Vote no on prop 4 + 8! (california)

[Kuya]

theres genetic proof gay people are different from straight people

hit the ancient greeks thought sex with a man was better than with a woman since women are dumber then men and sex with your intellectual equal is more stimulating.

*cough*

[CalaisDL]

I don't really give a shit, tbh

I see what you did there.

I'm also a Californian and definitely voting no on 4 and 8. The really sad part about prop. 4 is that it's pretty much the same thing as two other propositions that failed to pass: proposition 73 that failed in 2005, and proposition 85 that failed in 2006 (http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...EDFC12VPTR.DTL). Every time another one of these pops up; groups like Planned Parenthood have to shell out money to oppose the initiative. I'd hate to see prop. 4 pass, but having it crop up again in the form of a different proposition is not going to be great either.

As for prop. 8, it doesn't seem to be getting much support in my city, at least. All around my neighborhood and other neighborhoods in Sacramento I see no on prop. 8 signs and very few yes on prop. 8 signs. That could just be because most of the people that are for it don't want to advertise it, but who knows. And I suppose that lawn signs are not really the greatest form of polling data. I'd just like to think that California is too liberal to actually pass something like that.

[archibaldcrane]

Well I guess my point is that this should not even be a state issue. Was it a state by state issue when it came to the Jim Crow Laws? Did the states on an individual basis throw out the idea of "Separate but equal"? Or did the Federal Government have to step in and say on a national level that it was not constitutional and was not allowed?

California struck down laws banning interracial marriage long before the federal government did. It was the only state to do so.

It absolutely baffles my mind that interracial marriage was against the law in many states when my parents were kids.

I'd just like to think that California is too liberal to actually pass something like that.

No state is too liberal to discriminate against gay marriage, once it gets on the ballot.

[Skjie]

I really don't understand how this is still an issue in America. Last year when Harper tried to bring up "ban gay marriage" to fulfil a campaign promise, even he gave up on it because no one cared. It is completely a dead issue in Canada.

[Beckwin]

because we're the most religious developed nation, which means socially we like to act as if it's the 1500s.

[ZarakiKujata]

because we're the most religious developed nation, which means socially we like to act as if it's the 1500s.

Off by 1 century but I saw a bumper sticker to that effect today.

McCain/Palin, 15th century solutions for 21st century problems

[Skjie]

Off by 1 century but I saw a bumper sticker to that effect today.

McCain/Palin, 15th century solutions for 21st century problems

Too bad this retarded gay marriage shit isn't just "conservatives" in America.

[Blarg]

Selling my vote to go the same way as you, this gives you the power of 2 people so it is very valuable. Highest bid wins.

[Jefe]

This is seriously what one of the "Yes on 8" commercials leads viewers to believe.

Let me see if I can find it...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0PgjcgqFYP4

Yay there it is! Your little 7-year old daughter will be a carpet-munching dyke in no time. Aren't you concerned?

I cringe every time I see those commercials, which is all the time because we get bombarded w/ that shit. This type of commercials exploit the ignorance and fear of the people.

[scrockstar]

Since only about 1.5% of the US population is homosexual I am pretty sure the ban on gay marriage is going to pass. There are a lot of "liberal" religious people here in California.

My take on props 2 and 8 is that people should have rights, but not animals.

[Ksandra]

this is the commercial I see all the time. it's retarded.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kKn5...eature=related


srly I know a lot of people are too lazy to vote at our age bracket. But when it comes to voting day, to me prop 8 vote has become almost as important to me as the presidency. This kind of thinking really needs to stop.


@ Tyche, about prop 4. From what I understand about the states that make kids get their parents permission, there is something else than just what you were touching on. These kids don't just resort to going to unsafe places, they resort to old fashion, get a coat hanger, or fall down the stairs to get themselves aborted.

Also, I feel there are plenty of unsafe places that still exist, maybe a lot less now with planned parenthood. But the thought of kids running to other places is sad. While I think there should be something done, I don't think this is the way to do it.

[archibaldcrane]

Since only about 1.5% of the US population is homosexual

Sauce?

That's an uncharacteristically low assessment.

[Blarg]

Sauce?

That's an uncharacteristically low assessment.

Maybe thats the openly gay %

[ZarakiKujata]

It was 3% according to Religulous, that is openly I'm assuming since it was in reference to small %ages of the population that have strong lobbying groups in Washington.

[scrockstar]

1.5% is the estimated amount by the APA nationwide. To be fair no one really knows. Many researchers think the number is lower than 1.5% since most studies done in New York City shows about 3% of Democrats are homosexual. I did some research on the amount of oxygen babies receive while in their mother's womb and how it effects their development last semester and I came across is large amount of studies on homosexuality and child development. I don't know which psychology journals talked about the 1.5% off the top of my head but they were all well respected publications.

There was a study done in 1989 where clinical psychologists in New York gave some of their clients a self reporting test on sexual orientation and the data came back that 10% of clients showed signs of stress over their sexual orientation. That study and the ones that followed have been used by magazines and newspapers for the last 15+ years to support a 10% claim. I think they had an n < 200 so you can't even say that the study suggests a trend scientifically.

I don't have a problem with gay marriage I just think they are out numbered in California.

[Kuya]

What does this 1.5% figure represent exactly? Men who identify as gay, men who only have sexual relations with men, or men who also have sexual relations with men?

[scrockstar]

It was 3% according to Religulous, that is openly I'm assuming since it was in reference to small %ages of the population that have strong lobbying groups in Washington.

Pretty sure they were talking about the 1992 NY Times election exit poll that was done. This "study" is pretty famous although it was not done scientifically. The problem with this is that there higher concentrations of alternative lifestyle people in major cities on the east and west coast than there are in middle America.

What does this 1.5% figure represent exactly? Men who identify as gay, men who only have sexual relations with men, or men who also have sexual relations with men?

The population of humans that actively engage in sexual relationships with members of the same sex. This does not include "bi" people who have had homosexual relations only a few times in their lives. However, this does include the amount of homosexuals who are "in the closet". There are some pretty cool things you can do with statistics that help tease out the confound of social pressure on studies of this kind (you can figure out roughly how many people would lie about being homosexual on a survey / interview).

[Kaisho]

Wow 8 is really fucked up. They're acting like gay people will tear apart society, wow.

And Ksandra have you been on the Sprinter?! Takes too damn long to get from the station at Palomar college to Oceanside! lol

[Kuya]

The population of humans that actively engage in sexual relationships with members of the same sex. This does not include "bi" people who have had homosexual relations only a few times in their lives. However, this does include the amount of homosexuals who are "in the closet". There are some pretty cool things you can do with statistics that help tease out the confound of social pressure on studies of this kind (you can figure out roughly how many people would lie about being homosexual on a survey / interview).

I presume that by "in the closet" you mean men who have not had sexual relationships with other men, but may have the desire to. Hence why i ask, is the 1.5% the number of men who identify as "gay" or are they just men who have admitted to having sexual relationships with men but do not identify as "gay". This is important. Also, by actively engage do you mean recently and consistently?

Anyway, though the idea of same sex marriage is more important to those who identify as "gay" rather than any other men who engage in homosexual activity in any number of ways, it is necessary to be prudent when extrapolating such numbers as saying: "Only 1.5% of the male population in a given nation has men who will or can have sexual relationships with men".

A study of 64 male university students - 35 (55%) deemed homophobic, 29 (45%) deemed non homophobic, all reporting to be heterosexual - who viewed adult male pornography as their penis was being monitored for tumescence (increase in size). This method of determining sexual arousal (and therefore sexual desire which may be denied) has been widely used with pedophiles in treatment so that therapists would know if the therapy was eliminating the child-related sexual arousal characterizing these men.

More than half of the homophobic men (54%) manifested definite sexual arousal (more than 12 mm increase), with another 26% manifesting moderate arousal (6-12 mm), with only 20% not being sexually aroused (0-6 mm). The non homophobic men responded with the following arousal levels: definite (24%), moderate (10%), and nil (66%).

For this sample of males, 40.6% (26/64) manifested definite sexual stimulation, 18.8% (12/64) manifested moderate sexual arousal, and only 40.6% (26/64) were not sexually aroused. This would lead to the conclusion that about 70% of young adult males (adding about 10% given that about 10% of males would have been omitted from the Adams et al. study because they self-identified as homosexual or bisexual (Bagley and Tremblay, 1998) and would likely be sexually aroused in when viewing homo-erotica. If, however, only the "definite" sexual arousal is considered, at least 50% (40% + 10%) of males would be in this category. This is exactly what Kinsey (1948) reported for his sample of about 5000 males on the basis of their reported homo-sex experiences (37%) since the age of 15 years, or by having reported related homo-sex desires not (yet?) acted on (13%).

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/8...?dopt=Abstract

I'd be careful with extrapolating one thing into another.

[Charla]

Little late, but wiki says Sarah's law is something unrelated.