right even if some people believe it to be. What happens when morals are thrown out? Anarchy. Chaos. You have to be careful here. You can’t just carelessly throw “rights” out for everyone.
#156 – You end with a comment on fallacies, yet you also said: “You are either tolerant of all points of view or you are tolerant of nothing.”
That all-or-nothing bit is the logical fallacy of the False Dilemma. There are very, very few truly black and white areas. However, in a general sense I agree with you – tolerance needs to exist on all sides of the issue. Whether someone approves, disapproves, or doesn’t care at all about gay marriage, the new Star Trek movie, or whatever isn’t the real issue and it should (I stress “should”) be more than acceptable to hold a respectful discourse even among those with opinions that conflict with each other. I won’t argue against one’s right to hold a personal belief or to express that belief.
The problem comes down with codifying opinion into law. Supporters of traditional heterosexual marriage have the law on their side in many countries and states, but if and when those laws change… how does that change one’s opinion? It likely won’t. But, I wonder how legal gay marriage somehow affects the heterosexual marriage. Legally speaking, it shouldn’t prevent or otherwise impact the continuation of heterosexual marriage. No one loses their rights if gays are allowed to marry. On the other hand, Prop 8 *removed* a legal right previously given to the homosexual community.
I support heterosexual marriage. I won’t get “gay married” because I am not homosexual. Yet, I don’t see how legalizing gay marriage will affect my marriage choice. Shy of bringing religion into the mix, and assuming (right or wrong) an oft-quoted rough percentage stating that 10% of Americans are homosexual is correct for the moment, how does legalizing gay marriage affect straights? I won’t choose to have a gay wedding (I live in Maine, where it is now legal), but what right do I have to prevent other consenting adults from legally coupling up?
(Polygamy is a different issue. It is possibly one of the next legal issues to be resolved, but gay marriage does not automatically lead to polygamy, etc. That’s a Slippery Slope logical fallacy to which some folk, even Bill O’Reilly, falls victim.)
I can only see where the mere existence of gay marriage “offends” the opinion/belief of some people. I do not see where the legalization of gay marriage strips away any rights or otherwise impacts the rights heterosexual folk currently have.
David84 =
“It’s wrong, period”
“PS It’s still wrong”
You couldn’t make your viewpoint look more childish or poorly backed up. Just blocking your ears and crying ‘it’s wrong’ means absolutely nothing.
What you MEANT to say is “I don’t like it”. And “PS, I still don’t like it”.
Thankfully, you have absolutely no bearing on what people do in their private lives. Oh, I suppose one day we might round up all of those pesky gays and make sure that they can’t live together in happiness but for now …. this silly Prop 8 thing doesn’t stop anything but the marriage thing which us heterosexuals sure don’t take seriously anyway (with the divorce rate being what it is).
You sad sack.
Actually, some animals to partake in homosexual activities. Bonobo monkeys, for example.
Anthony, I commend you for being brave enough to publish this article, not shying away from the issue, putting it in the spotlight and exposing it to your readers. It needs to be talked about, debated, and discussed.
Keep doing what you’re doing.
What’s even more embarrassing is that you have the gall to hide your prejudice by saying that ‘family’ word.
I submit to you that ‘normal’ people have been ruining family life pretty well on their own lately and it couldn’t hurt to let the gays have a go.
There is absolutely no logic in denying marriage to gay people. Would it make a lot of people uncomfortable? Of course!
That’s where it ends, though – your perception. If people want to be together, they will be.
16. Roll on 7th of May ! – May 26, 2009
…bible bashing government just as bad as a Muslim state….
——
That’s hate speech.
#148. Nelson L.
“#122: I agreed with your discussion as well as your points, in that all viewpoints need to be accepted, even if you don’t agree with them. However, I don’t agree that “I mean if all values are equal, why not just let the Borg assimilate whomever they want? After all, this is what they believe to be right for them, is it not? ” is correct. The Borg thrive on the destruction and suffering of others. This is where morals and values need to come into action.
The most basic debate here, is do we deny the most basic civil rights of one group because another, a majority feels it is best for their civilization. . . ” . . .The moral of the story: when opposing sides are uncompromising on their views, then one side loses. If both are to win, each side must be willing to help each other, not destroy each other.”
Sorry to disagree, Nelson, but if you subscribe to tolerance, then who are you to impose your morals and values on the Borg? Just because the Borg thrive on destruction, just because they propogate their society by the assimilation of others, who are you to say they’re wrong? This is how they want to live their lives, so why should I stand in their way?
You asked the question “do we deny the most basic civil rights of one group because another, a majority feels it is best for their civilization”, so I return with a question: Who decides what those rights are or where they come from? We are debating about whether or not homosexual couples should have the right to marry. Who gave heterosexuals the right to marry? Where did this idea of matrimony come from, where did it originate? It had to come from somewhere, because if there were no such thing as marriage, then this whole debate would be moot.
Who says that marriage is a “basic civil right”? Is it really? Or is it something more?
156-
I’d say most of us fall somewhere in between the extremes (universalism and relativism). This was certainly the case with Picard. Although he “tolerated” Klingon beliefs, he made little secret of the fact that they weren’t his own. Picard reacted pretty poorly when Worf killed Duras, even though it was perfectly legal under Klingon law.
By the same token, my toleration of different viewpoints does not mean I endorse them. I’ve learned to tolerate racists over the years. That doesn’t mean I think they offer particularly valuable contributions to sociological scholarship. That’s why we have professional organizations, ethics boards, and peer review. They’re designed to separate genuine science from unsubstantiated opinion. Part of critical thinking is the ability to evaluate cogent arguments (with evidence) and not just say: “well, there’s a debate going on.” That should be obvious. How these viewpoint are constructed is what’s important in terms of reliability and validity.
When I was young back in the 1960’s, California was the shining beacon of hope for the rest of the nation. Progressive, financially solid, environmentally secure. In the last 40 years, the rest of the country has caught up and surpassed California on all counts. Now California is a backward state in financial ruin. People are moving OUT of that state in droves. I don’t know the answer to all of the state’s problems but honoring the love is a good start. The idea that gay marriage is a threat to hetrosexual marriage is absurd. Divorce is what threatens all marriage. Marry whomever you want… and honor that committment.
@ 166
Yes, you are saying gays are less human when you deny them the rights that all other humans enjoy. No, I do not have to be careful about throwing rights around because our proud countries (Canada and the United States, although I assume you are American because most of the readership here is) are two of the best countries in the world, and they are the best because people can enjoy unmatched freedoms and unparalleled recognition of human rights here.
I refuse to be timid in offering the recognition of human rights.
They may not be less human, but they are still not good enough to get married to one another?
If it is immoral to be gay, then it must be immoral to be born. Being gay is not a “choice,” but I can forgive you for this common misconception. People are born gay, they can’t choose who they are. It’s like saying people with freckles or curly hair are immoral.
Maybe we shouldn’t judge people by who they love, but whether they love.
….I meant @168
Aqua: The road you’re heading down would probably best be understood if you were to consider how you’d feel if someone developed a “cure” for heterosexuality and, moving forward, would be offering (or doing it without authorization) to genetically alter that “abnormality” out of people too.
We’re all just a gene or two away from being male/female/gay/straight/black/white/latino/asian etc. and none of those life results are “abnormal” or need to be “cured” (no matter what history or some organized religions would like you to believe).
People are born the way they are born. You didn’t choose your gender, skin color or your sexuality. No one does. We’re born,we mature, and take what we are given and create a life for ourselves.
But the day anyone decides that certain people are deemed “abnormal” and should be genetically “cured”, regardless of the gender/sexuality/race to which they were naturally born….that would be a very scary road indeed.
@ 179.
“But the day anyone decides that certain people are deemed “abnormal” and should be genetically “cured”, regardless of the gender/sexuality/race to which they were naturally born….that would be a very scary road indeed.”
See: Colonel Green.
166. Newman
“The majority cannot be allowed to dictate the rights of the minority.”
Your argument could not be more illogical. I and a number of people disagree with the law that says I have to wear a seatbelt when I drive. Shouldn’t it be my right to decide whether or not I want to wear a seatbelt? (I am not attempting to place upon equal footing that the idea of wearing a seatbelt is equal to same-sex marriage). Yet this is the law here in my state, so a majority has dictated to those of us who are in the minority on this issue.
In a free and democratic society such as ours, there will always be a majority and a minority, always those who feel disenfranchised because they didn’t agree with the majority.
So there are two sides here.
Those who believe that marriage should be between one man and one woman—-they are mostly acting politely but unbearably intolerant.
Those who believe that marriage should be between any two people no matter what their sex is—-they are mostly acting with hostility but extremely tolerant.
hmmmm……odd definition of tolerance it seems we have……
“152 A genetic abnormality is a genetic abnormality is a genetic abnormality. Get it? Nothing scary about the concept.”
“Abnormality” confers a negative connotation, as if being gay is a birth defect. (You equated it with Down’s syndrome.) And that is why I deem this “scary”. It leads to very bad places. So no, I will never accept or “get” your thesis.
“Are you kidding me? Mocking the seriousness of the issue? I’m trying to prove a point. You are either tolerant of all points of view or you are tolerant of nothing….Who decides which viewpoint is right and which viewpoint is wrong? If you hold to the idea of tolerance, then you believe that all viewpoints have value, that all value systems, worldviews and truth-claims are equal. Every individual is free to decide what is right for him or her, and no one has the right to say, ‘My way is better than yours.’
Tolerance means that you accept that not everyone will agree with you and that they may hold completely opposing viewpoints and that they are entiled to do so. However, that does not mean that you have to accept that all opinions or value systems are equal or correct. All you have to do is take a look at the horrors of history to know this. (Nazism anyone?) So belief is one thing; acting on your particular belief system to infringe the rights of a particular group is quite another.
“It’s wrong. Period. Look, I have some friends who are gay. They’re great people, but in my opinion it’s wrong. Morally wrong. …I’m sorry, but children raised in a gay household only confuses children’s sexuality. ”
Studies disprove this completely. You can’t catch The Gay. The problem that children of gay people experience is the bigotry and prejudice of society.
I don’t really like the way this talkback is going. I’ve been chastised and banned by the owner of this forum before for voicing my opinion, only because he either disagreed with me to the point of silencing me, or because he thought I was trying to troll the forums.
The issue here is that the Prop 8 was put onto a state ballot, and people voted as to how they want our society to progress. Someone above compared what is happening here to what the federal government did to end slavery. I don’t think the comparison is a valid one, but that is my opinion. One could also make the same argument that since my vote for president wasn’t elected, the Supreme Court should step in and install their chosen leader because the minority wants it that way? I’m sorry, but I would disagree on this too. Now don’t start making comparisons to the Electoral College, because I am also very aware of it’s problems, and that the majority doesn’t always rule in Presidential elections too. But we must accept that that’s how or society and democracy works, like it or not.
If you don’t like it that Homosexuals are not allowed to marry in California, or anywhere in the United States, then you are free to move to a country where it is allowed.
That being said, I’m not going to comment further on this topic. I come to this website for news about Star Trek, not to delve into political debates about homosexuality. I would ask that Anthony lock the feedback here (and possibly delete all responses), lets flaming continue. I’ve already been offended by some of the responses already, and I don’t need to continue.
Regardless, I’m not going to come out and saw what my view is one way or the other. I’m just stating my opinion on the responses of the topic. Again, I wish Brad and George the best, and I hope they can still be happy together, regardless of what the government says they can or can’t legally do.
#181 – We Are The Borg – In many states (and perhaps not yours, but bear with me), things like seatbelt laws, speeding limits, and other similar social limitations/infractions aren’t voted in by a majority of the population, but by their representatives in the State House. Granted, by representation we might argue that the will of the people has still occurred, but that could be begging the question. Secondly, the alleged “illogic” of not allowing the majority to dictate the rights of the minority is precicely why the Founding Fathers put the Electoral College system into the Constitution. They didn’t want a direct vote to take place because they foresaw the problem of majority vs. minority; the same is true of the Checks and Balances system put into place with regard to the federal offices.
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/93543/error?cat=37 (among other sources)
#182 – Jason – Historically, those with rights are able to take the high road because they aren’t really risking a loss of rights. Those without the rights and/or those who suppose those without rights are quite often the ones who need to be more vocal in order to get any social traction. “The squeaky wheel” theory, perhaps. ;-)
*support, not suppose. Darn the lack of an edit button!
@ 181
So…there is a defined minority out there that is born with a gene that makes them intolerant to seatbelts? I don’t think so.
Wearing a seatbelt is a choice. You choose whether or not to obey they law. Being homosexual isn’t a choice.
@182
You cannot stereotype an entire group of people because they are passionately believe something and are not hesitant to express it. In fact, I think your analysis of the debate is inaccurate. Didn’t a “polite person” get a warning earlier for being out of line? I don’t see Anthony handing out any warnings to the “hostile” people.
Wait until someone denies you or someone you love of one of your rights. Will you remain calm and tranquil then?
For the record, I think gays should be allowed to marry. That said, pretty much every argument I’ve read here both for and against gay marriage could also be applied to a brother and sister wanting to be married. Read this article and then decide if these two should be allowed to be together. If you feel gays should be able to marry, but the two in the article should not, I would really like to hear your reasoning.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-514809/How-fell-love-brother-sister-grew-apart-met-20s.html
Where are the activists for Andorian and Denobulan style marriages?
What a silly number “2 people” is – it doesn’t even apply to half of earth’s cultures!
Tyranny of the Majority is a fear expressed variously by Plato, Aristotle, Madison, Tocqueville, and J. S. Mill. If the majority rules, what is to stop it from expropriating the minority, or from tyrannizing it in other ways by enforcing the majority’s religion, language, or culture on the minority?
#188- Why should one hinge on the other? It’s like those that immediately throw up marrying animals and children as if they are equal.
@190 – Well put and well backed-up.
PS I took a peek at your site – you have an awesome collection! I used to have that same Enterprise phone.
#188: Oh, if you are going to use the argument of brothers and sisters marrying, why not go all the way and say can I have sex with my parents too?
Not once in this thread or in any that I have read or of any serious discussions has anyone advocated such outrageous notions.
Let’s just obvuscate the entire issue with inconsequential issues to truly enflame, confuse and confound any hopes of serious discussion.
Tell me, are you employed by Rush Limbaugh?
187: Hey I am a Christian. I see my rights or the rights of fellow Christians trampled all the time and I don’t see any sympathy for Christians and I do see most Christians remaining tranquil and calm even as they are frustrated that at every turn there seems to be a free “Beat up the Christians pass”. The very fact that Christians as slandered as intolerant and narrow minded is an example of the intolerance of others. The new hate crimes legislature is a new area which will directly effect Christians where even those in favor of the laws say that if a Christians says that Christianity teaches that homosexuality is a crime and someone goes out and murders a gay, then that christian can be held liable for pushing that person who committed the murder over the edge. This is a infringement of a Christians free speech. Or what about a doctor who conscientiously says he will not recommend an Abortionist because its against his faith? He can now be sued for not recommending a patient to an Abortionist even though the patient can open up the phone book and find an Abortionist for herself. Or how about the right of a Christian bakery not to cater a gay wedding? They can be sued even though they are just trying to hold to their faith.
There are stories all the time of Christians being fired or verbally reprimanded because they have a Bible on their desk at work which they read on their breaks meanwhile gays can have rainbows and other gay symbols on their desks and are not reprimanded at all.
Gays are not the only one who claim to have their rights abused and in fact I would argue that more and more we are seeing Conservative Christians who are having their rights abused and no one tries to protect them.
I would even say that people are more afraid to step on the toes of gays then they are on the toes of Conservative Christians. And I’d be surprised if even one person who isn’t a Christian already will have any sympathy for Christians after reading this, which only shows how intolerant you are.
So don’t tell me that Conservative Christians don’t feel attacked and can’t sympathize with Gays. We can and we do—but our sympathy doesn’t mean we change our views. It just means we aren’t hateful in our attitudes.
I’ve read through most of these posts… took a lot of patience. There were several cries for this forum to be shut down because of the “hate speech” that was being spit. Ironically, I found the people who disagree with gay marriage to be the most cordial here.
Anyone who was not for allowing gays the right to marry was called ignorant, right-wing, fascist, hateful. One poster even wished death on those not progressive enough to be cool with the homosexual lifestyle. If you want to have liberal ideals that’s fine, but for the supposed party of tolerance and enlightenment you seem to go for the low road more often than not.
Barack Obama, a man I did not vote for (can you tell yet), stated even he opposes gay marriage. Blacks and Hispanics, I’m half puerto-rican by the way, voted for Prop 8 in overwhelming numbers, something like 75%. Yet, no one who is pro-gay here dared to criticize them. Why is that? Blacks and Hispanics also voted overwhelmingly democrat. Why is anyone who disagrees instantly labeled some right wing lunatic?
A previous post, Blueberry Ghost or something, had the right idea. Let gays enjoy civil unions. Marriage has always been defined as between a consenting, and of age, man and woman. It was only recently that its definition has been clouded by liberals trying to push a progressive agenda.
Gays like to stomp their feet about tolerance. I hate to break it to them, but they’ve got it and it comes in the form of a sliding scale. On one side they’ve got straight people taking up their cause. Hey, that’s great! However, tolerance can also mean indifference. A lot of people do not agree with that lifestyle and say absolutely NOTHING about it. What I believe gays really want is acceptance and unfortunately, that is a whole ‘nother thing. Take the civil union argument for example. It’s not good enough for them, it’s marginalizing. They want marriage like straight people have! Well, like prop 8 demonstrated, the majority of people, for whatever reason they may have, are not keen on it. Maybe with some more time and tempered debate enough minds, read: the majority, can be convinced that marriage should apply. Until then, you’re really hurting your cause by slapping anyone who disagrees with you a hate monger with absolutely no point to make.
Also, a big hand for Anthony for leaving this forum up so we can debate. We all know he’s a committed lib who wears his politics on his sleeve. But, even though it’s probably a lot of work for him and it’s probably eating him up a little bit, he’s letting both sides have their say on this topic.
gee, the last time I checked it was illegal to murder someone — whether you were Christian or not… poor you for having that right trampled on.
49. JH – May 26, 2009
Actually, Homosexuality is quite natural, in that it happens in nature wherever there is too much of a population per given sustainable resources. Homosexuals don’t reproduce, hence less stress on the environment.
Same sex unions have been occuring since the start of recorded history. There have always been homosexuals, and there will always be homosexuals.
Just as there have always been ignorant, fear-motivated bigots, and there will always be ignorant, fear-motivated bigots.
The only two reasons to deny a person happiness are if the path to that happiness infringes on the right to safety of another, or a personal disagreement with that path. This is always the case for denying someone the right to marriage. Personal. You simply don’t like it.
And incidentally, when I say “right”, I mean when you are born, you have innate, birthed, god-given rights (should you believe in a god) that are identified as self evident by the US constitution. They grant you happiness, safety and freedom, however you get them unless again, it infringes on the same rights of another. The constitution doesn’t grant you anything, it simply identifies and acknowledges these rights, and limits what the government can and cannot do to you. When throughout US history it became evident that an article or amendment took a right or freedom from a person, it was repaired. As such, such inequalities as slavery and the right of a black person to marry a white person were done away with for the simple reason that just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean you have the right to take that from a person. if you have a problem with it, it’s just that…your problem.
Incidentally, if the US constitution doesn’t specifically state that you cannot perform a specific act, the law automatically defers to the individual (amendment nine I think). If the US constitution doesn’t specifically state homosexuals cannot get married, they can. Deferring to the state is not only a cop out, states shouldn’t have a right to tell you whom to marry regardless, nor should people have a say in the matter. It should only ever be between the individuals getting married and their maker. Homosexuals should never have asked in the first place, just go and do it until they make it illegal, THEN call the ACLU. I still can’t get over that California allowed some humans the ability to vote on the happiness of other humans.
This is why the human race is doomed. You still allow prejudice to hinder progress. I was literally sickened when I started reading the posts here. I’m ashamed of a lot of you, because I considered some of you my peers as fellow trekkers, and therefore, above simpleton bigotry, and I was spectacularly wrong. For all your talk of Star Trek being more “cerebral”, many of you are still no more advanced than a 14th century inquisitor. It’s lite the Auto da fe.
I will probably spend a lot less time here.
HERE, HERE!!!, Jumaga
195: Yes the murderer should go to jail. But if that murder got his idea because he heard a Pastor say, “The Bible teaches that Homosexuality is a sin”, the new hate crimes laws will allow that pastor to be tried as a criminal for spurring that murder to commit a crime even if he never said, “Kill Gays.” And Christians who say that homosexuality is a sin are also saying that premarital sex is a sin and lying is a sin, and stealing is a sin. I don’t think anyone would say, “Throw the Pastor is prison because someone murdered that thief after hearing the pastor saying that stealing was wrong”
I think you might have misunderstood me and I apologize if I confused you on that point.
#193 – Jason – I agree in that I see all sorts of intolerance against Christians in the United States, and it is unfortunate. However, there’s a difference between having a personal belief and institutionalizing discrimination in a legal sense.
I support your right to say that you disagree with homosexuality. In fact, I heartily support your right to do so.
However, acting on the belief such that hiring practices, housing, and a whole host of other actions (in this case, gay marriage) to marginalize another person’s access to the same legal rights you enjoy… that goes beyond your right to publically disagree. It’s akin to saying that I support free speech, even when used by the KKK, but their *actions* to legislate their hatred of minorities crosses a certain line.
Teaching that homosexuality is wrong in church… I might disagree, but I support the right of that church to teach it. (Which might put me in the “wrong” in some opinions.) But, I don’t support the teaching of such elements in a public school, nor do I support institutionalizing such things in the letter of the law (both public institutions are supposedly covered under the “Separation of Church and State,” found in the Federalist Papers which guided the construction of the Constitution and used by Constitutional Lawyers when analyzing constitutional matters).
It comes down to inclusion or exclusion. Almost by definition, religions are exclusive to those who ascribe to the beliefs of that religion… but the law has a larger audience to cover.
Not sure if that helped or hurt, but I thought I’d take a moment to respond and even support your right to disagree. And no, I am not trying to simply show you respect (since you sorta-kinda put it out as a challenge); I truly believe you have a right to your opinion.
It’s only when exclusionary opinions become codified in public law that I have a concern. That’s my opinion, hopefully expressed respectfully. ;-)
187-
We – if you include Catholics, Mainline Protestants, and Evangelicals alike – are 80% of the population. We constitute the majority religion in the House of Representatives, Senate, Supreme Court, and have enjoyed over 200 years of ruling over the White House (questions about Jefferson’s atheism aside).
It is a little disingenuous and patronizing to suggest that the majority “understands” what minorities are feeling or going through. I doubt that very much. I don’t claim to understand their experiences at all. I’m just saying it really isn’t my place to dictate to other people how to live their lives. I’m a human being. They’re human beings too. I simply don’t agree with the Pope on this. It isn’t the first time I’ve diverged from the Vatican line. And it probably won’t be the last.
193: I must ask for several points of clarity.
First, what exactly are Christian’s rights? What do they include and how do you exercise them, exactly? Please explain to me.
Next, I wonder if you could provide links to some stories about people losing their jobs for reading the bible.
I have to agree with you about the “hate crimes legislature.” There is a similar apparatus in Canada which I believe is called a Human Rights Tribunal. They have far too much power.
My next point of clarity would be to ask you how exactly you define a crime. I understand that homosexuality is a punishable crime by law in Iran, but was unaware it was illegal to be a homosexual in the United States or Canada. If you tell a Canadian or American citizen that homosexuality is in fact a legally punishible crime, you are misinformed or lying.
However, I suspect that you feel that homosexuality is a crime in the eyes of God. In Canada and the United States, God may be written into the preambles of some of our important documents, but these two countries are based on the principle of the seperation of church and state. Some countries do not have such a seperation of church and state. Religious writings are incorporated into their laws and documents, and the state defers to the official religion in creating legislation or passing judgment. The sacred text (bible, qu’ran, etc.) is taken as the literal and absolute law of the land. There are many “holy laws” in the bible that I am sure you would not agree with.
One such country that does not believe in the seperation of church and state is Iran. Would you want to live in Iran?
#198: Oh, I understood you fine. I just disagree respectfully with a large part of your premise.
Respectfully, I do not see how your rights are being trampled on if two men or two women get married… or they seek legal protection, which is exactly what is at issue.
It’s not like someone is putting a gun to your head and saying, “YOU are going to marry another man (against your will–yeah, that WOULD be a case of your rights as a Christian being trampled on).” I, too, am Christian but I would never presume the right to say my rights are more important than yours (over such an issue as this).
By the very fact that you are willing to deny someone to have the same rights you enjoy, are you not trampling on theirs?
188. tlh1138 – May 26, 2009
I read the article, and they are half-siblings. Risk of genetic issues aside, I think they should be allowed to get married. My reasoning?
It’s none of my f***ing business, nor is it anyone else’s.
The debate is really not about how one defines rights. Most of us here feel that, as Chekov said, everyone has “certain inalienable human rights.”
The debate is really about, as Jon Stewart said, whether or not homosexuality is part of the human condition or just a fad.
Homosexuality has been around forever. I suspect its not leaving anytime soon.
202: As I said WAY EARLIER. I don’t have a problem with all the benefits of marriage being given to any two people living together. I would even say that the government should get out of the marriage business altogether. Have a government form that simply says, “Co-habitation Contract” and list those involved. Let individuals call it want they want. I personally don’t think the government should have any right to call anything marriage because I see it as a separation of church and state issue and marriage has for the majority of world history been a religious issue. There are lots of religions that marry gays so let them go to a clergy who marries gays and they are married. But the government should not have any other legal input into marriage except to identify cohabiting people for the purpose of taxation and ownership benefits. And that should apply to man and woman, man/man, woman/woman, father/son, mother/disabled veteran son, etc, etc, etc.
That’s my personal belief on it and I’ve been consistent on that. And being a Christian is no more a choice than being Gay. I gay person can become straight way easier than I could not be a Christian because that is about a change that God makes in a person and when that happens, we might look the same but we are very different. (And I’m not saying it’s easy for gays to become straight)
201-
Homosexuality was illegal here until 2003. It caused a major stir at the time. President Bush even held a press conference to condemn the Supreme Court decision that led to it. So, we’re talking about very recent history. Undoubtedly, many Americans still believe it should be illegal. There are periodic calls to “recriminalize sodomy” within the Republican Party.
I’d venture to guess that Canada’s ties to the United Kingdom and France has made it a bit more receptive to open to sexual diversity than our country. That isn’t to suggest that attitudes are totally accepting in Europe. But from what I’ve seen, it is a fair deal less of an issue than it is here.
I should point that the California Supreme Court is headquartered in San Francisco (not Sacramento). I suspect that’s why some people are so shocked and upset. That city has a reputation for liberalism that has now been severely damaged by this decision.
If the gays can’t win a home game in San Francisco, then they really can’t win anywhere in America. That’s the bottom line, isn’t it?
201: I was thinking about hate crimes legislation and wrote down “homosexuality is a crime.” What I meant was “What if a pastor said that homosexuality was a SIN and someone took that to mean, go kill a gay.” I didn’t mean in any way to say that homosexuality is a crime or should be a crime. Just because I think something is immoral doesn’t mean I think it should be criminalized. Yes I am a christian, but I’m also a libertarian so I think that people should be allowed to do immoral things all they want as long as it doesn’t take away my rights to live my life as I want.
That’s the reason I believe I should have the right to say, “NO, I will not hire a gay” or “I will not work for a gay” or “I will not rent my house to a gay”
Personally, I would hire/work for/rent to/from because as a Christian and I believe I would be a hypocrite if I treated a gay person differently then I treated my sister (who has a kid out of wedlock-sin), my mom and dad (who are divorce-sin), my kids(who lie and fight-sin), my wife(sins), myself(sins).
We all sin everyday so I’d be a hypocrite if I held gays to a different standard. The issue is that gays don’t like to hear that some Christians think they are sinning.
But in the end of the day, as a libertarian, I should have the right not to deal with someone if I don’t want to. And in fact, I did have one job which a gay guy had my quote. I’m in construction, I went to his house, I knew he was gay, and had no problem with that. I am in his house and he’s showing me around and then he started describing something in a grotesque way which if I repeated I would be kicked off by Anthony. Well, I said I would have to get back to him with a quote but after getting in my car and driving away I realized, I don’t want to have to deal with that kind of talk the entire time I’m doing this job and turned it away.
But I would have turned that job away from anyone straight or gay. But how much do you want to bet that if it came to a lawsuit, I’d be found guilty for not working for a gay and that had nothing to do with me not working for the guy—it had to do with his grotesque speech. But nobody would remember that. They’d only remember he was gay. The only regret I ever had was never calling him to clarify why I didn’t want his job. But that’s a different issue–I hate dealing with conflict on the phone. :)
Love is love, Good luck George and Brad
While I Respect the choice in there private lives I think that the Religious point of View would not be seen a a Bigoted point of view! if you start to Curb the rights of those who dissagre with you you lose the right to free speech slowly. I for one want Freedom of Speech to be around for a long time!
I am glad that George has spoken out regarding gay marriage.
I am from the UK and Civil Partnerships have been legal for sometime. Contrary to what was said before the Civil Partnerships became legal society hasn’t collapsed nor has the institution of marriage been weakened in anyway.
What is at stake here isn’t ‘marriage’ it is a principle that everyone has the right to live in a world free from inequality, intolerance and fear. When law makers and politicians use inequality, intolerance and fears as tools of legislation, then you are on a very dangerous path. – History has taught us this much.
Star Trek is a world where inequality, intolerance and fear has no place. It is a utopian society for that very reason. With reference to a comment about what Spook would think. Logic would dictate that the position taken by CA is illogical.
Why? You can’t have marriage legal for some and not for others, it is irrational. – Marriage is an expression of love and commitment. With regard to sexuality I think Vulcan logic is clear on this to – as represented by the Vulcan Idic – “Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations”
At the end of the day all people are entitled to their opinions and I am glad to see that individuals felt that were able to do so on this thread. However, the harsh reality is that this isn’t always possible for some people. – including gay men and women.
I think we all need to ask ourselves is a world where people cannot be be free a world we want to live in? I think the answer is no!
Homosexuality is a behaviour.
Being of African, Asian, White, or Hispanic origins is ethnic.
One can not compare the two without horrible illogical equivocation between entirely different fields of human existence.
With all do respect to Mr Takei, Marriage is the union of two different elements. Two types. There are only two major types of human beings. Male and Female.
The difference between a man and a woman of the same ethnicity are vastly greater than the differences between any man or woman and their own gender in any other ethnicity.
A marriage unifies a member of each true ‘type’ of human.
It is a poetic and beautiful thing.
The two become one flesh.
The title is not suitable to the union (in any sense) of two members of the same gender.
He and his partner , in Cali, can have all the rights any married couple has. It is a pure lie to say otherwise. Civil Unions do exist in Cali and it is deceitful to act as if the ‘rights’ and liberties are not there for any two gay men or any two lesbian women.
Well, with all due respect, the people voted ‘no’ to gay marriage. IIRC they have done so more than once.
How democratic is it to bludgeon the electorate with constant propositions until they get so fed up of voting that the core interest group are the only people left turning up to the ballot box to force it through?
The people have spoken. You might not agree with their choice, but they have. Now everyone should respect that and move on. It should be the same if people had voted ‘yes’ to gay marriage instead!
To be blunt about it, if you don’t like California not allowing gay marriage, move to a state that does allow it!
#212: “Well, with all due respect [...] Now everyone should respect that and move on.”
With all due respect in return, that’s not how democracy works in this country. Everyone has the right (and, perhaps, the moral responsibility) to keep trying, no matter which side of this or any other issue they’re on. Votes don’t decide what’s legal or illegal _forever_ in the United States … they only decide what’s legal _until next time._ The courts have certain rights, the citizens have certain rights, the lawmakers have certain rights, and the whole machinery keeps ticking and reshaping itself. A single vote is just an ember in the breeze; it’s transitory. This insures (or at least, it tries to insure) that the laws reflect the standards of the people today (whenever “today” is), and not 100 years ago or 200 years ago.
If Americans “respected that and moved on” every time “the people have spoken,” we’d still be a slave-owning country, women would still not be able to vote, small children would still be sick and abused working in factories, etc. None of these social injustices* were overturned without fighting – sometimes pretty twisty legal fighting – and none of them were overturned in a single vote. For each of them, the people had spoken … but the other people didn’t take that lying down.
That’s the way the system works, and that’s the way it’s designed to work.
= = =
*(All of which were, at one time or another, seen not as social injustices but rather as “common sense,” or tradition, or economically necessary or thousands-of-years-old-so-it-CAN’T-be-wrong-because-we-all-know-that-bronze-age-morons-who-thought-the-earth-was-flat-were-absolute-fountains-of-wisdom)
= = =
Now, personally, I think the existence of the question is far more barbaric than any particular answer. Laws should be for protecting the public, not policing the private.
And maybe, someday, thanks to the system being the way it is, we can have a law to that effect.
#212: “To be blunt about it, if you don’t like California not allowing gay marriage, move to a state that does allow it!”
That statement is about as logical as saying if I lived in Iowa (or any of the other states permitting gay marriages) … to be blunt about it, if you don’t like [fill in blank] allowing gay marriage, move to a state that doesn’t allow it.
Course, that’d be much easier for someone like you, Dom.
tlh1138 -
It’s impossible to draw parallels because each issue deals with a myriad of different consequences. There is a very pragmatic issue to deal with here, that of genetics. Also, we’re not talking about a huge privation of choice. This is striking a few people from the pool of potential mates. I would also ask you to consider human psychology. Siblings grow up with a very specific relationship. If it’s not innate, then it’s learned, and it’s a concept the mind intuitively grasps. Trying to reverse that relationship is like asking someone to reverse how one thinks about parents. To then turn that into a sexual relationship I think creates its own set of problems. Of course, the situation in that article is a lot more ambiguous since those two are only half related and never grew up with each other. However, homosexuals have a negligable negative effect and can be very loving (anti-gay rhetoric tries to cast them as dangerous, which is absurd). Furthermore, denying someone an entire gender is like asking someone not to love. It can’t be done, so we’re only creating more pain for them and more futility for everybody else. This is an issue with almost zero upside for those who view it as immoral.
David84 -
At best you can merely say that a mother-father household is optimal, but then again we seldom make laws or moral judgments based on what’s optimal. I would wager that a single parent household is far more damaging. If someone grows up in a household with a work-a-holic father and later has daddy issues, then there is nothing to guarantee against it. I would take a household with two loving homosexuals than life in an adoption center or a house with a deadbeat dad. Even if it did confuse sexuality, which you have yet to prove, that’s only bad if you assume that homosexuality is wrong, which you didn’t show either.
CS Lewis -
If you’re going to use the argument of marriage as an institution, then surely you must realize that institutions change all of the time. Marriage as it is today isn’t the same as it was two hundred or two thousand years ago. Situations themselves force change. I would also ask you to make an argument about why marriage is so integral to the foundation of society. If I remember correctly, all civilizations have collapsed at one time or another. I would take a just, loving, and stable society regardless of sexual preference, as I think that it has a much better chance of surviving.
213. S. John Ross: In the end people have to make a compelling argument to win the vote. Clearly they didn’t. How many times do you have to vote for the same thing before it becomes clear people do or don’t want something? It’s not like it’s an ‘evil government’ thing: it’s what people chose. Compelling arguments get bums off seats and into the voting booth. Make a better argument next time.
214. MC1 Doug: Frankly, it is that simple. If you don’t like something that much, if it makes you feel so miserable about your life that you just can’t bear it and you’ve utterly failed to convince the people living that place of your view, then don’t stay there and sulk! I’m completely sitting on fence about about the actual subject matter, I thinking purely in terms how things are decided.
I think this was a direct response to Takei’s failure to invite William Shatner to the wedding. Disrespect the Shat, and people notice.
I think it’s great that Mr Takei uses his profile to fight for this cause; more power to him.
Who gives a crap?
Takei is wrong when he says that democracy guarantees equality. It doesn’t. It simply means that there is a system of voting, and that the majority decision becomes law.
Period.
I have no problem with Takei being married to that man. But let’s keep the facts straight.
First of all, all Prop 8 does is prevent a rubber stamp of approval from the State, to gay couples. It does nothing else. BFD. You can still couple, you can still ‘marry’ and you can live however you wish. You just won’t get the State of Kalifornia’s stamp of approval. I just don’t see this as a ‘right’, as the State is not obliged to recognize ANY union. If it grants you that privilege, fine. But you don’t have a right to it and you don’t need it to live a monogamous life with your wife/husband/partner/whatever.
And comparing gays to blacks (or any other TRUE minority) is ridiculous. Blacks were discriminated against for something they have no control over – their race. Being gay IS a lifestyle, unless someone is going to show me where there is a genetic reason for being gay (AFAIK, that hasn’t happened yet). We are born as one sex or the other in order to procreate the species. Gays CHOOSE to go against nature/genetics and live a lifestyle of their preference. I’m fine with that and I sincerely wish nothing but happiness to ANY couple, gay or straight. Have a great life! But I’m not fine with gays likening themselves to being black, or any other racial minority. There is a DISTINCT difference and true minorities should be offended at any comparison. Blacks in the old south didn’t have a choice, Japanese Americans during the 40’s/50’s didn’t have a choice. Gays DO have a choice. They CHOOSE to live a lifestyle that most Americans don’t agree with, and that nature didn’t intend. And frankly, the ‘discrimination’ they face isn’t even in the same universe as the type that was leveled against people for their race. So knock off the comparisons.
Go be couples, have marriage ceremonies, live happily ever after. You CAN do that without the State’s approval, and if it were me, I’d tell the State to eff off – I don’t want your approval anyway (if I were gay).
183 — which studies? You don’t cite them. And to be honest, I’ve seen so many fictitious and biased studies pretending to be objective and scientific, that I don’t immediately accept so-called research, simply because it’s given the name “research.”
I’m a huge fan of Takei and his contributions to the local community. It is said that a diehard Trek fan would never disrespect a cast member, but hey,we do it with the Shat all the time.
Here’s the deal with Prop8. It was a solidly written law that amends the CA Constitution. The State Supreme Court had no choice but to rule the way the did. In fact, very few expected them to rule any other way. The state high court cannot declare a part of the constitution to be unconstitutional. That would actually nullify the constitution as powerless. The only way to nullify Prop8 is via another ballot initiative. But Californians on both sides of the issue are getting very weary of this, especially given the fact that CA has civil unions which expressly grant all the same rights and privileges as marriage.
If gay marriage proponents want to nullify Prop8 without alienating a majority of Californians, the best way to do that is with an initiative that simply removes the word “marriage” from the CA code and replaces it with legal civil unions across the board (thus getting the state out of the marriage business). If an initiative were placed on the ballot to extend the legal definition to any two persons, it will simply be followed up with yet another ballot measure trying to overturn it. And like I said, Californians are growing weary of this on the ballot.
Good for George Takei for fighting not only for his own rights but for the rights of other gay and lesbian couples. I have friends and relatives here in Nebraska that were thrilled when our neighboring state, Iowa, passed a law legalizing gay/lesbian marriages. Let’s hope that California follows in Iowa’s footsteps…
Equal rights for all!
As long as both parties involved are informed, consenting adults, the government has no business telling its citizens who they can and cannot marry. Period.
Well good. They are out there fighting for thier rights as they should be allowed.
A problem with this I forsee is that same sex partners are going to run into larger amounts of resistance from the demographics shift in California as more traditional ethnic groups are on the rise. Convincing them to allow this is what’s really at stake here as the proposition system has been shot down as a viable alternative.
We’ll see what happens
#26 Vinceman said “I don’t understand how a basic human right can become something to be voted on”. That’s one of the issues. Marriage is not a civil or human right. As it astnads now, it’s an entitlement granted by each state government (not the federal government) to those that fit a particular criteria. In CA, that criteria is two consenting adults who are not blood related, over the age of 18, not already in a marriage, and of opposing genders.
It’s no more of a denial of civil rights to disallow same gender couples from marrying than it is to disallow cousins to marry (24 states currently disallow 1st cousins from marrying), or disallow brothers/sisters to marry (illegal in all 50 states), or for three or more people to marry (illegal in all 50 states).
Bigotry in all it’s forms is vile.
Gay marriage will not destroy the “institution” of marriage.
There is strength in numbers.
Separation of church and state is good.
Democratic governments must offer the same services to all citizens.
The state must protect minorities from majorities.
This is a great forum to discuss these types of issues.
#228 – Gay marriage…Cousins marrying….apples and oranges.
I’m a straight man, married to a straight woman. Here in New York, gay marriage is not yet legal, though hopefully a bill will be passed soon. The effect of this is that I could get married to the woman I love, and have dated for 5 years, but my wife’s mother can’t marry the woman she loves and has lived with for 16. How is that equal protection under the 14th Amendment?
The main problem here is that you either see this as a civil rights issue, or you don’t. Prop 8 will eventually go the way of Plessey vs. Furgeson. Even the Governator said so.
Congrats to George and Brad for keeping your marriage status. Good luck getting it for everyone else in California, and keep New York in your thoughts too.
is it bigotry to be against polygamous marriage, too?
how about marriage between a 53 year old man and a 9 year old girl?
or maybe a man and his beloved sheep?
the people have spoken, this is democracy.
to equate sexual preference with skin color is ridiculous, what about pedophiles?
they have an inherent sexual preference, too.
Ban marriage. All of it. If you want to consensually spend your life with someone, then do so. There, problem solved. :-)
229 – Gay people are gust a bigoted against the Christian or other regilious lifestyles that do not condone homosexuals. If the word of God says womething is a sin, then those people who have those religious beliefs are going to do their very best not to do it, not to encourage it, and not to support it. If you think that is bigotry, then you yourself are bigoted against people who are religious. Doesn’t that also make you vile?
Let’s be honest. In today’s world, marriage is more of a legal contract and seems to be more about who gets what when two people divorce than about love. Now, going back to ancient times, marriage has always been representative of a bond between a man and a woman. Even God says this. Remember in the beginning, it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve. The way I see it, to allow anyone to marry for any reason causes a further breakdown in our society, one that has been deteriorating rapidly in the last 20-30 years. What’s next? People will be complaining they can’t have anal sex at shopping malls in full public view? Obviously that’s an extreme example, but on the bath we’re going down, it wouldn’t surprise me if it happened someday. Wow, that would make Star Trek a lot different wouldn’t it? LoL.
Anyway, don’t accuse people of being bigoted, when you’re being just as bigoted from the other side of the argument.
231 – If more than two people want to get married (as long as it is between consenting adults) I have no problem with that
-Age of consent exists for a reason.
-Sheep are not granted human and/or civil rights.
-The majority in a democracy aren’t always interested in what is best for all.
-????? Again, age of consent.
-Hyberbolie does not advance anyones interests. It is just inflamitory.
#231 Your examples are interesting. If consenting adults want a polygamous, polyamorous marriage, shouldn’t that be their equal right to choose? And yes, wouldn’t it be bigoted to deny them their rights?
Your other examples are ridiculous. A 9 year old girl, and a beloved sheep are not consenting adults. And pedophiles who actually prey on children have created victims. Pedophiles who don’t prey… I’m not sure but if they commit no crimes, their inherent sexual preference is immaterial.
#232 Took a long time for someone to say that! “Oh my!”
@222. NX Class
So you are saying I chose to be gay? I beg to differ. If I could have chosen a life without all the heartache and troubles that being true to who I am and how I feel entails, believe me, I would have.
When did you choose to live your straight lifestyle and choose to be attracted to the opposite sex?
“PS I took a peek at your site – you have an awesome collection! I used to have that same Enterprise phone.”
Thank you. I got that phone as a Christmas gift from my mom a million years ago.
” Hey I am a Christian. I see my rights or the rights of fellow Christians trampled all the time and I don’t see any sympathy for Christians …”
How exactly are your Christian “rights” being trampled? Because states won’t legislate your value system into law? No one is denying you employment, the right to marry, to serve in the Armed Forces, to adopt children because you are a Christian. However, Gays are denied these fundamental things in many places of our country simply because they are gay.
The irony that George is shown standing in front of a sign that says “NATIONAL CENTER FOR THE PRESERVATION OF DEMOCRACY”, when it’s the same majority-rule democracy, the will of the people, he wanted the California Supreme Court to overturn.
Irony.
Well done to the CA Supreme Court. An excellent decision lets hope a cure for this mental deficiency is found by the 22nd century AND NOT made equal to healthy minded people.
One thing as a Christian I am sick of is people assuming that Christianity is this monolithic thing. It’s not. Christianity is not all Billy Graham and Joel Osteen and Pat Robertson, it’s also people like Jack Spong.
You can be a Christian and not be on the extreme right. You can even be a Christian and be a liberal.
If you want to use your religious views to bolster your argument, fine, but don’t assume you speak for all of Christianity. And people on the other side, have a little sensitivity to us Christians who are with you.
Prejudice costs money. I just saw a news item that AT&T provided free text messaging to American Idol fans who called in for Kris Allen to win. AT&T is a corporate sponsor of AI and clearly wanted the more boy next door looking guy to win. I have no idea whether the other fellow is gay or not but he cerainly is flamboyant. And that just cost him a million dollars.
How old was George Takai when he finally came out? Did being gay cost him jobs? No wonder young actors – even in 2009 – are fearful of coming out. Our country is always two steps forward, one step back. Anyone can be president… as long as they are a straight male, that is.
We still have a long way to go.
“67. John from Cincinnati – May 26, 2009
How many animal species partake in homosexuality?
Answer: None”
Clearly John from Cincinnati has never been around dogs! Many species partake in homosexuality and think nothing of it.
Weather you are Gay or Straight. Everyone deserves to be happy and or find happiness. Everyone deservies to find themselves and pursue what makes them and others better then what they are. Thats what Star Trek is about. Thats what Gene Roddenberry has tried to say with Trek. yes the Voters of Ca have spoken. But whose to say in a year or 2 or longer or shorter that the Voters won’t change there mind and vote the other way. if you think about it. as little as 10 or even 5 years ago that vote of 52 to 48% would have been much wider in voteing against Gay Marriage. Im a straight man and i do support Gay Marriage and the reason i do is because of Star Trek.
242, in that case, lets all get married to our dogs!! Equality for Beastiality!!
(not being serious here, but you see my point) You have to draw the line somewhere.
As a Christian, I confess I struggle with this issue. I do believe the Bible prohibits homosexual behavior … yet I’ve grown angry and frustrated by how many Christians condemn homosexuals rather than seek to understand, encourage and embrace them. There isn’t a lot of Christ-like behavior surrounding this debate.
However, we all need to realize and accept the fact that gay marriage will become the law of the land eventually, likely sooner rather than later.
And perhaps therein lies at least a partial solution to this debate. Let the Christian church get out of the marriage business. Let marriage become a purely legal arrangement under the government. Pastors would relinquish the authority to legally marry people, and the church would no longer spiritually sanction the legal institution itself. Instead, the church would continue to perform weddings at which heterosexual couples already married through the legal process would make all the same vows before God that they would have in the traditional marriage ceremony. That commitment, and the vows it entails, would become the focus of the union of man and woman in the church.
Then, when gay marriage becomes law, the gay community will have the marriage privileges they’ve sought, the church will not be obliged to perform or condone something it feels is not right, and the spiritual element that makes a marriage holy before God is preserved for those who wish to commit their marriage to His blessing and guidance.
This won’t resolve the fundamental debate, but it could go a long way toward rebooting the dialogue.
#211 – Atlantians
“There are only two major types of human beings. Male and Female … A marriage unifies a member of each true ‘type’ of human.”
I suggest that this is a rather naive understanding of human gender. There is far more biological variety to humanity than merely male or female. While a relative rarity, intersex individuals do exist who express both male and female sexual characteristics. Physically, they have both penile and vaginal cells, and many later resent the medical interventions that often attempt to “assign” them a gender.
And I think it raises an important question because according to your logic, an intersex person could NEVER marry. It would not matter if they self-identified as male or female, with only two “true types” of humans, these individuals could never conform to your exclusive definition of marriage.
The uncontrollable facts of one’s birth should not preclude the fullest experience of human relationships–marriage. It is unjust to essentially deprive an intersex individual absolutely of the freedom to enter into marriage when statistically more common sex types are permitted to do so. According to your narrow and mistaken definition of human biology, depriving these rights to intersex individuals would become the accepted norm, yet these individuals did not in any way choose their biological nature.
Similarly, most homosexuals feel that their sexual preferences were predetermined biologically. The comparison to intersex individuals is important because assuming that it would be unjust to completely deny someone the freedom to marry because of a biologically predetermined yet indeterminate gender, one can similarly assume it wrong to deny someone the freedom to marry because of their biologically predetermined sexual preferences.
Elements of various religions and denominations have already performed gay union blessings, calling them marriages, regardless of that state’s individual law. The Episcopal church is one famously divided example. Essentially, the distinction between legal marriage and spiritual marriage has already been drawn here. Which is precisely why I believe this is a civil rights issue, because it has to do with treatment under the law. Churches, Mosques, synagogues, temples, circles, etc can all decide what they want to do spiritually: call it a marriage, perform some sort of blessing of the union but not call it a marriage, or do nothing. But the law should recognize the Civil rights of the union.
67 – To answer your questions:
>How many human beings have been created naturally through homosexuality?
Answer: Irrelevent. This is akin to asking how many human being were concieved from Masturbation, or with a Condom.
> How many animal species partake in homosexuality?
Answer: None. – Now why don’t I believe this?
Please read the following:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2004/07/0722_040722_gayanimal.html
Just the first search item on Google. :-)
> Doesn’t appear that natural to me. I don’t have a dog in this fight so no response is necessary. Just being an impartial observer.
I would love to know what unnatural elements have been introduced, BTW. It is natural behavior, and it DOES occur in non-human species.
In fact, CS Lewis argued that Christian marriage and Civil marriage were two different things, as Christian marriage operated on a spiritual level, and Civil marriage operated on a legal one. This is why he was legally married (in order to extend his UK citizenship to an American) months before he considered himself actually married before God.
#239: “… lets hope a cure for this mental deficiency is found by the 22nd century AND NOT made equal to healthy minded people .”
Okay now Max, you’re just acting stupid, and you know it. You are ony trying to incite a groundswell of opinion based on ugly emotions.
Your supposition is not based on any kind of scientific evidence, such as the APA’s findings in the 1970s and countless studies since. I would even venture that many members of the religious community, I know my minister wouldn’t– would not support your opinion.
I would say the hateful attitude that you are exhibiting is NOT one of a healthy-minded person, and long before the 22nd century arrives such attitudes will be a thing of the past (and people will probably look back, pointing at this with ridicule).
#11 JH
That is one of the more ignorant and uninformed comments I have ever seen here. Kudos to you.
Tell me, just what does gay marriage have to do with incest and pedophilia, oh sage one?
248 – So your justification is that homosexuals won’t cause an inpact to the population of the planet? Well, both male and female homosexual couples often have surrogates or sperm doners to procreate, so that argument is out. Plus, plenty of women have gotten pregnant while a man was wearing a defective condom.
As far as reducing yourself to comparisons between wild animals and homosexuality, where has it been documented that animals are truly homosexuals? Are they wearing chaps or sporting mullet buzz cuts? Home on. I believe that we can’t even prove that animals are truly self aware, so how can we prove that they have a homosexual personality? You can’t convince me that they do. Sorry. Now as far as a male dog or, other animal, being confused by hormones and initiating instinctive programming, and jumping on another male dog in the attempt to impregnate it doesn’t mean that’s it’s a homosexual. Confused or just a robot programmed by generations of instinct, maybe. But there is no way you can prove that animals are indeed raging homosexuals. And those animals that display behavior that can be compared to or described as homosexual are probably not doing it to be sexually devious either. And believe me, I would wager that the majority of homosexual humans engage in such behavior for the sheer deviancy and sexual pleasure that comes from such a relationship. Nice article to post, however we still can’t sit down and ask a bird, dolphin or other animal “Hey, are you homosexual?”
Now as far as Brad and George go, and definitely other gay couples, I am sure they are together for the right reasons, and not because of a sexually deviant fantasy of one kind or another. I have gay couples in my family, and while I may or may not agree with their lifestyle choice, their relationship has no negative impact on me and we treat everyone with mutual respect.
What I definitely don’t like is blantant, “flaming” homosexuality. This is obviously a severe behavioral disorder that is above and beyond the type of relationship George and Brad. Let me explain. I was driving through Pittsburg once about 10 years ago and there was a parade going on there. Since I had stopped for lunch, I ate at a local restaurant near the parade route, and after I ate, went to see what was happening. When I got to the main parade route, there were men in assless chaps, cross dressers, topless women, and all kinds of things. I was hit on and even inappropriately touched by gay men while I was there, and I decided to leave.
Now you tell me that I should vote yes on a topic that is inclusive and receptive to that kind of gross, public sexual behavior??? If that means I’m a bigot, then my gosh, sign me up for the Bigotry Gazzette!!
On the other hand, if homosexuals can concuct themselves like a human being and not like some kind of whacko, then by all means, let them have a civil union. Marriage, however, is still reserved as a bond between a man and a woman, and always should.
“Or what if the ruling said that Blacks or Hispanics could not get married – would you be so quick to support Prop 8?”
Blacks and Hispanics were more likely than white voters to support Proposition 8. That must be very confusing for the righteous left-winger.
Oh my. What a crazy world we live in.
#252– please google “Homosexuality and the Animal Kingdom”. Also, you conflate sexual orientation with personality. A flamboyant personality isn’t restricted to gays — there are plenty of goths, punks, bikers and other colorful folks roaming our streets — but it’s only the flamboyant gays that you deem to be “whacko”.
“I was hit on and even inappropriately touched by gay men while I was there, and I decided to leave.”
And now you know how a lot of straight women feel every single day.
252 – First, a couiple of things:
1. Lifestyle – The Parades etc., are lifestlye choices, but the sexual orientation itself is not. No more that your attraction to your wife/girlfriend/favorite model/whatever.
2. I pointed to the article simply to illustrate that there are in fact animals in the wild that engaged in homosexual activity, and thus homosexuality was a natural occurrance. The link acknowledged this, though I didn’t read the article betond a brief glance.
The Blatant, “Flaming” thing you mention is something that I would avoid taking kids to see, but I see it as essentially harmless.
I look at it as a way of affirming identity, though there is value to keeping public displays more kid/family friendly.
Marriage, by tradition and religious edict, is between a man and a woman. On that we agree.
I will say, however, that whether marriage is between a Man and a Woman exclusively depends on your faith or belief system, but not necessarily everyone elses.
One must ask whether such a religious edict could, or should, be forced upon anyone, aka Prop 8.
In a way, Prop 8 reflects a basic understanding of Marriage being between a man and a woman by tradition and the design of marriage, generally accepted as an institution to promote procreation and family ideals.
I have no issue with homosexuality. To me, it is simply a variant of human sexuality, somewhat akin to prefering Legs or Breasts.
The issue is whether a 2000 year old tradition, that has evolved as a fundamental religious and societal institution and tradition, should be altered.
To many, this comes from the Bible, and the Bible reads no.
I am not a man of faith, so I don’t subscribe to this, though I certainly respect it.
I stand corrected. #252 is narrowing the gap for most ignorant thing I have read here.
You say you may or may not approve of their lifestyle. Are you lying to us or yourself with that statement? Don’t be disengenuous. You obviously don’t approve.
Chaps, mullets, and buzz cuts? Really? Do you get out of your house much or just watch too much TV?
And if straight married couples could not “act like some kind of whacko, then by all means, let them have a civil union.” I am a straight married person. Let me tell you that straight married people do not have the market cornered on so-called normal behavior. Far from it. Most of the dysfunctional families and relationships can be attributed to straight married people.
I want some documented evidence that allowing gay couples to marry would be detrimental to straight families in any fashion. Not the typical fear-laced hyperbole, but facts. If it can’t be shown to me then I don’t care about all the ignorant blathering that the anti gay marriage faction spouts. It’s all just hate, thinly veiled or not.
240: You will notice that I did make that distinction about Christianity. I put in my post last night that there was an attack against Conservative Christianity. By that, I was distinguishing a specific brand of Christianity from the rest. I wasn’t making any judgment of the different brands but Christianity is a broad umbrella and you are right. And obviously, the gay community has no problem with liberal Christians who honestly don’t believe that homosexuality is a sin or that gays should be refused marriage. In that sense, a liberal Christian is more of an ally to the gay community then they are on some specific social issues with conservative Christians.
Just an objective observation.
So, I was speaking ONLY on behalf of Conservative Christianity which still believes and teaches that Homosexuality is a sin like any other sin.
But you are also right that there should not be an attack against gays. Afterall, as a Christian, if I truly believe homosexuality is a sin, I should treat it no differently then any other sin (and I don’t btw). I look at myself and I see how many times in a day I lie, get unjustly angry, am unappreciative, covetous, lustful, disrespectful of authority, etc and I realize that I have a LONG way to go in my Christian walk—thankfully I have a Savior who has saved me from my own transgressions before a holy God.
I think the only difference between a liberal Christian and a Conservative Christian on this issue is that while I see homosexuality as a sin that a gay needs to confess along with all the other sins he commits, you believe he needs to repent of all his other sins except for homosexuality which is not a sin. We are not that far apart. But in the end of the day, there are a lot of sins we all commit that need to be confessed and turned from in our desire to turn to Christ our Savior.
To #229, why do you say gay marriage and cousins cousins marrying is apples and oranges? A common argument in support of same-sex marriage is “people should be able to marry whomever they love”. What if I love my cousin? Or my sister? Why can’t I legally marry them? One could even make the argument that a ban on siblings and cousins marrying is MORE discriminatory, because gays can enter into a domestic partnership, while blood-related persons cannot.
Also, grow weary of people referring to proponents of Prop8 as bigots. That’s a ridiculous and inaccurate statement. Bigotry is defined as having an intolerance of differing belief or opinion. Asserting an opinion that marriage should be defined as one male/one female is no more biget than asserting that marriage should be defined as two people instead of three or more.
257 – Ignorance, perhaps. But I don’t see as much hate there. I see a religious belief with a naivete about some things.
Call it the way you see it, OneBuck. I see it different than you.
And if you love your cousin, and your cousin loves you back, and you are of an age where you can make a lasting commitment to each other I have no problem with that. But there is a very distinct difference between establishing an intimate relationship between consenting adults and between minors and adults or minors and minors. That’s why we have laws that keep decision making responsibility out of the hands of those who have not lived long enough to make educated decisions. If people cannot distinguish between that and gay relationships and the prospect of gay marriage, then their arguments are not worthy of educated discussion.
248.
The purpose of sex is procreation. If every being of every species on Earth were homosexual, it would be an end to all life except plants. Fact, not irrelevant. Quite relevant actually. And to say homosexual human beings could continue life on Earth synthetically through cloning or envitro fertilization is further proof as to just how unnatural the act is. With that said, I don’t believe in discrimination.
262 – The ability of an action to produce offspring does is not a measure of how natural it is.
Homosexuality in animals, and humans, occurs. Stating the obvious that homosexual sexual activity does not produce offspring does not change the fact that it happens in nature, and is therefore natural.
Note that nobody said anything about homosexuality being the only form. Both Heterosexuality and Homosexuality are present in nature, simultaneously.
261 – I make a distinction between marriage and relationship, gay or not.
Also, I have NOT advocated child abuse, or incest. Your statements implying otherwise is grossly incorrect.
261 – What part of homosexuality in and of itself, is a “lifestlye” or “choice”?
John from Cincinnati
We are at 6 billion human residents on the planet earth right now, so I doubt that homosexuality is endangering the human race.
And I don’t want to quibble with you, but if you think that the purpose of sex is procreation, then you are doing it wrong. It is but one purpose, as far as human beings are concerned.
OneBuck
What the heck are you on about? The only part of my comment in 261 directed at you were the first 2 sentences. Anything else I said had nothing to do with anything you said at all.
But as far as lifestyles and choices are concerned, in any relationship we choose who wish to be with. Our lifestyle is the manner in which we choose to live. These concepts are not exclusive to whom one wishes to have sex with and by and large, have little to do with sex.
266 – Sex is, by nature’s design, and evidenced by the way we all came into being, there for procreation.
However, it is also enjoyable beyond it’s initial design.
Again not to quibble too much, but the act of sex between animals in the natural environment and otherwise, and the act of sex between consenting adults are two vastly different things. I cannot even begin to fathom the comparison, although since this is a Star Trek site I am sure someone will for me.
#241. Carolyn, why must someone’s sexual preference be a prerequisite for you? I think that is also part of the resistance the mainstream has against homosexuals. A lot of them insist on flaunting it. Shoving it in people’s faces. Using it as an identity badge. Do the straight folks here make a point of saying “hi, I’m so and so. I’m a heterosexual.” No, they don’t! A gay president?? Why would that make him a better leader? If he were qualified to run the country it would make NO DIFFERENCE! That’s another thing I can’t wrap my head around. A lot of you are clamoring for a gay Trek character?? Why? Would that make him a better officer? Don’t give me that nonsense that it’s someone gays can identify with. If we are to treat Starfleet like a real military organization, then this “gay” character made it through the ranks because he was a competent officer! And that’s something anyone with a little ambition, regardless of sexual preference, can identify with and admire.
Oh, and to kind of add to something you said, I also believe that human beings themselves have moved beyond something of their initial design. And that would probably help to clue people in to where my philosophy lies.
267 – I apologise, the context wasn’t immediately obvious to me.
271 – This is very true. Perhaps I should clarify that whether something is natural or unnatural has nothing to do with it’s morality, ethics or any judgements attributed to it.
When I percieve something as unnatural, I don’t make a connection to it being immoral or moral.
When making moral and ethical judgements, I have to assess whether it breaks intrinsic laws of morality, such as; is it stealing? is it detrimental to others? whom does it harm? whom does it help? is it the lesser, or greater of two or more evils?
To murder, rape, steal or lie are immoral at their face.
When I heard the argument that Homosexuality was unnatural, I was responding to something that was incorrect, not commenting on it’s morality.
That particular fact, however, logically has no bearing on the marriage question. Senior citizens who have no chance whatsoever of procreating can get married, as can people who for are infertile, and people who have no intention of ever procreating.
(Was replying to 262, above. Need to refresh the page before replying next time. ;) )
#274
Bing-freaking-go!
So why the hetero family needs to be threatened is beyond me. Insecurity I would guess.
255 – “Also, you conflate sexual orientation with personality. A flamboyant personality isn’t restricted to gays — there are plenty of goths, punks, bikers and other colorful folks roaming our streets — but it’s only the flamboyant gays that you deem to be “whacko”.”
Give me one example of a person who is flamboyant and not gay. People, who behave in that “flameboyant” manner and typically gay or sexually confused. I never met someone who acted the part without being.
“I was hit on and even inappropriately touched by gay men while I was there, and I decided to leave.”
255 – “And now you know how a lot of straight women feel every single day”
So there are lots of straight women being groped and hit on by other women too? Hmmm…
256- “1. Lifestyle – The Parades etc., are lifestlye choices, but the sexual orientation itself is not. No more that your attraction to your wife/girlfriend/favorite model/whatever.”
If you are gay and you didn’t choose that lifestyle, that’s fine, but there are a lot of people that choose that lifestyle for purely sexual reason. I know of several people like that.
256 – “2. I pointed to the article simply to illustrate that there are in fact animals in the wild that engaged in homosexual activity, and thus homosexuality was a natural occurrance. ”
No. Actually, what you did is point us to an article that only specifies that humans have observed animals exhibiting what humans classify as homosexual behavior. Emphasis on “observed”. Again, there is no way to ask a bird “Are you a homosexual bird?” There is no way to ask a dolphin “Are you a homosexual dolphin?”. We, as human, have made homosexuality a classification. We also have free will. Animals don’t.
I also agree that flamboyant bahavior is usually relatively harmless, but I have seen cases where it has gone too far. A guy I went to college with almost beat up a gay guy in San Fran years ago because the guy was slipping around like a lunatic and knocked his coffee out of my friend’s hand. That’s the kind of behavior that upsets me, and also blatant public sexuality. I don’t care what your sexuality is, as long as it’s not shoved in my face. A lot of gays WANT that kind of “in your face” recognition.
257 – “I want some documented evidence that allowing gay couples to marry would be detrimental to straight families in any fashion. Not the typical fear-laced hyperbole, but facts. If it can’t be shown to me then I don’t care about all the ignorant blathering that the anti gay marriage faction spouts. It’s all just hate, thinly veiled or not.”
I never stated it would be directly detrimental. However, to people who do not believe that a homosexual lifestyle is acceptable, you’re virtually opening up Pandora’s Box. Unfortunately for gay people, the vast majority feel that their lifestyle is morally and fundamentally wrong. It’s no big secret.
260 – Tell me what I am naive about? I don’t think I’m naive about anything, other than not wanting behavior I don’t agree with shoved down my throat, REGARDLESS of what the behavior is!! I am not saying all homosexuals act this way, and obvioulsy I know that many heterosexuals act just as bad. However, there is a difference between what I feel is morally correct and normal, to what I feel is not. Every makes their own choices, so if you disagree, I’m sorry, but don’t try to change my mind, because you’re not going to. This is real life, this isn’t some lame movie where at the end everyone finds out that Max is really gay and everyone accepts it and moves on.
266 – LoL, I don’t think anyone here said that homosexuality is threatening the human race. But have you ever heard of Sodom and Gomorrah? THX, if you’re gay, I can really care less, but people have established beliefs. Stop telling us we’re wrong only because we disagree with you. If you’re gay, and I don’t know if you are or not, and again, could care less, but anyway, if you were to move to a country like Iran, you would be executed for your sexuality. So you have it pretty freaking good for where ever you live.
I swore I wouldn’t tread back into this thread, but some of the ridiculous comments from heterosexuals lead me to……
#270 and any others saying that Gays should have equal rights but not “flaunt” being gay, or the ones saying why not 3 or 4 people get married, or brothers and sisters?….jeez….
Let me put it all into a perspective you can understand;
Think of any scene in any movie or television show that portrays an intimate scene between a male and a female….Kirk and the Orion woman in ST09 for example…..we know they are straight because they are showing it, so they don’t have to “flaunt” themselves by saying out loud they are straight…….
Now take the same scene and change the woman to a man…..now you are seeing man on man intimacy….so, sure, then we wouldn’t have to “flaunt” it and say a character was gay because you could see it plain as day in their actions…….So are you ready for that kind of acceptance of Gay TV/Movie Characters????
Now as to the nuts saying 3 or 4 people or brothers and sisters, or any combination of people should be able to wed if same sex couples can…..give me a break…..The United States Legal System and Every State’s Legal system is set up for two classifications only, either Single or Non Blood Related Married……..So to try and argue that same sex couples are asking for something multiple people or siblings should have is ludicrous and legally impossible to change.
Numerous Countries around the world treat their Gay citizens completely equal. From Britain To the Netherlands and none of those nations has yet to fall apart, crack into pieces or have any other absurdity mentioned in this thread from rampant pedophilia to polygamy become any issue whatsoever for them.
………….Now, for all of you who think I shouldn’t have the same rights as you, tell me why as a Gay American, I am a lesser Citizen not deserving of equal rights; Please?…………
Oh and to 151, you “took Me on” after I had said I was signing off and going to bed…..good one……
All my best to you all,
David Tester
Lifetime Star Trek Fan
Lifetime Gay American
LOL reading these opinions, many well-articulated and many with passionate views. However, one must be aware that in 100-200 years, there will be more than two sexes, and probably more than a single human species. So will cat-women and mer-men be discriminated against if they choose to engage in a domestic companionship?
Gender role diversification has greatly impacted society. For example, if women are ‘equal’ to men, doesn’t that mean that they *are* men? Or from another perspective, are men now simply ‘women who can’t have babies’? In terms of the evolving cultural equability and interchangeability of gender roles, where do homosexuals fit in?
One of the most profound changes impacting gender roles is the availability of female contraceptives. Gender roles have changed dramatically as a result of this advancement.
One theory asserts that homosexuality is becoming a lifestyle choice due to overpopulation, if one were to consider macro-superconsciousness or noetic approaches to societal learning.
In the next 30 years, the abortion debate will be superseded by fertilization-on-demand medical science. Instead of regulating conception by the employment of contraceptive means, this will allow couples to choose pregnancy rather than to merely prevent it.
Within 50 years, it will be possible for same-sex couples to have ex vitro progeny, if current advances in medical science bear out. What then when we consider homosexual relationships and marital status?
Of course, one of the most integral argument-sets applied to this debate of the rights of homosexuals is the religious one. A century ago, many churches felt that the ‘chosen’ believers were evidenced by certain skin pigments: justifying the disallowance of church membership, priesthood responsibilities and clergy opportunities to those who were ‘different’. I would like to weigh in that these restrictions were culturally implicit rather than spiritually motivated. However, one must also note the lack of racially integrated congregations in most religions.
Applying the religious perspective to homosexuality, is it time to start viewing homosexuals as ’same’ rather than ‘different’?
The most dangerous tool in the arsenal of the bigot is mass-media, which can contrive to ‘educate’ a given populace to stereotype others. It is oh-so-subtle in operation. A certain TV show of our regard can be used as an example of this process in action: the curmudgeonly Southern Doctor, the perky Scottish Engineer, the Russian Ensign who cannot enunciate certain consonants…are these not stereotypes based on a certain level of bigotry, perpetuated by entertainment mass-media? Are these people, or are these caricatures?
Is it possible that the prejudicial treatment of homosexuals is of a similar causation; that is, is it the result of enculturation via mass-media ‘typing’ or even mass-media ‘censoring’?
There is a type of prejudice called ‘color blindness’ which is demonstrated when one attempts to *ignore* the existence of prejudice when it is obvious that it exists. An illustrative example is to claim that ‘gay marriages aren’t really different than straight marriages in our society’ when the truth of the matter is that gay marriages are treated quite differently. Just ask any gay man about the ‘dirty’ stares they get, and that idea of an IDIC-like kumbaya-fest is immediately rejected.
By the way, did you know that women in the US don’t have equal rights, according to the US constitution? The old joke that “guns are protected, but women aren’t” comes to mind. But really? If we’re going to dwell upon Prop 8, lets also look at why the United States is one of the last remaining ‘First World’ countries that doesn’t constitutionally offer women the same protection as men?
There can be no peace…while Kirk lives!
Brad
Nope. Straight as an arrow with 6 kids. Happily married to my wife. Now on to poking holes in your argument (Don’t worry, that wasn’t a come-on):
“Give me one example of a person who is flamboyant and not gay.”
Jim Carrey, Robin Williams, Gilbert Gottfried, Circus Clowns, Rock musicians (well, maybe some of those guys are gay, but you get the point).
“A guy I went to college with almost beat up a gay guy in San Fran years ago because the guy was slipping around like a lunatic and knocked his coffee out of my friend’s hand.”
So what would your friend have done it it was a straight man acting rambunctiously who knocked the coffee out of his hands? I think your frind is an a**hole and it has little to do with the gay person in question.
“Unfortunately for gay people, the vast majority feel that their lifestyle is morally and fundamentally wrong. It’s no big secret.”
Pure conjecture on your part and not fact. Try again.
“LoL, I don’t think anyone here said that homosexuality is threatening the human race.”
May I direct you to comment 262. And you bet I have it good where I live. I am a white heterosexual man. Nobody is telling me what I can or cannot do. It is from my position of comfort that I see the inadequacies against people of race and homosexuals perpetrated by those in the majority who presume to legilate morality for others they have nothing in common with.
WOW, it is amazing to me how quiet this thread gets when they are confronted with a real person, with a real name, who lives in a real place……(google me if you want)……and all of a sudden you can’t come up with a rational or logical reason why this rational and logical Gay American shouldn’t have the same rights as you…….
Amazing when you are faced with a real person with a real face…….how hard it is to legitamize your discrimination.
Living Long and Prospering I hope…..
David Tester
Lifetime Star Trek Fan
Lifetime Gay American
Thank You THX……and according to the latest Gallup Polling In America you are a part of the 48% who have no problem with equal rights for Gay Americans……(by the way that poll had a 4% margin of error) 48+4+=52%? Majority? Hmmmmm………
278 – David, no one is saying you don’t have equal rights. Well, maybe some are, but not me. I’m only saying that a “marriage” is a union, a covenant, between a Man and a Woman, only. A Union between two men, two women, three women and a man, a man and his horse, or whatever, cannot be defined as a marriage, because that’s not what a marriage is. You can disagree with me, of course, but you have your beliefs and I have mine.
ANTHONY PASCALE
Please close the feedback to this post, otherwise I, and likely others, will probably say something really offensive and really get a flame war going. This is not a topic we should be discussing here. Let’s get back to Star Trek!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
“Even God says this. Remember in the beginning, it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve.”
This statement is beyond silly. If we assume that God created one man and one woman as a mechanism for beginning the human race, it becomes obvious that creating Steve rather than Eve would be fatally counterproductive to the whole project. Saying “It was Adam and Eve, not Adam and Steve”, when you think about it, does not effectively get across the point that God does not approve of homosexuality and did not intend for it to exist. It merely makes the rather obvious point that the supreme being and creator of all things is not a complete nincompoop.
It is also silly in that anyone who *does* accept that God created one man and one woman as a mechanism for beginning the human race probably needs little convincing that God forbids homosexuality. If one accepts Genesis at face value, Leviticus probably isn’t that hard to swallow. And if this is the case, then there already exists a more definitive Biblical condemnation of homosexuality, making the ridiculous “Adam and Steve” scenario even more redundant and insulting.
I accept homosexuality and religious conservatism. I am, however, thoroughly bigoted against arguments on serious topics backed up by foolish invented scenarios.
277 – The article acknowledges the observations, alluding to the fact. As I said, I didn’t exactly read it. As pointed out by others, it becomes irrelevent to the morality of the argument. A poor choice of link on my part.
RE: 260 – You walked right into the situation. If I put my hand into a fire, I expect to get burned.
#282
Not a prob, bro’. Change doesn’t happen at the schedule we prefer. But as it has for all of time, change will come. One person at a time if it has to.
277 – FYI – I’m a Heterosexual male in his 30s, and happily married.
I also understand both sides of this issue, and wish for less BS clouding the arguments, or arguments that miss the point (Assuming bigotry when religious beliefs and tradition are the real driving forces for Prop 8, for example).
Wow again, I can’t believe the previous commentators that talked about pedophilia, polygamy, how we Gay Americans flaunted ourselves and were just lucky to not be executed for being Gay……have gone Silent………
You just can’t think of a good logical, rational reason I, as a real human being, should be treated less than equal because I am Gay?……
Anthony, you need to bring me back the next time this discussion comes up…..will definitely free up space on your server…….
259 – proponents of Prop8 are bigots. They are at worst dangerously intolerant and at best woefully misinformed. And if you don’t understand why it isn’t smart for siblings or cousins to marry you should read up on the dangers of inbreading. And, yes, more than two people, who are consenting adults, should be allowed to marry.
286 – There may be something to this.
I’m actually surprised not to hear someone bring up certain passages of the Bible that relegate homosexuality as a sin, and pointing out that marriage is a Religious construct.
I’m certain to be stoned by the Pharisees, but not everything in religion and the bible in particular is correct. It is from some literal interpretations of the bible that we have the Appallachian practice of handling serpents and drinking poison as a matter of Christian faith.
‘Aint nobody got a firm handle on it all. Be suspiscious of anyone who says they have all the answers.
290 & 291……The whole Marriage as a “Religious Construct” kinda falls apart when you look to the Greeks as the origin of “traditional” marriage and the fact that they had, well, a bunch of Gods that were not Christian.
And as far as the Bible, I have studied it quite a bit (my Father is a Chaplain, former Minister of 30 years)……
If you take the 2 passages most of the fundamentalists try to link to in (one in the old, one in the new testament) the Bible and go see your local Rabbi (or anyone) who is fluent in Hebrew they will tell you that the current translations are just one of many and those passages can be translated quite differently. The Problem with Hebrew is it had allot less words than modern English using one Hebrew word that can mean up to 10 English (very Different) words. King James is the one who declared to Europe his translation was the only true one (he didn’t care for Homosexuals) and Gay people have had the Bible thrown at them ever since by those who try to make their discrimination “righteous”.
By the way, I talk with God everyday and he likes me allot the last time I asked.
ever notice that all the remans are homosexuals (no women)? all romulans are straight, i guess. maybe all of the frightened, angry straight people should banish all the gay people to a dark planet, so that someone can make a boring lousy film with tom hardy about our culture someday .
(harry mudd reminds me of my uncle who used to rub against me, too.)
homophobia is stoopit. we’ll never develop warp drive until we get passed it.
#280
all circus clowns are gay, dude. just like all trekkies are nerds.
#277
“Give me one example of a person who is flamboyant and not gay. People, who behave in that “flameboyant” manner and typically gay or sexually confused. I never met someone who acted the part without being.”
Maybe you just don’t know that many people? Or circulate in a relatively sheltered social circle? Trust me, there are plenty of flamboyant personalities out there that are far from gay.
#283….just caught your post.
Yes you are relegating me to less than equal rights than you have by saying I should not be able to get married. Under the US Tax code alone you are depriving me of around 170 rights. Then there is Social Security Benefits, Private Health and State Will Laws that all are DIRECTLY initiated ONLY by MARRRIAGE…..not Civil Unions or anything Else……..
……..and please quit the insults about executions, Iran and marrying horses…..They just really make you look very uneducated and well, a frightening sociopath.
292 – The fact that the Bible has been mistranslated countless times, and the fact that Marriage started with the Greeks with non-Christian gods is a matter of history, not of faith per the Bible.
There is a degree of discomfort among many with the idea of an institution tied closely to their faith being fundamentally changed.
People can be very frightened of change.
#294
OK then, rock musicians.
#283…….”a Flame War”……yeah that’s not a stereotypical or bigoted comment at all. Bud, you are a very sad individual indeed. Apparently you believe you are starting “a Flame War” with me by saying I don’t deserve the same rights as you. Wow…..so how exactly should I “Flame”……..and where is your Logical, Rational Reason for I not receiving the same rights as you…..still waiting?
And Anthony Pascale knows that Gene Roddenberry himself would be proud to see people standing up for the rights of the oppressed and looking for a more inclusive future.
297……very, very true….I know how hard it can be for people to change…..but if they have a good and true heart and see how they can hurt people like myself, they usually do change…….I was raised a Southern Baptist and still hold true to the Christian Faith and many of the Baptist tenants…….
I change people’s minds every day just by being myself, just like being on here.
David Tester, if your father being a Chaplain makes you knowledgeable as to how Hebrew and Greek words in the Old and New Testaments were used then you would know that, while it’s true that one Hebrew word (or Greek for that matter) can mean several different things in English (as is the case with English words themselves), context is what decides most often what intention the author had. There are several texts in the Old and New Testaments that refer to homosexuality, whether by name or implication (Lev. 18:22; 1 Cor. 6:9; Rom. 1:26-27) that are all to clear that what is being referred to or described is the homosexual act.
I also disagree with your statement that King James had homosexuality put into the Judao-Christian text to condemn it. This is not true at all but is repeated by proponents of homosexuality all the time. The term ‘homosexual’ didn’t even come into use until the 19th century – too late for the King James translation. The King James text uses a euphemism for the act in 1 Cor. 6:9. Only after the term ‘homosexual’ came into use was it used in various Bible translations.
A few more thoughts after reading this long topic:
The genetic theory: I am short, with a stocky build. I have brown eyes. I have brown hair (now going grey) and started balding at age 20. I am gay. I live with what god or nature (your choice) gave me, quite happily. Which of these “genetic abnormalities” would you like to “cure”? Can you make me tall, blue-eyed, blond with a full head of hair, and straight?
The whole Christian angle: Freedom OF “religion” as well as freedom FROM “religion” is a cornerstone of the Constitution. Should ANY “religious” belief become the law of the land? (see: Iran, Saudi Arabia, etc.) Curiously, some of the most vocal “Christians” have no similarity at all with Christ or his teachings.
As for the poster that happened upon a Pride Parade: Has he ever been to Mardi Gras in N.O.?
His quote:
“Now you tell me that I should vote yes on a topic that is inclusive and receptive to that kind of gross, public sexual behavior??? If that means I’m a bigot, then my gosh, sign me up for the Bigotry Gazzette!!
Those immoral evil straights!! Consider yourself signed up bud!
Finally, the procreation angle: Oh, c’mon guys! That’s the best you have? By using your logic, marriage should be denied to anyone that chooses not to have children, or can’t have children, or choose to delay procreation by using birth control.
Bottom line, it’s a civil rights issue. And to deny civil rights for reasons of “religion” is frankly, a sin. Read some American History to see more examples of this “bigotry”
301….My studies are my own, I refereed to my Father only as an explanation to my exposure and desire to study the Bible…..I won’t argue the passages because of the many, many possible translations…..also it does not have anything to do with a logical, rational reason for my civil rights being oppressed.
Regarding King James, I was referring to the English Crown’s historical take on homosexuality or anything else they considered “pagan” during his reign.
and still their is no one willing to tell me a rational, logical reason I should have lesser civil rights because I am a Gay American????
Well Folks I have been on here for over 2 hours and more than 30 posts…..no one can come up with a logical, rational reason I as a Gay American should have lesser civil rights than anyone else.
So, I suppose I have proven that Mr. Takei, myself and all other Gay Americans do have a bright future to look forward too. Isn’t Logic great!
Live long and Prosper Folks!
David Tester signing off
and the ones that come after me finnaly when I am not on here are pathetic.
304 – Whereas I am coming down against Prop 8 on the basis of fairness, I do not believe Marriage to be a Civil Right, but a privilege.
It is only by certain provisions of law, and NOT the Constitution in as of itself, that I was able to marry my wife and move here to the United States.
There were conditions placed on this, such as her ability to support me financially so that I would not be a burden on the state, that I would be able to support myself once I was able to get a job, and that I was not a threat to the United States, and had no criminal record.
Would my Civil Rights be violated if I were refused permission from the Federal Government to get married?
I resisted this at first (best instincts?) but I can’t any longer. So, just for what if, The Bible is actually a fictional account of the history of the Hebrews? Using actual historical characters along with fictionary characters to tell a fictional story? Using “God” to promote the continuance of a patriarchal, nomadic, people dependent on procreation for survival? Actually READ the Bible, not just be told what it says, or cherry-pick the parts you like. Then do some research, readily available. Most of the stories told are actually re-tellings of earlier pagan tales, with embellishment and the inclusion of “God” as a patriarchal authority figure. Again, do your research. Noah as Gilgamesh in the sequel? Sure, why not!
My whole point is that this should not be, and is not a “religious” argument or discussion. All “religions” can be regarded as fiction, depending on your personal beliefs. Civil rights cannot, and should not, be based on ANY “religious” beliefs.
There, I said it. Flame away if you choose. But actually think before you post. If nothing else, Star Trek has always been about (for me) diversity, integration, diversity, acceptance, peace.
307 – You are obviously missing the simple fact that how YOU see the bible is not necessarily how OTHERS see the Bible.
In any case, the Bible is not “simply fiction” to anyone who follows the Christian faith, but is in fact a manual for life and understanding the world in terms of morality.
For Christians, it is Jesus’s teachings and the 10 commandments that guide them as to what is right or wrong.
The idea that Murder is wrong comes from where? That’s right, the Hebrew Bible.
The fact that modern Marriage means “making a promise before god” is from both the Bible and Judeo/Christian tradition.
To Christians, the Bible is God’s word. If that was your belief, why would you go against it?
To win over Conservative Christians, you have to reconcile gay marriage with those sections of the Bible that mark homosexuality as a sin.
From an article by Rob Thomas:
“:I believe the fact that an atheist, who doesn’t believe in God at all, is allowed to enter into the holy land of marriage while a gay Christian is not, shows that this law is arbitrary. Are we to believe that anyone who doesn’t live their life according to the King James Bible isn’t protected by the same laws that protect those who do? Using the same argument that I’ve seen on the 700 Club, that would mean that Jewish, Hindu, or Muslim weddings are also null and void. ”
What he said.
If the species stops BREEDING, the species will stop existing and the animals/plants will once again rule the Terra until the next evolution of another species. Proud to be a Breeder. Breeder is the slur the homosexual community uses for those outside their ranks. Funny, it reminds me of the type of propaganda Al Jazeera uses on their Middle Eastern website (like the one of GW steering the Titanic with US Troops and hitting the iceberg “Iraq”).
308–I don’t think winning over conservative Christians is either desirable or possible in this case. Convincing them that homosexuality is a good thing when the Bible pretty much states otherwise precludes this possibility. Short of God actually saying “Hey, I’ve given it another thought, and homosexuality is OK now”, it’s not going to happen.
What *is* needed is a recognition that continuing to withhold legal recognition of same-sex relationships is harmful to SOME citizens of our country while benefiting absolutely no one, and that there is not a single argument for prohibiting same-sex marriages that stands up to five minutes of logical reasoning. “God said is was wrong in His Book” does not count. It may be right, but it is not logical.
If you are so concerned about gay people getting married. . . . Dont marry one! – Whoopi Goldberg.
Also, I thought Church and State were supposed to be seperate?
304. David Tester – May 27, 2009
and still their is no one willing to tell me a rational, logical reason I should have lesser civil rights because I am a Gay American????
That’s because you already have just as many civil rights as anyone else.
Now please, provide a rational, logical reason why you deserve extra civil rights because you practice homosexuality?
Oh, and BTW- what’s this “Gay American” stuff? Are you trying to be an ethnicity or something?
It’s NOT about rights!!!
It’s about YOU PEOPLE trying to INVADE and/or STEAL our institution of marriage.
Civil unions — yes!! Marriage — NO!!! LEAVE OUR INSTITUTIONS ALONE!!!
A marriage is between one man and one woman.
And in California, the PEOPLE have decided that it is NOT between two men. Get used to it. Accept it.
Or move to Vermont or Massachusetts where such things are legal!
Damn, I am so sick of you whiners who want to usurp traditional values and LAW!
I appreciate those who took the time to read my original post, # 188. Answers below, plus a few comments on other posts.
192. MC1 Doug
Did you even read the article? I’m not trying obvuscate anything, nor do I work for Rush Limbaugh. I say again, that all of the arguments for and against gay marriage can be used for sibling marriage: two people LOVE each other, they are not hurting anyone else, they have a right to be together, etc. If you still don’t believe me, go back to the first post, start reading, and substitute “gay” with “sibling”. The articles still make sense, both for and against. BTW, did you notice I prefaced my message with the fact that I support gay marriage? I don’t think Limbaugh would approve.
203. Green-Blooded-Bastard
Thank you for the honest answer. That’s what I was looking for. I respect your opinion, as it is not hypocritical, it’s consistent. That cannot be said of some of the other replies. Anyone reading this who is for gay marriage, but also believes the two individuals in that article should be jailed if they express love for one another, should really stop and ask themselves why those two individuals should be denied their rights, any more than gays should be denied their rights.
215. Jacob
It’s not impossible to draw parallels. Whatever you may think, the parallels are obvious. In both cases, two people love each other and want to be together. In both cases, their civil rights are being violated, if the pro gay marriage stance is to be believed. In both cases, their union would not disenfranchise hetero non-related marriages. The procreation issue could be resolved by one of them agreeing to be sterilized, just as the procreation issue can be resolved with gays using adoption, surrogate mother, etc.
229. EM
See my reply above. Why is gay marriage and cousin marriage apples and oranges? Why do all the arguments for gay marriage not apply to related people wanting to get married? Why would you deny siblings in love the right to be married? Doesn’t that make you no better than those who would deny gay people to be married? Reference Green-Blooded-Bastard’s response in #203. His answer makes sense. Yours, not so much.
259. RobertaLincoln
In regards to your first paragraph, we are in 100% agreement on this. I’m glad I’m not the only one that came to this line of reasoning.
261. THX-1138
It’s good to see a number of people here willing to concede that siblings who are consenting adults should have the same rights as everyone else, just as gays should have the same rights. It’s amazes me the people who fervently support gay marriage, yet dismiss sibling marriage out of hand, some even outright hostile to the idea. Could it be because siblings together grosses them out? Perhaps it goes against their moral beliefs? Or maybe they think sibling marriage could diminish gay marriage somehow? Does any of this sound familiar?
278. David Tester
Wow…of all the posters here, I think I’m most disappointed in your reply. I would have thought you of all people would have been tolerant of those who are different than you. Last time I checked, no law in this country is impossible to change. I also fail to see how my argument is ludricous. If you can explain why I would appreciate it. For someone who stands tall and yells challenges to posters here to explain why your civil rights should not be violated, you seem to have no problem taking away other peoples’ rights.
314. Diddly Squat – May 27, 2009
“It’s NOT about rights!!!”
I agree. If it were, then equal rights would suffice here.
But, as you said, it’s not about rights: it’s a method to ultimately use Government to force and enforce change upon the masses, and even at the expense of the rights of hose who have opposing opinions. It’s happening already.
Am I wrong? Correct me if I am: people are upset here because Government didn’t overturn the votes of the majority (this time). In other words: they’re mad because Government didn’t force change like it did in Vermont and Iowa.
1 day it will happen, and try not to be surprised when hate speech laws are implemented and free speech becomes a thing of the past. And don’t count on the support of these people who claim to want civil rights to all- they’ll be the ones behind the losses of yours.
Just look at the myriad of comments here: it’s not hate or bigotry when they misrepresent religion or call anyone who disagrees with their lifestyle biggots. It’s only hate when it’s you against them.
315. tlh1138 – May 27, 2009
“261. THX-1138
It’s good to see a number of people here willing to concede that siblings who are consenting adults should have the same rights as everyone else, just as gays should have the same rights. It’s amazes me the people who fervently support gay marriage, yet dismiss sibling marriage out of hand, some even outright hostile to the idea. Could it be because siblings together grosses them out? Perhaps it goes against their moral beliefs? Or maybe they think sibling marriage could diminish gay marriage somehow? Does any of this sound familiar?”
Interesting point.
Personally, I am in favor of eliminating government from the marriage business and allowing ultimate marriage freedom- homosexual and multiple. Yet I see nobody here defending Mormons or Muslims their Constitutionally allowed 1st Amendment Right to religion and their multiple marriages.
I would think that if *some* here were serious about their claims to equal rights, then they would defend cases of poligamy. But they don’t.
Instead, they just launched bigoted attack after bigoted atack against the Mormon Church.
In my book, if they wish to “discriminate” against faiths, practices and customs like poligamy, then they open themselves to the same standard.
But that’s just me.
There is no democracy when it comes to equal human rights- this majority rules excuse is diaguating- no individual whether in the majority or not should get to dictate who has rights and who doesnt.
As homosexuals are only about 10% of the population they can never win the majority rules mentality.
so if the majority of americans decided “blacks” should no longer get to vote or marry anymore- that they had it right in the past when slavery was the norm would that be ok?
F&*K no but its ok to treat homosexuals as second class citizen or less?
It’s unbelevable to me that your country especialy is still ruled by people that believe in that ridiculous novel the bible over the rights of other human beings?
For all the people that dont share thoes religious beliefs the Bible is just another successfull novel along with Gone With the Wind and a Million Little Piecse that are all fiction but the last two arent used to descriminate against a minority.
Feel free to delete this post Anthony- im sure im in the minority.
“Give me one example of a person who is flamboyant and not gay. People, who behave in that “flameboyant” manner and typically gay or sexually confused. I never met someone who acted the part without being.”
#277–Don’t get out much huh? Or watch TV? You have to be kidding here. Have you seen some of the rock stars over that last 40 years maybe? Heavy duty makeup and spandex and heavy duty womanizers! Been to Mardi Gras? Maybe seen it on TV? In my post I mentioned all the goths and studded and tattooed STRAIGHT youngsters running around today. And you know, a lot of cross-dressing men ARE NOT GAY.
“So there are lots of straight women being groped and hit on by other women too? Hmmm…”
Again, I hope this is just a joke. If not, reading comprehension is clearly a problem. But I’ll play along…..you didn’t like being hit on by a man. Well, you know, straight women have been dealing with the unwanted advances of men since time began.
“Please close the feedback to this post, otherwise I, and likely others, will probably say something really offensive and really get a flame war going. This is not a topic we should be discussing here.”
Now that’s the way to handle viewpoints you don’t like!
314. Diddly Squat – May 27, 2009
“It’s NOT about rights!!!”
_ Umm.. yes, it is.
“It’s about YOU PEOPLE trying to INVADE and/or STEAL our institution of marriage.”
_You people?…. are fellow humans. If you are married, Diddly.. no one can steal marriage. Yours, mine or anyone else’s and if it’s so special in these times, why is divorce so rampant?
“And in California, the PEOPLE have decided that it is NOT between two men. Get used to it. Accept it.”
_ Diddly, people can pursue a change in laws if they wish. And why is this such a threat to you?
“Or move to Vermont or Massachusetts where such things are legal!”
_ or Iowa.
“Damn, I am so sick of you whiners who want to usurp traditional values and LAW!”
_ May I suggest if this bothers you so much….ignore them. Their marriage does NOTHING to change your life. If it’s a sin, God will handle it, not you.
# 69 Brian Kirsch- I love u for putting it so simply.
According to the Constitution, all rights not specifically denied the people (or otherwise addressed) remain with the people.
This means that in order for gays to NOT BE ALLOWED to marry and reap the GOVERNMENT SANCTIONED FINANCIAL BENEFITS thereof, they are being DENIED a right they were previously entitled to BY LAW.
So, anyone denied legal marriage is also being DENIED MONEY.
I thought it important to clarify this; we’re talking about more than recognition and love when we talk about denying someone the right to marry.
Oh,
and denying gays any rights that straights have IS WRONG. It doesn’t matter what my moral stance is on homosexuality, nor is moral stance an acceptable reason alone to deny anyone the right to do anything. It’s none of my business, and it’s none of yours.
And I don’t need to hide behind a screenname to say that.
“only human arrogance would assume the message is meant for humanity alone”
-spock
319. krikzil (aka Lixy) – May 27, 2009
“Please close the feedback to this post, otherwise I, and likely others, will probably say something really offensive and really get a flame war going. This is not a topic we should be discussing here.”
“Now that’s the way to handle viewpoints you don’t like!”
Even though I have commented, I agree.
It can be argued on street corners, court rooms and a hundred different sites that PERTAIN to this subject. This is a Star Trek site. If Anthony wants to post the story and allow comments… it’s his site. In looking at the posts…this discussion is going nowhere but down in a spiral. Let’s get back to Trek, please.
#217: “213. S. John Ross: In the end people have to make a compelling argument to win the vote.”
If you’re using the phrase “in the end” without irony, then you didn’t bother reading my post at all.
“It’s not like it’s an ‘evil government’ thing: it’s what people chose.”
Exactly.
#324: “Let’s get back to Trek, please.”
In fairness, though, a lot of us consider this a very “Star Trek” sort of issue, and not just because Takei is involved.
You all did not think I would stay away too long……did you?
313 & 317…..glad I touched back base for the night because I figured those would come out of the closet with discriminatory views upon the minute I left the thread…..
313; REALLY; I have as many civil rights as anyone else???? Bullshit…..in South Carolina I have no reciprocal rights with my life partner of 10 years and even my will can be overturned in this state with a very simple no cost challenge because a “blood relative” has more legal rights here than my partner of 10 years does…..that’s a fact you moron….
#315……I am ready for you (tomorrow morning)…..so how is the ability for me to have the same civil right to marry affecting you??? I’d love to know?????? Me being a Gay American pouring into your kids TV???? Funny, my very accepting sister with my 2 beautiful nieces call my Partner Uncle and have never had “sexual” issues thrust upon them, by the media…….so what pray tell is your concern; my nieces might grow up with more tolerance for others than your offspring???…..and then your children might be labeled bigots for your lack of parenting????
298. THX-1138 – May 27, 2009
OK then, rock musicians.
yeah, OK. you got me there.
324, 326 cont’d,
also, it’s not this kind of discussion is anywhere near the norm on this site. Yeah there’s other places where we can argue with others about this, but few where we debate it solely with other Trekkers.
“Am I wrong? Correct me if I am: people are upset here because Government didn’t overturn the votes of the majority (this time). In other words: they’re mad because Government didn’t force change like it did in Vermont and Iowa.”
In this specific instance I am neither surprised nor upset that the government didn’t overturn the votes of the majority. I believe that the legal benefits associated with marriage–which are the only things government can confer on a union between two people–should be accessible to everyone–gay, straight, polygamists, relatives…whoever. I recognize that not everyone is willing to accept that this concept, while radical, is more rational than every argument against it.
If you want to take only this specific instance, the absurdity lies in the fact that gay marriage is no longer legal in California, but everyone who was married in that brief period of time when it was legal is still legally married. It makes no sense. It’s a compromise that completely misses the points that both sides have. The only question is how long people are willing to tolerate this kind of political wishy-washness.
“1 day it will happen, and try not to be surprised when hate speech laws are implemented and free speech becomes a thing of the past. And don’t count on the support of these people who claim to want civil rights to all- they’ll be the ones behind the losses of yours.”
I fail to see why allowing this to happen will lead irrevocably lead to the loss of free speech. Can I not be for gay marriage AND for freedom of speech? I support both because they are sensible. Should I stop doing so merely because people on BOTH sides of this discussion fall back on intolerance and name calling?
#320….I get down on my knees and pray to my God of Abraham every night……St. Peter will be my judge, as will Christ and God Almighty Himself…..And BOY do I look forward to the day they shake there heads at people like you without the capacity to love your fellow man…….
Looking forward to that day with St. Peter…….I’ll see ya there with a smile and some wings!!!!!!!!! While you might go else where…..like Iran as has been suggested here in this thread……..
if janice lester, while inhabiting kirk’s body, had married christine chapel, could they have lived in california legally?
don’t laugh. some people feel very much like a woman in a man’s body! some of them are nicer than janice lester. some are not.
Exactly right #316 and #317!!!
You’re right — they ARE going to try to intimidate people to make them shut up with so called “hate speech” laws.
That *might* work with *some* people. I won’t be intimidated.
I’ll be speaking my mind until they put me in my grave. And I’ll be standing up for traditional values, GOD, and the Constitution until they put me in my grave as well.
I know I am not alone.
But, Xai is also correct in that we should also leave a degree of what is going on around us in His hands.
But — Xai, the people HAVE pursued a change in the law with regard to this issue and it has FAILED. Clearly most people do not want gay marriage — civil unions — yes, probably would be accepted.
But to call two men joining in a legal agreement “marriage” is a sham!
It’s clearly NOT marriage. Again, marriage is a covenant under GOD between two adults — one man and one woman.
Were this just about legal rights, then this would sail through — but they are trying to undermine the traditional definition and institution of marriage.
I keep seeing these references to divorce. I highly doubt anyone supports the concept…or likes it. But, while we’re on the subject — most gay men tend to not be very monogamous. Divorce is a problem — it’s too bad more hetero’s do not take the vows and institution as seriously as they should but by no means should we jump to the conclusion that most or all marriages fail.
That simply isn’t so. But even if it were…what does this have to do with the ridiculous concept of two men being “married”?
Xai– I actually consider this a very Trek related thread …IDIC and all. Trek appeals to my sincere hope that some day humans finally get beyond judging others based on race, gender, sexual orientation and all that yadayada.
—–
“But, as you said, it’s not about rights: it’s a method to ultimately use Government to force and enforce change upon the masses, and even at the expense of the rights of hose who have opposing opinions. It’s happening already….Am I wrong? Correct me if I am: people are upset here because Government didn’t overturn the votes of the majority (this time).”
#318– People aren’t upset cause they didn’t get their way, it’s not a temper tantrum. They are upset because they feel Prop 8 is unconstitutional and that a second class standing for gays is codified into the CA Constitution. And they have every right to seek redress in the Courts. Our system acknowledges that the majority can be very wrong and misguided.
Why do you think Courts exist? Courts of Appeal? The Supreme Court? They exist to right the wrongs that occur. To check and recheck. The fact that we have so many levels in the system indicates an awareness that sometimes Courts can get things wrong and so it goes higher still for another review which will happen in this case.
So yes, throughout our history as a nation, Goverment — be it the President, the Congress or the Courts — has forced change on people, some of it very painful and unpopular but it made us better for it.
@ 236. spider1981
Sexuality/procreation is programmed into our (and all life on this planet) base genetic code. So either you choose to be gay, or you were institutionalized to be gay (poor self esteem, no good with the ladies, whatever else it may be), or there is a genetic error causing you to be gay. AFAIK, no one has found a ‘genetic’ error that causes one to be gay. So that leaves one of the other possibilities.
Nature is what it is. To deny it is, well, illogical.
Frankly, I couldn’t care less about what a person or persons choose relative to lifestyle. As long as no one else has a right infringed, or incurs harm from it, why should I? And if there were ANY legislation preventing gays from living together, and being life partners, I’d be the first to rail against it.
Prop 8 doesn’t deny you any right to your way of life whatsoever. It does nothing more than prevent you from getting a stamp of approval from the State. As I mentioned, NO group has a right to that stamp. It’s a privilege granted by the states voters (YOUR peers). Polygamists don’t have this privilege, ‘nor do any other non-traditional unions (and unlike Polygamists, you are NOT pursued by Johnny Law for your chosen lifestyle). Again, I say BFD. If I WERE gay, I’d tell the establishment to eff off and that they can keep their effin’ stamp. But I also wouldn’t be interested in shoving my lifestyle down the throats of the majority, either. Let me live my lifestyle and you can live yours.
To be honest, I don’t know why gays want an ‘official’ marriage from the State anyway. It’s done nothing for hetero’s except cause anguish during divorce!!
Tran gendered Persons; yes God knows you have civil rights too; unfortunately, because of the straight community that is out “to do us in”; they are focusing all their money on same sex marriage at the moment and in return we have to do the same……when that battle is won, yours will be next, fought and won in the same manner, but like my Grandmother making 50 cents on a Man’s Dollar in 1965-1983……it will take time for us all to win…….Remember, it was not until the first part of the 20th century that women were given the right to vote…….we fight for the most winnable right at the moment, and when we win we move to the next. One Day, not to far in the future at all…..GLBT rights will be not considered a big deal at all by our grand kids because they were so “common sense”!
#335…..and this is my last post for the night and then you can crucify me…..
It is about OUR LEGAL PROTECTIONS, and ONLY through MARRIAGE in most states comes that legal protection!!!!! Without it a mother can choose to keep her son in a vegetable state for a decade or more when that son had expressly had a written contract with their domestic partner that they not have life prolonging procedures when their organs had stopped…..but despite this, because of the “law” that mother has kept that poor brain dead man emaciated to this day because the courts would not acknowledge the fact that she had alienated him and he had legal health care powers of attorney with his Life Partner of 10 years…….that is the reality of not allowing us to marry and have the same civil rights as straight couples!
327. David Tester wrote:
“#315……I am ready for you (tomorrow morning)…..so how is the ability for me to have the same civil right to marry affecting you???”
I really hope you accidentally put the wrong number in your quote, because #315 was my reply to your #278. Otherwise, your reply makes no sense. I stated I support gay marriage.
322. “Spock with a Crowbar (real name Lukas Ketner) – May 27, 2009
and denying gays any rights that straights have IS WRONG.”
I agree.
Fortunately, that’s not the case.
“#318– People aren’t upset cause they didn’t get their way, it’s not a temper tantrum. They are upset because they feel Prop 8 is unconstitutional and that a second class standing for gays is codified into the CA Constitution. And they have every right to seek redress in the Courts. Our system acknowledges that the majority can be very wrong and misguided. ”
Who are we kidding?
First of all, the NO on 8 campaign was found to be filled with lies and anti-religious bigotry.
Following the pasing of 8, we saw what these “innocent victims” -who happen to have the same rights as everyone else- really were: violent mobs who sought to “out” and punish anyone and everyone who-in their rights- voted and supported the opposing viewpoint. People were hurt. People lost their jobs.
Perez Hilton anyone? That hate-mongering biggot who set up Miss California only so that he could punish he for her wrong answer.
Yeah, if the gay lobby has a face, it would be that of Perez Hilton. So yeah- I stand behind my word: wait for free speech to dissipate.
So again: it isn’t about rights- for rights are already equal- it’s about government forced acceptance.
“REALLY; I have as many civil rights as anyone else???? Bullshit…..in South Carolina I have no reciprocal rights with my life partner of 10 years and even my will can be overturned in this state with a very simple no cost challenge because a “blood relative” has more legal rights here than my partner of 10 years does…..that’s a fact you moron….”
Name calling does not help. Name calling can only be responded to with further name calling. It might feel good in the moment, but this is an issue that is too important to waste on it.
Let’s spell out what his actual argument is: he believes you have the same right to marry as anyone else: you have the right to marry someone of the opposite sex. You and I both disagree with this, but it does sound good to some people. A reasonable and direct response must be made, because name calling is not going to convince anyone.
The fact is that such a relationship would not be emotionally or physically satisfying to you, but that a similar relationship, differing only in the gender of one of the parties involved, would be.
That opportunity is not readily available to you because homosexuality has not been an acceptable part of the dominant culture, and would therefore…bother a lot of people. This seems to me, and to many people (but not everyone) an insufficient and indefensible reason to continue to deny your fellow human beings that specific opportunity.
I think that if someone were to respond to that argument by calling me names or misinterpreting what I am trying to say, it would be pretty clear which argument was the better one.
#338……I meant #313….I sincerely apologize, as this is not a pretty or dignified fight, and I mistook your number. Again I apologize!
Where can I find the empirical evidence for homosexuality? A scientist a few years ago claimed he may have found a gene for homosexuality and then recanted his findings a few years later. There is no scientific evidence to conclude that homosexuality is an inate trait, it is a choice.
Oh I grow tired and weary of being attacked for my very essence of who I am……..I can only imagine how George Takei felt over the years and how badly he must have wanted to hit someone…..he was my Uncle’s age and (no my uncle didn’t have aids but cancer) he was fraught with the same discrimination in a hospital in Dallas, Texas because they thought they might “catch” something from him…….as always ignorance breads fear as is very clear from the uneducated dark ages posts on here…….but, I had hoped for better from my colleagues of “Trek”; we are trying to better ourselves according to Gene, right? On that note I sign off exhausted and but ready to take on the hypocrites and haters of another day…..
Live Long and Prosper!
David Tester
Lifelong Star Trek Fan
Lifelong Gay American
I am really going to bed on the east coast here and won’t be fighting back, remember that when you come up with your logical, rational ideas to discriminate against my civil rights!!!
God Bless George and Brad for speaking out on the rights of gays everywhere. Someday we will be recognized properly as the good people we are.
“But, while we’re on the subject — most gay men tend to not be very monogamous.”
That is a completely irrelevant point. Even if most gay men were not “very monogamous” (a label that could be applied to many of the straight men I know) how would that effect what rights should and shouldn’t be available to those gay men who are monogamous? Most of the marriages I’ve been around have failed miserably–but I want very much to be married and I would hate to have someone use someone else’s mistakes to judge my own choices.
“Yeah, if the gay lobby has a face, it would be that of Perez Hilton. So yeah- I stand behind my word: wait for free speech to dissipate.”
I find it very difficult to believe that Perez Hilton is endangering my free speech.
“To be honest, I don’t know why gays want an ‘official’ marriage from the State anyway. It’s done nothing for hetero’s except cause anguish during divorce!!”
If you are being honest, I refer you to post 337. There are legal benefits that two people living together in a committed relationship would find very important.
“There is no scientific evidence to conclude that homosexuality is an inate trait, it is a choice.”
Do we really need any? Isn’t it enough that many people of the same gender want to be married, a desire that would in no way effect anyone besides the adults involved?
There is no scientific evidence to support any number of things people do: buying no-hormone milk, paying money to see psychics, and so on and so forth. But if it’s not hurting anyone, why make it illegal?
“There are legal benefits that two people living together in a committed relationship would find very important.”
So true. Marriage confers approximately 1400 State and Federal rights.
——
“There is no scientific evidence to conclude that homosexuality is an inate trait, it is a choice.”
And conversely, there’s no proof that it isn’t an inate trait. With the breakthroughs of DNA and science of late, what we know, don’t know or think we know, changes almost on a daily basis. That’s what is so great about science as opposed to rigid religiousity….science is open to self-correction.
Anybody wanting to bar gays from getting married would also have stood alongside George Wallace as he barred Vivian Malone and James Hood from entering the University of Alabama.
Same thing, different era. Purge the hate from your hearts, folks. That’s what it is, no matter how much you deny it, or try to justify it with your holy books.
BTW, Right Wing Trekker,
I agree completely that the government should have nothing to do with marriage, but as 347 krizkil pointed out, it does beyond the hope of making the two exclusive.
Marriage brings with it rights, tax breaks, and other benefits that gays have been barred from participating in.
http://www.fda.gov/cber/faq/msmdonor.htm
I always hear how loving and tolerant the homosexual is. I hear it is just such a loving and normal relationship. Yet you cannot even donate blood? Spare me this garbage of how normal it is. You cannot even donate blood for Pete’s sake.You proudly take up for a lifestyle that has killed millions of its own but are upset when people oppose the lifestyle?With all of your constant crying,moaning, and civil unrest at the first slight, do you really think you will get people to accept you more easily??
Brant Hodge – You flaunt your ignorance. You choose to hate rather than educate yourself, looking only for evidence and reasons to back up your position. I’ll pray for you.
#315: “Did you even read the article? I’m not trying obvuscate anything, nor do I work for Rush Limbaugh. I say again, that all of the arguments for and against gay marriage can be used for sibling marriage: two people LOVE each other, they are not hurting anyone else, they have a right to be together, etc. If you still don’t believe me, go back to the first post, start reading, and substitute “gay” with “sibling”. The articles still make sense, both for and against. BTW, did you notice I prefaced my message with the fact that I support gay marriage? I don’t think Limbaugh would approve.”
Okay, if I took your reponse incorrectly I apologize, however, here is the crux of my argument for your posting to which I took umbrage.
It seems when almost every argument is made against gays a few topics always pop up. I find it offensive that homosexuality almost always is equated with murderers, bestiality, abortion, incest, paganism, promiscuity, etc.
The reality of the matter is gays put on their pants one leg at a time, they work, they pay their taxes (though in this case receiving unequal representation), love their parents, siblings, and some who are lucky enough, get to go home to a loved one with the hopes of building a life together.
People on both sides all often too forget while they are busy demonizing the other that each of us are human with the same wants and needs.
Whether I read the first posting or not, I am offended that so many writers feel a need to equate being gay with some other societal obscenity (and seem to think nothing of the fact or are oblivious to the fact they are being insulting)…
And again I apologize… and if both you and I share common ground agreeing that Rush Limbaugh would not approve about supporting gay marriages, all the better (grin).
“349. Spock with a Crowbar – May 27, 2009
BTW, Right Wing Trekker,
I agree completely that the government should have nothing to do with marriage, but as 347 krizkil pointed out, it does beyond the hope of making the two exclusive.
Marriage brings with it rights, tax breaks, and other benefits that gays have been barred from participating in.”
They haven’t been barred by anyone but themselves.
What gays have been barred from marriage?
Elton John?
Richard Hatch?
Frank Lindh?
At the end of the day, we are all equal. You have the same rights and as I do. Likewise, I have the same restrictions as you. We all play the game with the same rules.
“343. David Tester – May 27, 2009
Oh I grow tired and weary of being attacked for my very essence of who I am……..I ”
What’s that? Ful of crap?
Save it for someone who believes you.
“345. Adrick – May 27, 2009
“Yeah, if the gay lobby has a face, it would be that of Perez Hilton. So yeah- I stand behind my word: wait for free speech to dissipate.”
I find it very difficult to believe that Perez Hilton is endangering my free speech.”
Try talking to Carrie Prejean sometime about gay tolerance and how they are out to punish dissent.
***********
If the system is truly broke, then either change the rules for everyone and not just the people who practice homosexuality… or maintain the status quo.
“210. Rich – May 27, 2009
Star Trek is a world where inequality, intolerance and fear has no place. It is a utopian society for that very reason.
as represented by the Vulcan Idic – “Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations”
A faux Utopian society where everyone agrees with everything is an impossibility unless dissent is conquered and oppressed.
That scenareo is in direct opposition of IDIC.
In order for IDIC to be a possibility, then dissent, social conservatism and even religion must be included.
But you won’t get that by suppressing others.
#315 tlh1138 -
1. You’re ignoring some of the psychology of the situation. The context of sex changes all the time within society based on the relationship of the individuals. Though not all are illegal, many are improper and will get you fired, sued, etc. The psychology of sibling relationships most especially makes them bad for love. 2. Likewise, even if it was legal, it would obviously be severely restricted. We have to draw a line somewhere.
So there is a wide gulf when you compare that to homosexuality. Gender is a much more fundamental issue. Denying homosexuality is like denying someone the right to love. With the prior example, you’re denying a few choices based on social principles.
We can argue the legality of each situation, but I’m simply saying that they can’t be compared so obviously. Many of these sexual “preferences” tend to get lumped together, but doing so removes all of the nuance. Each represents their own case.
Brad –
As far as I’m concerned, there are only good opinions and bad opinions. When one doesn’t have good reasoning for infringing upon another’s actions, then it is typically because one isn’t interested in anything logical. That is when one uses that word. I don’t care if the idea is religious or not.
Anyway, marriage evolves. For a long time marriage was pre-arranged, although I find restriction of choice sort of wrong in its own right depending upon the context. I fail to see, however, how the potential for more loving relationships will really hurt this institution. And I don’t want to hear anything about how times were better. Yeah, the good ole days were great with corruption, religious hypocrisy, communist paranoia, and racial inequality. As far as I’m concerned, the law should exist to protect. Attempting to control every facet of behavior doesn’t work. We’re still hampered by old prejudices passed down from generation to generation. Once we begin evaluating everything, then we can see what causes true potential harm. Slippery slope arguments don’t work here.
“I was hit on and even inappropriately touched by gay men while I was there, and I decided to leave.”
You just found the perfect argument against heterosexual relationships. Men inappropriately hit on women, let’s just ban it all. Maybe heterosexuals and homosexuals are more alike than we all think.
354-
“A faux Utopian society”
I wouldn’t want to live in utopia. Nor do I believe we’re particularly suited for such an existence as a species. Utopia isn’t necessarily good for dissent. In fact, it isn’t terribly keen on internal conflict in general. Conflict creates tension in society. Tension leads to violence and other forms of unrest. Most philosophers (Plato, Huxley, etc.) envision utopian society as authoritarian because you can’t really have such a place without employing a very heavy hand.
And despite appearances to the contrary, what we call the United Federation of Planets does fall into that category.
The trend of portraying the UFP as flawed started with TUC and TNG. But it really got going on DS9, which didn’t pull any punches when it came to deconstructing the whole Federation mythos.
Utopia has a secret police force that carries out extrajudicial executions and assasinations. Utopia has a colonial empire and “strategic interests.” Utopia has a military that isn’t terribly loyal to the civilian government. Utopia ridicules and mocks ideologies that don’t conform to the prevailing orthodoxy. Utopia is deeply hypocritical when it comes to “inalienable human rights.” Utopia isn’t terribly tolerant of religion either (especially the weird wormhole alien variety). Conformity is so apparent that everyone – even civilians – dresses in the same drab uniforms and listens to the same music. Nobody uses swear words either.
The reason why 24th century Earth is so boring is because everyone there have pretty much drank the UFP kool aid. They believe in the “we work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity” propaganda. There’s no war, no poverty, no crime, no unemployment, and no disease. Of course, they don’t think much about the darker elements of Paradise. That’s somebody else’s job.
Of course, Abrams has changed the rules. And it appears the utopian elements have been abandoned, or toned down significantly, in the new continuity.
Right Wing Trekker -
Who is advocating for the limitations of free speech? We all have the right to call each other bigots. You seem just as sensitive to it as the opposite side is. I tend to side with homosexuals, however, because they actually know what it’s like to be oppressed. They’ve been tormented and killed all across the globe. Christians cry all the time about being persecuted, but last time I checked, they had a majority in the US, were in just about every position of power, and have laws granting freedom to practice religion (although such a thing doesn’t mean that they have protection from other laws in practicing their religion). Enough of this separate but equal thing too. If they truly are equal, then make it so. Polygamy is not the same thing. We’re not talking about kinds of relationships. We’re talking about kinds of sexual preferences. The latter is more fundamental of an issue than the former. Fundamental rights need to be addressed and secured first. Sexuality is kind of ambiguous, but many cannot choose preference. Anybody can choose a kind of relationship.
351. Canon Schmanon – May 27, 2009
Brant Hodge – You flaunt your ignorance. You choose to hate rather than educate yourself, looking only for evidence and reasons to back up your position. I’ll pray for you.
CANON,
While your at it please pray for the millions your proud lifestyle have killed. I love it when someone disagrees with your lifestyle it is automatically “ignorance,intolerance,hate”. You people know no other words. Humanity lost sight ages ago of telling right from wrong and this is one of those cases. Some things are just wrong but people want to excuse their way out of it. I don’t hate homosexuals at all. I just wish they didnt do what they do. If my desire for all people to live normal,loving relationships free from a lifestyle that could cause my “partner”to die or has such a high rate of suicide makes me a hater in your world, then so be it.
Many voted for Prop 8 because it was a court ruling making law. It was the judiciary doing the legislature’s job. This sets a dangerous precedent regardless of the issue.
289 “proponents of Prop8 are bigots…intolerant…and misinformed”. That’s wholely inaccurate, wrong, it’s outright mean. Not to mention, it does nothing to bolster support for proponents of gay marriage. It’s no more bigoted to favor male-female marriage than it is to favor only two persons in a marriage. BTW, I’m not against same-gender marriage, but it’s so obvious that same-sex marriage proponents cast the word “bigot” as easily as Jeremiah Wright casts out the word “racist”. So, regardless of one’s position on Prop8, knock it off!
“And if you don’t understand why it isn’t smart for siblings or cousins to marry you should read up on the dangers of inbreading.” Wait a minute. I thought one of the arguments favoring gay marriage was that marriage isn’t about procreation. But when it comes to siblings marrying, then it’s about procreation??? The hypicrisy is incredibly apparant. If the argument of progreation is sufficient to ban sibling marriage, then it should be sufficient to ban gay marriage.
“And, yes, more than two people, who are consenting adults, should be allowed to marry.” Well, at least you’re consistent, I gotta give you that. But based on you statement, anyone who is against plural marriage must also therefore be a bigot according to your definition of the word.
@ 335. NX Class
I really don’t know how to explain it, and I know we are both looking through different paradigms, but I can tell you, there was nothing of choice involved – except choosing to be honest with myself. I can also tell you that I did not suffer from esteem problems, and I had girlfriends before coming to terms with my innermost feelings, which I vehemently denied for some time. I come from a normal, loving family and grew up in a very typical environment.
Trying to say that its a product of institution does not work, because there are gays who grew up in many many different scenarios, families, cultures and all walks of life.
It’s easy to postulate that it’s a choice or a product of your environment when it’s something you have no first-hand experience with.
I have read all of these posts. I asked if anyone could provided me any real proof that gay marriage would harm straight marriage. All I have been met with so far has been hyperbole, obfuscation, and conjecture.
So I submit that if there is no real proof that the American Family is in danger from gay marriage, what other reason is there to block it than fear, ignorance, and hate?
#359 Brant Hodge
“While your at it please pray for the millions your proud lifestyle have killed.”
This is an example of an ignorant statement. I’ll tell you what: I’ll pray for all the victims of AIDS and I will go one better. I will pray for all the people killed in the name of God.
335, 362 -
What arouses a sexual desire in someone is simply not a matter of choice.
Who one falls for is also not a choice. It simply is.
THX-1138 – May 28, 2009
359 Brant Hodge
“While your at it please pray for the millions your proud lifestyle have killed.”
This is an example of an ignorant statement. I’ll tell you what: I’ll pray for all the victims of AIDS and I will go one better. I will pray for all the people killed in the name of God.
Millions of people have died over the last several years over this disease.Please dont even try to deny the majority of this is from homosexual sex. I have been happily and faithfully married to the same woman for over 20 years. I don’t have to worry about what my behavior will do to my wife. Can homosexuals say the same thing? You promote a lifestyle that has caused millions to die. You are the ignorant one.
364 – OneBuckFilms “What arouses a sexual desire in someone is simply not a matter of choice. Who one falls for is also not a choice. It simply is.”
Those are inconsistent arguments for supporting same-gender marriage. If I fall in love with my sister, it’s illegal for us to get married. If I fall in love with my wife’s sister, she can’t join our existing marriage, because that’s ploygamy, and it’s illegal.
We have a word for people who marry out of feelings and sexual desire: divorced. Legal marriage is simply a contract betweel two persons that those two persons choose to get into, and nothing else.
Mature love, the kind that we’re supposed to have in marriage, is not a feeling, but a decision. We don’t promise to “feel” love, we promise to love. Two different things. Marriage in and of itself is completely decision-based. The feelings follow the decisions, not the other way around. Feelings are fickle, change all the time, and are usually poor indicators for objective decision making.
#365-Brant Hodge
There you go with your obfuscation of the topic at hand. Tell me, do you get sand in your ears when you bury your head like that? Or do your ears pop from you sense of lofty righteousness? Jesus Christ himself preached that all are welcome in the Kingdom, yet his most devout are the first to bar the door to admittance. Less than a loving gesture from those who espouse the virtue of the God of love.
How’s that for obfuscating the subject?
And just to make a comparison, AIDS is no more a gay disease than nachos are a Mexican food. Educate yourself to the facts.
THX-1138 – May 28, 2009
#365-Brant Hodge
There you go with your obfuscation of the topic at hand. Tell me, do you get sand in your ears when you bury your head like that? Or do your ears pop from you sense of lofty righteousness? Jesus Christ himself preached that all are welcome in the Kingdom, yet his most devout are the first to bar the door to admittance. Less than a loving gesture from those who espouse the virtue of the God of love.
How’s that for obfuscating the subject?
Hmmm..lets see…oh yes the topic…The voters of California told the homosexuals what they think of gay marriage. You got told where to go… Deal with it….
348-
I imagine they would have. Look, the Church is an institution created by and for man. And it carries all of the baggage that comes with that: prejudice; hatred; violence; ignorance; and so forth.
But these things will correct themselves in the long run because I believe in a just and merciful God. There is, if I may borrow a scientific term, an evolution taking place. Some are more cognizant and accepting of it than others. However, I do not see the current state of affairs as permanent. Prominent conservative William F. Buckley once said that his calling in life is to “thwart history.” But one can only thwart history while one’s still alive.
Even institutions that lay claim to having an eternal monopoly on truth must give way to history (eventually). The Church recently acknowledged that it committed a “grave sin” in persecuting Galileo and other Renaissance scientists. That’s about 500 years too late. But better late than never. I suspect it will have much apologizing to do in the future as well.
Hey Brant: What do you want to bet that Prop 8 get’s over-turned in the not so distant future? Will you be able to “deal with it” then?
The proposition is wrong, and is motivated and enacted for all the wrong reasons. You also seem to be under the misguided assumption that I am gay. You would be wrong. I got told nothing about “where to go”.
The future is ever-changing. As I said before, it may not happen today or tomorrow. But it will happen. Eventually doing the right thing and not withholding rights from people will be the norm. Those who cannot tolerate these changes will pass away, and so will their repressive ideals, as they have for all of recorded history. It is a matter of time.
I wasn’t going to respond directly to the flames. But lets just say Brant inspired me.
“The voters of California told the homosexuals what they think of gay marriage.”
- Yes, they did. That’s not a disputed fact.
“You got told where to go”
- To the back of the bus where they belong? Yes, you certainly told them. Such a proud moment of ownage that was too. Perhaps you should do a print screen and show your grandkids how you defended marriage in a glorious battle with dying, sick 80 pound AIDS patients.
371-
I’m not gay either. I just don’t like bullies.
Telling sick people they deserve to suffer, and then rubbing it in their face that they’re going to die as “lesser” human beings than the rest of us? That is downright despicable.
Good people can disagree on the specific issue of same-sex marriage (especially as it relates to religion). But to treat homosexuals as sub-human scum and inherently diseased is unacceptable.
366 – It is neither an argument for or against. Simply dispelling the notion that homosexuality is unnatural.
I was not the one who though it to be actually relevent in the first place.
366 – Speak for yourself. I pity the fact that you have a marriage of well considered convenience.
The decision to uproot my life and career in the UK was not based on logic alone, and would not have been made if it were.
It was as much made from the heart.
But again, I was simply refuting a lie.
This thread has finally devolved to insults, lies and nothing remotely Star Trek. Again, I say… this subject should be debated, but I still cannot figure out why it should be debated here.
And for the nitpickers, yes…I have said that before.
363. THX-1138 (This will be a very long posting. I apologize in advance for it’s length. I’d hoped to post earlier in the day, when your posting was fresher, but I ran into issues).
I think I can help. Or at least I hope I can. The trouble is, you and many others here on this forum will at the very least disagree with what I have to say. Some of you will just downright not like it, or you will just dismiss it. But tolerance purports to promote an open mind and forward thinking. This is what I was trying to point out earlier with regard to tolerance. It only works as you agree with those who promote tolerance. But I digress, that is another subject. In order to answer your question I am going to have to refer to the Bible. Again, I know there are many on this forum who do not agree with the Bible, think it is just a book of fiction at worst or a nice historical book at best. Some of you even hate it. That is fine with me, I harbor no ill will against you. I believe the Bible is God’s Word to man. I could go into why I believe this way, giving you some historical proof, however, that is a discussion for another time, and I don’t believe anyone will really care as to my reasoning, but again that is fine.
To answer your question, why would homosexual marriage harm straight marriage, you really need to go to the beginning. For those of us who are people of faith, marriage is more than just about laws or civil rights. For us, marriage is transcended from God Himself. In the book of Job we find this: “Ask the animals, and they will teach you,” says Job, “and the birds of the air, and they will tell you” (Job 12:7, 8). In this case, order is one of the overwhelming messages with which creation bombards us. From the atom to the solar system, from photosynthesis to the cleansing tides, from the human body to the design of a chicken egg – everywhere we look we see obvious indications of purposeful design in the things God has made. This, of course, is a serious problem for those who argue that the universe is the product of “random, mindless forces.”
The same element of order is apparent in the social systems God has instituted. Here are six that I see in Scripture: family, labor, church, state, community, and the relationship between man and his Maker. But the order we detect in this area is not simply an expression of the Lord’s creative design. Instead, it flows out of His very nature. It is a reflection of who He is. As Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, the Triune God embodies in Himself the ultimate resolution of the old philosophical problem of “the one and the many.” He exemplifies diversity within unity and the answer to why it is “not good for man to be alone” is bound up in the Triune Essence. Relationship, union, communion, intimacy, fellowship, love, and community – these things have existed from all eternity within the economy of the Godhead. Accordingly, they serve as the basis for the smooth and ordered functioning of creation. It is for this very reason, that basic social institutions such as marriage, family, and church have come under such heavy attack in our day. In Genesis 2:18 it says . . .”It is not good for the man to be alone. I will make a helper suitable for him.”
Now right here, please notice something. Throughout Genesis 1, the Bible says that God saw that it was good. After each thing He created, He called it good. But here, He says “It is NOT GOOD”. Why does he say this? Here we have the first man who is in the garden which God created, and God says that it is NOT GOOD for the man to be alone. Why? Becuase for the first time in history, aloneness was encountered. One defines aloneness. But then God says “I will make a helper suitable for him.” So if you read the account you see further that in His attemtps to find a suitable helper for Adam that God created the beasts of the field and so forth, but it further tells us that no suitable helper was found for him. So God causes Adam to fall into a deep sleep. Now I must stop right here and ask this question: You cannot have a discussion about this issue WITHOUT asking this question: We know that the next passage tells that God created the woman. Why didn’t God just create another man? And I don’t mean to point this out in the way that those do who always parrot “It was Adam and Eve not Adam and Steve”, because I don’t feel this advances the discussion at all. In all seriousness, why do you think that God didn’t just create another man? Why does God and the Bible go to the trouble to point out that God created a female? And besides, why not just make another male? Now I know that many of you on this forum do not believe in the creation account as presented in the Bible, because being the logical and scientific folk that most of you are, the Bible can’t be true, since it needs to be accepted by faith. Personally, I have a hard time believing that “random chance” contributed to the creation of the universe. Back to my question. Why didn’t God just create another male? Because God, in his infinite wisdom knew that it was not possible for a man to become “one flesh” with another man. Two defines relationship and intimacy. Sure you can commit sodomy with another man, but this was not how God designed it. Why do you think it says in Genesis 2:24 “For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and they will become one flesh.” The word wife here denotes the female, not another male. Another man can never be called “wife”. Therefore, this makes the husband and wife the FOUNDATION of the family. Like it or NOT children CANNOT be created without a man and a woman. 2 men by themselves will never be able to produce life. They will always need a surrogate female. Likewise 2 women by themselves will never be able to produce life. They will always need some sort of sperm donation from a male. This makes the family with a husband and wife God’s divine design. The family has been the bedrock of society for thousands of years, but will be threatened if homosexual marriage becomes legal. Why, you ask?
First, when the state sanctions homosexual relationships and gives them its blessing, the younger generation becomes confused about sexual identity and quickly loses its understanding of lifelong commitments, emotional bonding, sexual purity the role of children in a family, and, from a spiritual perspective, the “sanctity” of marriage. Marriage is reduced to something of a partnership that provides attractive benefits and sexual convenience but cannot offer the intimacy described in Genesis. Cohabitation and short-term relationships are the inevitable result. Ask the Norwegians, the Swedes and people from the Netherlands. That is exactly what is happening there. (Kurtz, “End of Marriage in Scandanavia” p. 27)
Second, the introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man/one-woman unions. In Utah, Tom Greene, who claims five wives, is citing “Lawrence v. Texas” as the legal authority for his appeal. In January 2004, a Salt Lake City civil rights attorney filed a federal lawsuit on behalf of another couple wanting to engage in legal polygamy. Their justification? “Lawrence v. Texas”. The ACLU of Utah has actually suggested that the state will “have to step up to prove that a polygamous relationship is detrimental to society” – as opposed to the polygamists having to prove that plural marriage is not harmful to the culture. Why will gay marriage set the table for polygamy? Because there is no place to stop once that Rubicon has been crossed. Historically, the definition of marriage has rested on a foundation of tradition, legal precedent, theology and the overwhelming support of the people. After the introduction of marriage between homosexuals, however, it will be supported by nothing more substantial than the opinion of a single judge or by a black-robed panel of judges. After they have reached their dubious decisions, the family will consist of little more than someone’s interpretation of “rights.” Given that unstable legal climate, it is certain that some self-possessed judge, somewhere will soon rule that three men or three women can marry. Or five men and two women. Or four and four. Who will be able to deny them that right? The guarantee is implied, we will be told, by the Constitution. Those who disagree will continue to be seen as hatemongers and bigots. How about group marriage? Or marriage between daddies and little girls? How about marriage between a man and his donkey? Anything allegedly linked to “civil rights” will be doable. The legal underpinnings for marriage will have been destroyed. You don’t believe me? The destruction of traditional marriage is the ultimate goal of activists. Judith Levine, writing in the “Village Voice”, offered support for this idea in an article titled “Stop the Wedding: Why Gay Marriage Isn’t Radical Enough.”(29 July 2003 p. 40) She wrote, “Because American marriage is inextricable from Christianity, it admits participants as Noah let animals on the ark. But it doesn’t have to be that way. In 1972 the National Coalition of Gay Organizations demanded the ‘repeal of all legislative provisions that restrict the sex or number of persons entering into a marriage unit; and extension of legal benefits to all persons who cohabit regardless of sex or numbers.’ Group marriage could comprise any combination of genders.
What will happen sociologically if marriage becomes anything or everything or nothing? The short answer is that the state will lose its compelling interest in marital relationships altogether. After marriage has been redefined, divorces will be obtained instantly, will not involve a court, and will take on the status of a driver’s license or a hunting permit. With the family out of the way, all rights and privileges of marriage will accrue to gay and lesbian partners without the legal entanglements and commitments heretofore associated with it. Legalizing homoxexual marriage will change everything, especially for the institution of the family. This is one reason and the biggest why homosexual marriage will harm heterosexual marriage and the family. Some other reasons to not support gay marriage:
Public schools in every state will be forced to embrace homosexuality. With the legalization of homosexual marriage, every public school in the nation will be required to teach this as the moral equivalent of traditional marriage between a man and a woman. Textbooks, even in conservative regions, will have to depict man/man and woman/woman relationships, and stories written for children as young as elementary school, or even kindergarten, will have to give equal space and emphasis to homosexuals. How can a child, fresh out of toddlerhood, comprehend the meaning of adult sexuality? The answer is that they can’t – yet it is happening in the state of California already. (California State Legislature Bills: AB 499 (1998), AB 537 (1999), AB 1785 (2000), AB 1931 (2000), AB 1945 (2000), SB 257 (2001). See http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/billinfo.html).
Adoption laws will be instantly obsolete. From the moment homosexual marriage becomes legal, courts will not be able to favor a traditional coupling of one man and one woman in matters of adoption. children will be placed in homes with parents representing only one sex on an equal basis with those having a mom and a dad. Even the polyamorous couples won’t be excluded. The prospect of fatherless and motherless children will not be considered in the evaluation of eligibility. It will be the law.
Foster-care programs will be impacted dramatically. Foster-care parents will be required to undergo “sensitivity training” to rid themselves of bias in favor of heterosexuality, and will have to affirm homosexuality in children and teens. Moral training, at least as it applies to sexuality, will be forbidden. This is the current law in California. (Evan Halper and Carl Ingram, “Legislators Speed Through Final Bills,” “LA Times”, 9 September 2003 B1).
Finally, religious freedom will almost certainly be jeopardized. In order to get a perspective on where the homosexual activist movement is taking us, one can simply look at our neighbors to the north. Canada has led the way on this revolutionary path. There are dozens of examples indicating that religious freedom in that country is dying. Indeed, on April 28, 2004, the Parliament passed Bill C-250, which effectively criminalized speech or writings that criticize homosexuality. Anything deemed to be “homophobic” is punishable by six months in prison or other severe penalties. (Lynn Vincent, “Parliament OKs Law to Criminalize Speech Deemed ‘Anti-Gay’”, “World Magazine, 8 May 2004). Could this kind of censorship come to the US? Without a doubt. Some of it already has with various states trying to pass “Hate-Crimes Legislation”. Once homosexual marriage is legalized nationwide, if indeed that is where we are headed, laws based on “equality” will bring many changes in the law. Guaranteed, we could not be having this debate on this forum which Anthony has so graciously allowed, because those who disagree would not be able to freely do so.
I realize not all people have been gracious of respectful in their comments. I hope I have been. THX-1138, I realize this has been a long note for your question, and I apoligize. It’s so hard to condense the things I wanted to say. I know that you will probably pooh-pooh many of the reasons I have cited here, but I’ve done the best I can to hopefully attempt to answer the question you asked.
Peace.
371. THX-1138 – May 28, 2009
Hey Brant: What do you want to bet that Prop 8 get’s over-turned in the not so distant future? Will you be able to “deal with it” then?
The proposition is wrong, and is motivated and enacted for all the wrong reasons. You also seem to be under the misguided assumption that I am gay. You would be wrong. I got told nothing about “where to go”.
The future is ever-changing. As I said before, it may not happen today or tomorrow. But it will happen. Eventually doing the right thing and not withholding rights from people will be the norm. Those who cannot tolerate these changes will pass away, and so will their repressive ideals, as they have for all of recorded history. It is a matter of time.
THX,
Will I be able to deal with it then? To honestly answer your question..I severely doubt it. I dont like Obama and didnt vote for him. However, the American people voted and I accepted my choice lost and I am “dealing with it”. My side got their butts kicked and I acknowledge that. I want to be clear on something. I dont want any human being to suffer(if the earlier poster was referring to me). I abhor aids and the death and destruction it creates. As I said in an earlier post I simply wish that people didnt live that lifestyle to begin with but my point was you dont see a lot of married straight couples dying of this disease, do you? Yes, people can go back and forth until they are blue in the face about rather you are born gay or its a choice. My belief is it is a choice and therefore something you can avoid. Obviously most on here would not agree with my opinion. I do find it ironic that while some on here seem to think I relish gay people to be sick or dying yet some of here cant seem to wait for all the old people in California to die off just so they can get their bills passed? That is scary indeed.
377-
This is a more intelligible argument against same-sex marriage than most of what I’ve seen here. And it warrants a thoughtful response. The theology one cannot really argue with. You either accept the Bible as inerrant or you do not. Although I’m of the latter category, I respect and accept that you have a perspective that’s grounded in your religious beliefs as you see it.
Though some of your supporting scientific arguments I think is predicated conclusions I wouldn’t necessarily draw from the available evidence.
1. Quick Divorce. You can already obtain an instant divorce in 49 states (assuming both spouses agree). The only state without no-fault divorce in this country is New York. How exactly are the gays reponsible for this when they aren’t allowed to marry in 44 of these states?
2. Unmarried Cohabitation. Although you posit this trend as a negative, the increasing reliance of straight couples on “domestic partnership” has made marriage much more stable. Commitment to marriage is much too frivolous in our country. If it comes only after many years of cohabitating with potential spouses, then you’ll see more stability in the long run. This means higher turnover in the short term as Kurtz reports.
But in the long term, it also results in a lower divorce rate. Only 38.5% of marriages in the Netherlands end in divorce compared to half in the US. The numbers are even lower in Spain (another same-sex marriage country).
3. Slippery Slope. The only country where polygamy, bigamy, and same-sex marriage are all legal is South Africa (which constitutionally protects the right to marry). Although the country suffers from many social ills, including high crime and a serious AIDS epidemic, it is hardly clear that this has anything to do with the libertarian marriage law. The residual effects of apartheid – a lack of education and poverty – are just as likely culpruits. There are no other examples because the slope has never slid in any other country.
With respect to legalizing homosexuality as a “slippery slope” to same-sex or polygamous marriage, your examples are only valid if the courts actually accepted such arguments as legitimate. As those cases were all dismissed, it stands to reason that nobody in the judicary believes there’s any connection between repealing sodomy laws and marriage per se.
4. Adoption. Courts rule based on what’s in the best interest of the child on a case by case basis. All same-sex marriage would do is prove that a particular applicant has stable finances and a family life. How much that matters depends on the judge hearing the case. Gays can already adopt children in 44-45 states as either “single parents” or “partners.” The practice is banned in MS, AR, UT, OK, and MI. Although Florida’s ban was struck down by a state court as unconstitutional last year, the state is appealing that decision.
5. Free Speech. Europe and Canada is different from the United States. There’s no concept of constitutionally protected “free speech” because they would say it cheapens the act of public speaking. If you’re never legally responsible for what you say or write, then you assume no responsibility for your actions. Thus, a Canadian might say that Americans abuse their right to speak by exercising it in irresponsible, malicious, and libelous ways.
And as I understand it, most of these laws applies only to speech in a public forum that’s factually untrue, does not involve disagreements over religious doctrine, and “subjective” debate around taste. That is certainly the case in Canada (Her Majesty The Queen v James Keegstra, 1990).
Under either Canadian or U.S. law, there’s no chance of prosecution here. This is a privately owned site. There’s never a right to free speech on private property. The First Amendment applies only to the government. And neither you or I are public servants conversing in a public setting. Our right to speak is not granted by the state. It is granted by the proprietor of this site.
You silly Americans! In a couple decades you’ll look back on this the same way you now look at segregation.
“Try talking to Carrie Prejean sometime about gay tolerance and how they are out to punish dissent.”
I had to look that one up. I refuse to accept the ravings of a pretentious, juvenile gossip monger over an answer given in a beauty pageant as the best or most relevant example of the gay marriage movement. In any heated debate, whether over gay marriage or the proper way to change toner in a copier, there are going to be people on both sides demonizing the other.
My opinions on this issue were determined by careful consideration of the idea itself, not the radical extremes on BOTH sides perpetuated by colorful media figures.
I have to admit, I find it somewhat disappointing that almost the only direct response I’ve received was referring me to the rantings of a puffed up celebrity “journalist”.
I see a lot of going back and forth with comments like “Hmmm..lets see…oh yes the topic…The voters of California told the homosexuals what they think of gay marriage. You got told where to go… Deal with it….” and “Tell me, do you get sand in your ears when you bury your head like that? Or do your ears pop from you sutlet for calculated insults and ense of lofty righteousness?” What purpose does this serve?
“Millions of people have died over the last several years over this disease.Please dont even try to deny the majority of this is from homosexual sex.”
I can’t believe that no one has stepped up to clarify or refute this. Surely there are some of you who are better acquainted with this issue than I am.
“I have been happily and faithfully married to the same woman for over 20 years. I don’t have to worry about what my behavior will do to my wife. Can homosexuals say the same thing? You promote a lifestyle that has caused millions to die.”
I can say this:
#1: AIDS does not occur spontaneously as a result of homosexual behavior. It’s a sexually transmitted disease that anyone can get from people who are infected. The fact that you do not have to worry about giving your partner AIDS as a result of your own behavior stems from the fact that you are not having sex with anyone else. Therefore, the continued safety of you and your wife in this case is a result of your committed, monogamous sexual relationship and not specifically the fact the relationship itself is heterosexual.
#2: With that in mind, wouldn’t it be worth a shot making a union sanctioning and verifying a committed relationship between two gay people legal and binding?
“In order to answer your question I am going to have to refer to the Bible. Again, I know there are many on this forum who do not agree with the Bible, think it is just a book of fiction at worst or a nice historical book at best. Some of you even hate it. That is fine with me, I harbor no ill will against you. I believe the Bible is God’s Word to man.”
The problem with using the Bible as a basis for your argument is that it is only going to convince people who also believe that the Bible is God’s Word to man. Many if not most of those same people need no convincing that God forbids homosexuality and that it has no place in a Biblically defined marriage. The issue is whether government, which is mandated to make no laws regarding religion, should recognize homosexual unions. I believe it’s possible to logically say “yes” to that while at the same time maintaining one’s personal belief in the Bible and the idea that homosexuality is forbidden by God.
“Second, the introduction of legalized gay marriages will lead inexorably to polygamy and other alternatives to one-man/one-woman unions.”
“In all seriousness, why do you think that God didn’t just create another man? Why does God and the Bible go to the trouble to point out that God created a female?”
However, this *is* something I’d like to discuss on a religious basis. This has no relevance to the debate itself, but I’m interested in the internal logic of a literal Biblical viewpoint. I’ve already said that assuming God created Adam and Eve to begin the human race, it would make the most sense to produce a breeding pair to start with–Steve at this juncture would be counterproductive. But that is beside the point.
I do admit to being terribly confused about polygamy and the Bible. I’m not entirely sure how you can peer all the way back to the Biblical genesis of Man and use the existence of only one man and one woman to support the ideal of a monogamous marriage, while condemning polygamy, which was practiced thousands of years ago by important Biblical figures like Abraham. It’s a real head scratcher for me.
“Finally, religious freedom will almost certainly be jeopardized.”
Isn’t it true that many of the polygamists base their lifestyle on their interpretation of the Bible? Wouldn’t they argue that the fact that polygamy is illegal is jeopardizing their religious freedom?
#380: thank you.
—
I doubt this will be the last word on the issue (in fact, I know better), besides, I really do not wish to beat the topic to death, but I really want to point out something I see that both sides of the issue have trouble recognizing.
That point? Both sides are no different. i.e., we have more similarities than anyone really wants to admit.
If every person who posted on this thread were to list everything they have done for the past month, 99% of those lists could have been written by someone whose views they think they oppose. It is so much easier demonizing “the enemy,” rather than finding the common ground we live and breathe daily.
For the most part, the discussions here were, more or less, remarkably civil—not all but most (I steer you to the readers’ postings at CBSnews.com’s to illustrate what venomous, truly ugly responses look like).
While I do not claim to speak for everyone… I’d like to make a few observations (having lived on both sides of the fence, so to speak).
For those of you who have trouble accepting that gays and lesbians want the right to get married, it really has little to do with anyone trying to ram anything down your throat (a phrase I have really come to hate); or to slamming their beliefs in one’s face—seriously who has that kind of energy to waste—but are attempting to lead their lives in a fashion that they (we) grew up with. We did, after all, grow up in homes where family (in most cases) means love and security.
If anything, take it as a compliment. You know the old adage, “mimicry is the sincerest form of flattery.”
I’ve seen arguments saying permitting gays the right to marriage is going to be the ruination of the family as we know. Look to Canada, our neighbor to the north, to England or the other European nations that long ago took the plunge, the last time I checked none of these nations have fallen into the precipice of hell. AND honestly, the role of the family has been, for better or worse, in flux for the better part of the last century.
Of course, I argue in favor of marriage. AND I mean for everyone. I believe in equity and fairness.
Again, I want to point out we do have more similarities for which to count our blessings… and really, all this energy could really be put to better use combating matters that truly need our attention… you know, like poverty, discrimination, our dependence on foreign energy sources, disease, environmental issues and ending the war overseas.
Brant Hodge -
Well for one, that’s wrong. AIDS is a perfectly legitimate heterosexual disease. For instance, 2/3 of it occurs in Africa. Now I find this all a bit hypocritical, as homosexuality’s biggest antagonists define the rhetoric by keeping homosexuals from having the very relationships that would legitimize their behavior. They try to force homosexuals into dark corners by outlawing or ostracizing their behavior, and then they dismiss homosexuals as deviants for the very thing they caused. Anybody is capable of carrying a sexual disease. Remove all stability and social parameters, and the chances of carrying one will increase sharply. But homosexuals are just as capable of a loving, stable relationship as heterosexuals, and this is the reason why it will eventually win. Once people see that homosexuals are no different, then most barriers will fall.
#383: ” But homosexuals are just as capable of a loving, stable relationship as heterosexuals, and this is the reason why it will eventually win. Once people see that homosexuals are no different, then most barriers will fall.”
All too true. I personally am friends a number of gay couples. Four in particular have been together nearly as long as my parents (my parents celebrate 40 years this July). Two have been together for 25 years plus, the other two for 35 years.
I defy anyone to say their relationship is any more or any less valid than their heterosexual counterparts.
I really don’t want to hear about anyone’s sexuality, one way or the other. Saw Quinto’s “Milk” video online. Wish I hadn’t. Not too crazy about it.
Why isn’t California worrying about the issues that affect everyone – like the economy and the enviroment. All this marriage legislature is a waste of time and money. California doesn’t have enough of either.
Adrick
I respectfully submit that I may communicate in a different manner than you. And I also know that someone such as yourself has read more than the two sentences of mine that you quoted. I gather from that that you did get the point I was making. Turning the other cheek is fine for some. For me, vitriol will be met in kind. If that doesn’t suit everybody, I’m sorry. But I’m not about to change for an internet forum, so here I am, warts and all.
At a certain point one finds that they are just repeating the same things back and forth to each other and no ground is being gained on either side. This conversation, in this forum, has reached an impasse. It bears no more fruit for me. I have faith that you all will continue on until this article disappears from the page.
#148- I agree 100% with you Nelson L.!
385. Henley – May 29, 2009
“Why isn’t California worrying about the issues that affect everyone – like the economy and the enviroment. All this marriage legislature is a waste of time and money. California doesn’t have enough of either.”
An excellent point. Congrats for one of the few clear thinking posts in the past 388.
JH. Dude, the ol’ bestiality, polygamy, incest, aliens, still-unknown-evil argument might sound good but doesn’t hold water. If folks want to fight for those rights on their own, let them (people can seek whatever they like, but may not — for many reasons — get it)… but these issues truly have nothing to do with same sex marriage, other than that they aren’t currently allowed under the law. You might as well throw assault, murder and flashing in there too and the argument makes as much sense.
There is no ’slippery slope.’ But the argument that there is has always sounded scary.
ps. Anthony, thanks for allowing this discussion here.
“Why isn’t California worrying about the issues that affect everyone – like the economy and the enviroment. All this marriage legislature is a waste of time and money. California doesn’t have enough of either.”
I don’t think setting a precedent, one way or the other, of the way people will be able to live in the future is a waste of time. The economy will wax and wane, but people will always get married.
#377
“(Canada’s Bill C77) effectively criminalized speech or writings that criticize homosexuality.”
Nope. Still free speech up here. Homosexuality can be criticized in speech and writing until the gay cows come home, as long as it’s not of the “we should murder and kill and destroy and beat up all homosexuals (or any other racial, ethnic, gender, religious etc. group) next week” sort. And freedom of religion is protected up here too – part of our charter of rights and freedoms. Nobody is ever making any churches marry anyone they don’t want to.
We had these same “end of the traditional marriage” arguments up here.
Funny, in Alberta — the county’s bible belt — right now the Conservative government is quietly trying to give parents the right to keep their kids home if homosexuality or other religions are mentioned in class. Is awareness of the world really that dangerous?
[...] George Takei Speaks Out Against CA Supreme Court Ruling on Prop 8 … Share and Enjoy: [...]