Cali Supreme Court ruling on legality of same-sex marriage ban

I have an even simpler question for iano and his ilk. Would he rather let kids grow up in orphanages or would he rather them being put in loving families, even if these families are homosexual couples?I recently made a big career change. I've finally found something that I am truly happy with. Very soon, we will resume our application to adopt. It is unthinkable to my wife and I that if we were a gay couple we'd have to fight iano and his ilk just for the right to adopt homeless children. It's his ilk that made Texas ban gay couples there to adopt.Superior christian values my ass.Edited by Taz, : No reason given.

---

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

quote:

---

aberration |‘abr sh n|
noun
a departure from what is normal, usual, or expected, typically one that is unwelcome
  —Oxford

---

Didn't subbie already testified that he would not welcome homosexuality in his children, but he would love them anyway? He didn't want that kind aberration. If you say it's not an aberration then you don't understand the term. Would you want any of your children to turn out gay? Be honest.Now, I don't need to define "choice." We know what that is. If there is some biological reason that people become gay without choice then please bring it forward. Personally, I think there is a biological reason, but it seems to be elusive and no confirmable gene has been discovered. Perhaps it's hormonal/developmental. But, more likely, confused youngsters dabble with it like they dabble with drugs and alcohol. And dabbling choice, is it not?Thus gays engage in an "aberration of choice." And perhaps you have prejudices you're unwilling to face up to.”HM

Then how in hell did we get ourselves into Iraq to kill its dictator and propagate democracy? Where were the legislative and judicial branches when we needed them? Wasn't there a vote in Congress? Come on, rahvin, we have to deal with majority-rule politics to run this country, even if it is not a pure democracy, and even if the majority is wrong.”HM

Even though I've concluded that there's nothing of value to be gained from further discussion with you on this topic, I must reply to your latest slander upon me.I never said I didn't want "that kind of aberration" in my family. In fact, I actually said it wasn't an aberration. You are the only person to use that bigotry in this thread. In addition, while I did say I would be unhappy if my son were homosexual, it had nothing to do with homosexuality being "unwelcome."If you are intellectually incapable of understanding me when I speak English, do not attempt to paraphrase what I've said, or represent me as having said something that anyone with a reading comprehension level higher than 3rd grade would easily understand that I did not say.If you slander me further, I will ask for your suspension.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

It's a constitutional republic. It was so constructed that's we might avoid the tyranny of the majority.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

To be honest, no. But, the only reason for that is because I wouldn't want them to have to deal with people like you every day of their lives. This kind of "I'm not a bigot, I stand for the family" line is the kind of covert bigotry that has been breeding for decades.I'd rather assume that a gay person hasn't had a choice in their sexual preference. Why? Because if I'm wrong, then who cares. If, on the other hand, you're wrong, you've just screwed someone over because you felt what they were doing wasn't "natural".As for leaving marriage to the church, the horse has already left the barn. The government is already hip deep in marriage, and as we are unable to go back and change that, we have to deal with it. As such, it most definitely is a necessity for the government to legalize gay marriage, because not doing so is unconstitutional.You can stamp your feet and scream all you want, but you have absolutely no legal grounds to stand on at this point. The government backed itself into this corner.

---

And the Ignorant shall fall to the Squirrels - Chip 2:54

Of course we need to "deal" with it. Popular opinion is important - but the fact remains that we have checks and balances in effect for the express purpose of avoiding a tyrannical rule by majority where conformity is mandated by law.In the case of the Iraq debacle, well...Congress essentially let Bush do whatever he wanted. It was a Republican majority, and he is the Commander in Chief. I never said the system always works out for the best. Constitutionality never even came into the debate - that would only have happened if the President tried to carry out war without congressional approval.Hell, if we were in a true "majority rules" system right now, Bush wouldn't even remain in office with a < 20% approval rating. The facts remain as I said: we do not live in a true democracy where "majority rules" is the final consideration. Your silly suggestion that we do a mass opinion poll and find out how the majority of Americans feel about gay mariage has absolutely nothing to do with whether denying gay mariage is Constitutional - and that is the consideration that will or will not make gay marriage a reality in America, as opposed to a simple opinion poll. Your position is a meaningless red herring.

You're over-reacting. Here's what you said in Message 62: Then here's what I said in Message 92: What's slandering about that? And then I said: Is that the slander you claim? If so, I don't get it, because I didn't think you wanted that kind of aberration. Then what is it? It isn't normal. It looks like an aberration to me. You're not being honest because you have already admitted that homosexuality is not equal in your eyes to heterosexuality in terms what you would prefer for your children.And get off the bigotry band wagon. Save it for a better cause. I heard your mother was a Nazi.”HM

I should have know that. So how does this republic work if it doesn't run on democracy?”HM

The only red-herring positions I ever assume are postured against red herrings.rahvin, here's an bigotry test for you: Do you feel this passionately about those poor Mormons in Texas who were disturbed by the law for just trying to live faithful and decent lives and have their morally rightful polygamy?”HM

Is your senility really that bad? Majority rule with minority right. Any middle schooler could tell you that.

---

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.

Polygamy I have no problem with - inherantly there is no legitimate legal argument for restricting the civil marriage contract to only two parties.However, there is an extremely large state interest in disallowing minors from entering into contracts. In other words, calling something "marriage" does not allow statutory rape to become legal.If you are somehow trying to tie homosexuality to pedophilia, you're an idiot as well as a bigot.I note also that you completely disregarded my post, instead deflecting the topic to your hamfisted attempt at a tu quoque fallacy by insinuating that gosh, we're all just bigots.If mormons or anyone else wants to have multiple spouses, I have no problem with that and I'd support any attempts to go to the Supreme Court and force the issue.If mormons or anyone else want to force children to marry prior to the age of consent, I'll call them "child molesters," and support their long internment in a federal prison.There is a very large difference between a contract between two (or more) consenting adults and forcing minors who are by definition incapable of entering a contract to marry. If you can't tell the difference, perhaps your opinion is worth less than the thread space it takes up.

The age of whose consent? Wouldn't it take a majority to decide that? You know, some people might call you a bigot for acting that way.”HMEdited by Hoot Mon, : added a thought

I never went to middle school.

Rahvin, if you haven't noticed, Hoot Mon is using what is known as the infinite regression tactic against you guys. It's pretty much demanding you to prove every tiny little detail that supports your position, and then demand you to prove every tiny detail that supports the details that support your position and so on and so forth. He could go on like this forever, you know.

---

I'm trying to see things your way, but I can't put my head that far up my ass.