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

I think you need to take your head out of your Hershey Highway.”HM

And this is exactly why we think you're a bigot. Almost noone will support taking marriage out of the law. This is an impractical goal. This is an impossible goal. And because YOU KNOW it is an impractical and impossible goal, you support it so in the end nothing gets done.Just imagine during the height of the segregation period someone suggests that we get rid of public transportation, public bathrooms, public drinking fountains, etc. completely and thus everyone is finally treated equally. That's an impossible goal. That's a bullshit goal. And in the end nothing is achieved and segretation is still in place.

---

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

Wouldn't that make bigots out of the gay-marriage advocates?”HM

Hey, they've taken a lots of words out of the law for all sorts of good reasons. Gender terms, for example, have been modified or replaced”chairman to chairperson, for example. Can't think of any more right now. But it's what we do to our laws all the time; otherwise there'd be no need for legislators.”HM

You're a bigot because you believe your personal standards are universals to be enforced on others.You're also misinterpreting the establishment of religion clause. The government is not establishing a religion by recognizing the existence of religions equally. Not only has the government recognized religion in this case, they have recognized the need for a secular method of marriage as well. Quite frankly, it, the governmental establishment of the marriage contract, is one of their best balancing acts.Your protestations that you think gay folks should have all the rights as straight folks ring hollow when you suggest the best method for getting there is to abolish the government's sanctioning of marriages. How can you not know your plan will never fly? If you think religious folks are hollering now about gays gaining the right to marry, wait till you hear the noise when they find they are losing it.By the bye, the best way to pull the rug out from under militant gays demonstrating for equal right it marry is to give it to them. Always shuts them up.AbE: Unless you are suggesting that if gay marriage is legalized that a gay person is going to force you to marry them, then no, gay folks aren't pushing their standards upon you.Edited by lyx2no, : beat him to the punch

---

KindlyA mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.

Immediately support your assertion that allowing homosexual marriage "forces" anything on heterosexual couples, or retract.Gay marriage doesn't force you to marry a man, Hoot, it just stops you from telling anyone else they can't.Your retarded arguments are the exact same ones used to argue against interracial marriage in Loving v. Virginia. That's the proof you're a bigot, bigot.

At my age, it's a big relief to know that.

Hold on there, rahvin. You're forgetting that those forces are perceived by others as acting in different directions. Who's pushing whom? There is a preponderance of married people in America today who feel that allowing gays to get married would somehow compromise the meaning of their own marriages. It doesn't matter if they're right or wrong; it only matter as opinions in peoples' minds. There is no moral authority on this issue that everyone will respect. Don't dismiss these Heartland people. I see no good reason why their opinions on this matter shouldn't count as much as yours. If you say they shouldn't then you're a bigot, bigot.”HM

As I have said many many times now, not all opinions are equal. Rahvin's opinion in this case is more valid than the opinions of your precious heartland people. Why? Because he's been able to support his opinion whereas these heartland people haven't been able to support their opinion. We still haven't heard a single response explaining why gay marriage would ruin straight marriage.

---

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

It stops being an opinion when the force of law is applied.If you try to rob me and I try to stop you, are we on equal moral footing? I am, after all, trying to impose my will on you.Edited by lyx2no, : Finish what I was saying.

---

KindlyA mind changed against its will is of the same opinion still.

Most likely because there is none.

---

There is no better love between 2 people than mutual respect for each other WT Young, 2002Who gave anyone the authority to call me an authority on anything. WT Young, 1969

Not if you ignore essential parts of the argument. Remember.. The issue is not that gay (and other) family units can't be established. Obviously they do get established.The issue is what the State "desires" and what it wants to "encourage". Clearly replacement of it's dying population is something desirable and something to be encouraged in order that the State itself survive. That a gay couple could adopt and form a family unit is irrelevant to the issue of procreation. Such a family unit doesn't contribute towards establishing this desired situation and there is no reason for the State to attach benefit and protection to the gay family unit state in this regard.One could argue long and hard about the relative merits of gay parenting vs. traditional parenting. Each side would attempt to introduce data to support each others case. Whatever the case, the State is entitled to arrive at a view as to what is ideal. And if that view is that male/female parenting is the ideal to be sought after (faults and failures notwithstanding) it is entitled to take steps to promote and encourage what it considers to be in the best interests of the state.Lastly and to reject the claim of unmarried mixed sex unions claiming the same benefits as married couples there is the quid pro quo of marriage itself. All other things considered, the relationship which is prepared to make a solemn and public declaration of commitment and which is prepared to cast its individual worldly goods into the collective marriage pot is one which is more likely to result in a stable platform for child procreating and rearing than one which is not so constituted. If that is what the state is after then that is what the state is entitled to pursue.It's not a question of human rights. It's a question of a tate/individual 'business' transaction.Edited by iano, : No reason given.

There is no need for the State to micro-manage to the extent you suggest in order that overall State goals be achieved. Some people not being able to have kids won't affect the overall result. Some people not wanting to won't either. If many people decide they don't want kids then the state can add more inducement to do so. If there are too many kids then the State can add disincentive (the one child policy in China being an case in point)What should be plain as the nose on your face is that the State will seek to encourage stable family platforms of a type which produce children and rear them to adulthood. And the means whereby it will do so is to attach rights and privileges and benefits to the desired family unit and/or disincentivise non-desirable family units.To suppose the State would do otherwise (however you read US law) is to suppose a State wishing extinction upon itself.

I can honestly say that it would not bother me at all. I would be more concerned if he was born a bigot.

Well great! Since gay couples are going to be a tiny minority, they won't affect the overall result. Thus, none of this matters and we can all just be happy for them. Glad we're in agreement.Oh, but wait... What piffle. How many "non-desirable family units" would there need to be to bring that about? Your talk of extinction is just science fiction, only without the science. Just because you find someone else's family undesirable, doesn't mean that they are going to have a negative affect upon society. You are going to have to demonstrate that if you want to base your shoddy argument upon it. How exactly will this projected extinction take place?

---

Mutate and Survive