Gay marriage comes to Oregon : How public officials can defy the will of the voters

Page 4 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

Eli

Super Moderator | Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 9, 1999
50,422
8
81
Sorry Viper, but I'm going to have to disagree with you here..

Homosexual marriage should absolutely be allowed. Any other way is discrimination, period.

I'm glad Portland has at least somewhat of a working brain.
 

ViRGE

Elite Member, Moderator Emeritus
Oct 9, 1999
31,516
166
106
'Bout damn time. Maybe after this, we can start doing more right things like balancing a budget and fixing education... A guy can dream, can't he? ;)

<- Oregon resident
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,620
12,218
136
Since when did sexuality = race ?


edit: and Virge, I think you are dreaming. I know the Multco commissioners well enough to know that they jumped on this issue as a distraction so that they don't have to fix the budget and the schools. But hey, we're gonna get the OHSU sky-tram and the Expos!! woohoo
 

Jumpem

Lifer
Sep 21, 2000
10,757
3
81
Originally posted by: Viper GTS

I'd rather not be grouped with SF & NY.

:Q

Viper GTS
I'm from NY, and I'd rather not be associated with these freaks.:disgust:
 

eigen

Diamond Member
Nov 19, 2003
4,000
1
0
Damn romos clearly breaking the law. This reminds me when all those black people were breaking the law down here in the south.You guys remember what I mean .Like there was that lady that did'nt want to sit at the back of the bus, oh oh, and there were all those blacks gathering in the middle of the street wanting to vote , in clear violation of the law.
 

Entity

Lifer
Oct 11, 1999
10,090
0
0
Viper,

As it's been pointed out, it may be legal -- since legality is always determined based on readings of legal language, and the language, in this case, is ambiguous.

It could be a loophole, but it's a damned big one. The letter of the law (which you advocate following) does not say that marriage must be between males and females 17 years of age, only that participants must be males and females, age 17. Consequently, two males, ages 32 and 34, would qualify to be married under the letter of the law. Since I'm not familiar with the intent of the law, I won't comment there, but just wanted to make sure that was pointed out.

Rob
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,620
12,218
136
Originally posted by: gopunk
Originally posted by: Vic
Since when did sexuality = race ?
huh?
Huh? Since when did this issue become like the Black Civil Right Movement of the 60s? Were entire families of gay people enslaved in the past? Forced to live in ghettos or as indigent sharecroppers? No.
 

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: gopunk
Originally posted by: Vic
Since when did sexuality = race ?
huh?
Huh? Since when did this issue become like the Black Civil Right Movement of the 60s? Were entire families of gay people enslaved in the past? Forced to live in ghettos or as indigent sharecroppers? No.
i don't really see how those differences are relevant, black people should have equal rights as everyone else, regardless of whether or not their families were enslaved or forced to be sharecroppers. black people should have equal rights because they are no less human than the rest of us, not as a reparation.
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,620
12,218
136
Originally posted by: gopunk
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: gopunk
Originally posted by: Vic
Since when did sexuality = race ?
huh?
Huh? Since when did this issue become like the Black Civil Right Movement of the 60s? Were entire families of gay people enslaved in the past? Forced to live in ghettos or as indigent sharecroppers? No.
i don't really see how those differences are relevant, black people should have equal rights as everyone else, regardless of whether or not their families were enslaved or forced to be sharecroppers. black people should have equal rights because they are no less human than the rest of us, not as a reparation.
That's entirely not my point. Please don't try to confuse the issue. Of course black people should have complete equal rights, and of course it should be that way because they are indeed equal.
My point is that sexuality is not the same as race. Being born gay is NOT the same as being born black. This is NOT the Civil Rights Movement re-visited. I am merely mentioning this because of some comments posted in this thread.
 

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: gopunk
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: gopunk
Originally posted by: Vic
Since when did sexuality = race ?
huh?
Huh? Since when did this issue become like the Black Civil Right Movement of the 60s? Were entire families of gay people enslaved in the past? Forced to live in ghettos or as indigent sharecroppers? No.
i don't really see how those differences are relevant, black people should have equal rights as everyone else, regardless of whether or not their families were enslaved or forced to be sharecroppers. black people should have equal rights because they are no less human than the rest of us, not as a reparation.
That's entirely not my point. Please don't try to confuse the issue. Of course black people should have complete equal rights, and of course it should be that way because they are indeed equal.
My point is that sexuality is not the same as race. Being born gay is NOT the same as being born black. This is NOT the Civil Rights Movement re-visited. I am merely mentioning this because of some comments posted in this thread.
i had a suspicion that wasn't your point, but you didn't leave me with much choice since that was the only way i could see your post making any sense. and i also hope that i'm right when i assume you know that nobody here is saying that sexuality is exactly the same as race issues, and that the black civil rights movement is brought up only as an analogy. yes, it is not the black civil rights movement, but depending on what your perspective is, the fundamental issues can be very similar.
 

Eli

Super Moderator | Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 9, 1999
50,422
8
81
Originally posted by: gopunk
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: gopunk
Originally posted by: Vic
Since when did sexuality = race ?
huh?
Huh? Since when did this issue become like the Black Civil Right Movement of the 60s? Were entire families of gay people enslaved in the past? Forced to live in ghettos or as indigent sharecroppers? No.
i don't really see how those differences are relevant, black people should have equal rights as everyone else, regardless of whether or not their families were enslaved or forced to be sharecroppers. black people should have equal rights because they are no less human than the rest of us, not as a reparation.
I don't even think that's the issue..

It's just a fair analogy. Black people were repressed in society because they were different.

Gay people are currently repressed in society because they are different.
 
Jun 18, 2000
11,006
547
126
I try to avoid posting in most political issues, but felt like tossing my opinion into the ring. Yes, I've read the thread and I realize my opinion has been posted by others before.

First and foremost, a homosexual person is welcome to do whatever the hell they want with their personal life. Given that it in no way harms me or my way of life, I see absolutely no reason why I should impose upon them my "belief" that marriage should only be between heterosexual couples. Seeing a gay couple hold hands or kiss may make me a tad uncomfortable, but that is my problem. They have every right to show affection to their significant other, because quite simply I realize how enraged I would be if I was unable to do the same.

The very definition of marriage was put forth by religious beliefs of the public - the very same public that fought tooth-and-nail to separate church from state. The recommendation that we remove all references to "marriage" out of our lawbooks sounds like the best solution to both sides of argument. Leave the question of marriage up to the religions of the involved parties. The government's responsibility should be to dish out civil union licenses to any couple that wishes to reap any benefits included in this union.
That's horrible reasoning. They are a very small minority, and it's not equal rights they are going - it's a change in rights. Every gay guy and lesbian has the equal right of marrying someone of the opposite sex.
How is this not an issue of civil rights and discrimination? That argument, though likely tongue-in-cheek is absolutely ridiculous. Try looking at it from a different perspective. Can every gay and straight prerson marry the one they love and want to spend the rest of their life with? No?
 

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0
Originally posted by: KnightBreed
The very definition of marriage was put forth by religious beliefs of the public - the very same public that fought tooth-and-nail to separate church from state. The recommendation that we remove all references to "marriage" out of our lawbooks sounds like the best solution to both sides of argument. Leave the question of marriage up to the religions of the involved parties. The government's responsibility should be to dish out civil union licenses to any couple that wishes to reap any benefits included in this union.
i have this to add... marriage was most likely secular in its origins (some tribe or something probably). the reason many people view marriage as a religious issue today is because it was made one by the church back in the dark ages, when the church had judicial authority. in other words, marriage only became religious because the church was part of the government. since the church is not part of the government anymore, i don't think it is a huge stretch to allow marriage to take on a non-religious meaning again.
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
personally I hope if this gets passed then also polygamy is allowed...wouldn't that be a hoot :)~ people in Utah are already fighting for it I believe using this latest movment as their backing

I can just see the anandtech OT threads now....

if anything polygamy in this depressed econ and with overpopulation rampant and with sousal affairs makes perfect sense....more people living under the same household so that you could have your bread winners and your homemakers, children would always get great attention from the extra parents around and it would take up less space vs the traditional household of just couples, less houses to buy...no more daycare costs....and when I say polygamy I mean both ways, women with multiple partners and men as well...

:)
 

bozack

Diamond Member
Jan 14, 2000
7,913
12
81
Originally posted by: gopunk
Originally posted by: KnightBreed
The very definition of marriage was put forth by religious beliefs of the public - the very same public that fought tooth-and-nail to separate church from state. The recommendation that we remove all references to "marriage" out of our lawbooks sounds like the best solution to both sides of argument. Leave the question of marriage up to the religions of the involved parties. The government's responsibility should be to dish out civil union licenses to any couple that wishes to reap any benefits included in this union.
i have this to add... marriage was most likely secular in its origins (some tribe or something probably). the reason many people view marriage as a religious issue today is because it was made one by the church back in the dark ages, when the church had judicial authority. in other words, marriage only became religious because the church was part of the government. since the church is not part of the government anymore, i don't think it is a huge stretch to allow marriage to take on a non-religious meaning again.
Right but what does that have to do with US history?? we are still talking specifically about the US right?
 

Eli

Super Moderator | Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 9, 1999
50,422
8
81
Wow, people are seriously freaking out over this...

Just walked by the TV, my dad is watching CNN I think... They have some official on that just said, "If we do not ammend the constitution to ban gay marriages immediately, they will spread across the nation like wildfire!"

Fscking disgusting! :|
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
49,620
12,218
136
Originally posted by: Eli
I don't even think that's the issue..

It's just a fair analogy. Black people were repressed in society because they were different.

Gay people are currently repressed in society because they are different.
Sorry, Eli, but black people were discriminated not just because they were (are) different, but because they are an entirely different race and culture. They were considered sub-human, discriminated against and enslaved from birth, for nothing more than just having the skin color they were born with.
Sexuality is not the same thing. While someone may (or may not, but that's another argument) be born with a sexual preference, actually being one sexuality or the other requires conscience choice and action. In other words, in order to have sexuality, one must first have sex.

This make the 2 issues very, very different. Hopefully, you can use common sense and see it, as I really don't want to go into how being black is a dominant genetic gene and how homosexuality is a contra-survivalistic mutation.
This is not to say that I am in some way anti-homosexual. Quite the contrary. Heaven forbid though, if I don't come across as PC here. I have a genuine concern that the homosexuals are moving too far too fast, that they seem to enjoy crunching on relgious toes (and marriage was originally a religious institution, not a government one), and that I fear they will face a backlash if they continue on this path. History does not disagree with me IMO.


edit:
gopunk, marriage began as a religious institution from before the beginning of human history, and always has been through all human history. The tribal shaman was always the religious leader, the chief its secular leader. The shaman controlled marriage. As civilization evolved, marriage was always contained within religion, regardless of name or form.
 

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0
Originally posted by: bozack
Originally posted by: gopunk
Originally posted by: KnightBreed
The very definition of marriage was put forth by religious beliefs of the public - the very same public that fought tooth-and-nail to separate church from state. The recommendation that we remove all references to "marriage" out of our lawbooks sounds like the best solution to both sides of argument. Leave the question of marriage up to the religions of the involved parties. The government's responsibility should be to dish out civil union licenses to any couple that wishes to reap any benefits included in this union.
i have this to add... marriage was most likely secular in its origins (some tribe or something probably). the reason many people view marriage as a religious issue today is because it was made one by the church back in the dark ages, when the church had judicial authority. in other words, marriage only became religious because the church was part of the government. since the church is not part of the government anymore, i don't think it is a huge stretch to allow marriage to take on a non-religious meaning again.
Right but what does that have to do with US history?? we are still talking specifically about the US right?
we are still talking about marriage aren't we? the US did not invent marriage, marriage is a tradition that has been propagated throughout human history, things did not start anew once the US was born.
 

brigden

Diamond Member
Dec 22, 2002
8,702
2
81
Originally posted by: Viper GTS
If they want it they should go about getting the laws changed.

I'm not going to touch the issue of morality, but legality is pretty clear.

I'd rather not be grouped with SF & NY.

:Q

Viper GTS
Pull yer head out of yer arse, boy.
 

gopunk

Lifer
Jul 7, 2001
29,239
2
0
gopunk, marriage began as a religious institution from before the beginning of human history, and always has been through all human history. The tribal shaman was always the religious leader, the chief its secular leader. The shaman controlled marriage. As civilization evolved, marriage was always contained within religion, regardless of name or form.
ah yea you're probably right. well, i hope we move away from our tribal shaman type traditions then! ;)
 

Eli

Super Moderator | Elite Member
Super Moderator
Oct 9, 1999
50,422
8
81
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: Eli
I don't even think that's the issue..

It's just a fair analogy. Black people were repressed in society because they were different.

Gay people are currently repressed in society because they are different.
Sorry, Eli, but black people were discriminated not just because they were (are) different, but because they are an entirely different race and culture. They were considered sub-human, discriminated against and enslaved from birth, for nothing more than just having the skin color they were born with.
Sexuality is not the same thing. While someone may (or may not, but that's another argument) be born with a sexual preference, actually being one sexuality or the other requires conscience choice and action. In other words, in order to have sexuality, one must first have sex.

This make the 2 issues very, very different. Hopefully, you can use common sense and see it, as I really don't want to go into how being black is a dominant genetic gene and how homosexuality is a contra-survivalistic mutation.
This is not to say that I am in some way anti-homosexual. Quite the contrary. Heaven forbid though, if I don't come across as PC here. I have a genuine concern that the homosexuals are moving too far too fast, that they seem to enjoy crunching on relgious toes (and marriage was originally a religious institution, not a government one), and that I fear they will face a backlash if they continue on this path. History does not disagree with me IMO.
Yes, certainly. But don't gay people have an entirely different culture? I know, I know... but it still boils down to discrimination. :(

What you're talking about there is definately a very touchy subject, and is definately something we don't know enough about. I don't think I would be so fast to set things in stone.

If you ask a gay person if it is a choice, they will always tell you without a doubt, "No.". In all fairness, all you have to do is put yourself in their shoes. Is it your choice that you are attracted to women? Could you make yourself attracted to men? I am sure you will answer the same as I... No, of course not. I'm attracted to women because.. I just am.

Mutation or not, if the person cannot help it, who are we to judge? There are many people born everyday with genetic traits they cannot control and are considered undesirable in society.

Really, I understand and agree with you, but what are we supposed to do?

This is America, land of the free. We can't discriminate. Again, what are we supposed to do? These people from another culture are crying out foul. They are trying to be equals. How can you legitimately say that we have a right to stop them?

Regardless, let's go ahead and call it "homosexual union" instead of marriage. While we're at it, we may as well get rid of "marriage" all together, and just start calling it a hetrosexual union. :p I'm being tongue-in-cheek here, but.. I still think it's funny. Religious entities can keep the marriage term. I guess it's time that the Seperation of Church and State goes all the way?

I understand your concerns, but again.. I really don't know what we are supposed to do. I'm pretty sure you agree with me that we cannot ammend a document designed to be indiscriminate, to discriminate?
 

Jumpem

Lifer
Sep 21, 2000
10,757
3
81
Originally posted by: Eli
Wow, people are seriously freaking out over this...

Just walked by the TV, my dad is watching CNN I think... They have some official on that just said, "If we do not ammend the constitution to ban gay marriages immediately, they will spread across the nation like wildfire!"

Fscking disgusting! :|

Yes gay marriage is.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY