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

Me: "Gee, it looks like marriage's definition doesn't include gays and there might be a problem simply changing that definition."You: "What a fucking retarded piece of shit nonsense opinion you have you fucking bigot! You're afraid of and hate gay people and want to deny them rights and you don't know anything about the constitution!"That is bigotry.... an unwillingness to respect my opinion. You respect that I have an opinion!? WTFYou're a bigot because you disrespect my opinion and are unwilling to tolerate it. You'd would rather place me in a group and hate on me than listen to me as an individual and try to understand me. That's how the KKK treats black people. How can a viewpoint deny someone rights? I haven't done a single thing to deny them rights. Arguing on an anonymous internet discuss board!? Give me a break

Yes... I am respectful of the fact that you can, and do, have a differing opinion than do I. Is that more clear for you?Respect:
"deference to a right, privilege, privileged position, or someone or something considered to have certain rights or privileges; proper acceptance or courtesy; acknowledgment: respect for a suspect's right to counsel; to show respect for the flag; respect for the elderly.I do not, however, respect your opinion. But...and here's the important part...I am not intolerant towards that opinion. You have every right to your opinion. I may have to tolerate it, but I sure as fuck do not have to agree or respect it. And doing neither of those does not make someone a bigot. Bigotry requires a level of intolerance or the word becomes meaningless. To disagree is not bigotry.Bigot:
"A bigot is a prejudiced person who is intolerant of opinions, lifestyles, or identities differing from his or her own."My opinion, as it relates to homosexuals, is one of tolerance and acceptance. Your opinion of homosexuals is one of intolerance and discrimination. See the difference? Are you doing anything to change the recent laws, or to over turn the new legislation(s) that discriminate towards homosexuals? I rather doubt it. Do you support, in any way, their cause as it relates to marriage. I rather doubt it. Hell, if anything, I get the impression from your writings that you like and agree with the new laws, definitions and legislation(s) because you do not want homosexuals to be treated equally when it comes to issues like marriage.So spare me the "how can my viewpoint deny someone their right" BS. Why do you insist on playing "dumb" like this? It's just like your "I can't marry someone of the same sex either" argument.

Not entirely different. I did not choose to be white, no one I know chose to be black. In the same vein, I did not choose to be heterosexual, no one I know chose to be gay.The sooner we realize that homosexuality is no more of a choice than hair color or skin color, the quicker we will get past this nonsense.

No, I didn't choose to be heterosexual either. Do you know for sure that gay people do not choose to be homosexual? I don't believe that science even knows whether or not they choose to be gay or they get that way naturally.But, for the sake of deeper analysis, let's suppose science discovers the cause of homosexuality”maybe a gene, maybe a nutrient deficiency, maybe a flap somewhere that needs to be repaired. And let's suppose that science discovers a cure for it: gene therapy; dietary supplements, surgical procedures. Now, given a real chance to reverse their homosexuality, would gay people choose to be cured?This is not a far-fetched scenario. There are already claims of therapies being available for correcting sexual orientation (see NARTH). But I know of no therapies for correcting heterosexuality. Most people don't think it needs to be corrected.My guess is that homosexuals don't feel the need to be cured because they are quite happy being gay. And so we're back to square one. We're suppose to change the law because of choices people make for themselves.”HM

SO you wish to throw out all religious discrimination laws? after all people choose to be christian or jewish or buddhist, shouldn't they suffer the consequences of rejecting Odin the Allfather?

---

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

You make a good point, DrJones*. Those laws do protect peoples' religious choices and prohibit religious-orientation discrimination. Following on from there, many states have laws prohibiting sexual-orientation discrimination. NOLO says:

quote:

---

Seventeen states and the District of Columbia have laws that currently prohibit sexual orientation discrimination in private employment: California, Connecticut, Hawaii, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Minnesota, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, New York, Rhode Island, Vermont, Washington, and Wisconsin. Some of these states also specifically prohibit discrimination based on gender identity. (In addition, six states have laws prohibiting sexual orientation discrimination in public workplaces only: Colorado, Delaware, Indiana, Michigan, Montana, and Pennsylvania.)

---

This certainly does give them a foothold to take their homosexual cause all the way up to legalizing "gay marriage." I happen to think that "marriage" was intended to apply only to civil unions between members of opposite sexes. Gays can't get "married"; that's silly. But they ought to be civilly united if they wish, so as to get their equal rights under the law.Hey, why can't we invent a new word for civil unions between same sexes? We need a dignified word that honors their special arrangement. I submit the word "garriage" to serve as an efficient replacement for "gay marriage.""I heard Herb and John got garried the other day. It was a delightful garriage ceremony. And did you know that Ralph and Sarah got married last Saturday? Well, their cerimony was as lovely as Herb and John's. Gosh, aren't marriage and garriage wonderful things!"Would you go for that, Dr?”HM

Of course not, "seperate but equal" is inherently unequal.

---

soon I discovered that this rock thing was true
Jerry Lee Lewis was the devil
Jesus was an architect previous to his career as a prophet
All of a sudden i found myself in love with the world
And so there was only one thing I could do
Was ding a ding dang my dang along ling long - Jesus Built my Hotrod Ministry
Live every week like it's Shark Week! - Tracey Jordan
Just a monkey in a long line of kings. - Matthew Good
If "elitist" just means "not the dumbest motherfucker in the room", I'll be an elitist! - Get Your War On
*not an actual doctor

VirtuousGuile responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

A civil union in New Zealand is not equivalent to marriage.

---

​

Yes legally it is the same. Culturally no it is not.

---

Ahem: Same-sex couples cannot adopt in New Zealand while married couples and single people can so no, they are not legally the same.

quote:

---

quote:

---

So rights are only for the popular?

---

​

They only get support if someone thinks they're popular.

---

So you agree. Rights only exist if they aren't necessary. After all, if everybody thinks the right is important, then they don't go around denying it. But isn't the point of a right that it is to be upheld even if it is unpopular? The right to free speech is worthless if it doesn't protect people from expressing unpopular opinions as well as popular ones.

quote:

---

It is not an established right.

---

Who cares about establishment? Are you saying that there was no right not to be enslaved until people decided so? That it was actually acceptable to enslave people until it became popular to think otherwise?

quote:

---

It is not clear to me that the case for nature versus nurture has yet been made.

---

Why does that matter? What possible effect can the etiology of sexual orientation have on whether or not people should have the same regardless regardless of sexual orientation?

quote:

---

As a right it only has a basis as nature.

---

So freedom of thought, expression, religion, association...none of those are rights because they aren't based in nature. If I managed to convince enough people that it would be just peachy for me to enslave you, you wouldn't complain in the slightest because your right to be free doesn't exist since it isn't based in "nature."

quote:

---

It is very clear that to disagree with homosexuality is a taboo but that is not a reason to recognize it as right.

---

Indeed. It isn't a right simply because a lot of people recognize it as such.It's a right because it is wrong to deny it.

quote:

---

It it harder to say that black man is not a man.

---

So gay people are what?

quote:

---

So sir by your own words I have a reason for my position

---

Incorrect. You have no reason for your position other than your own personal squick factor and that isn't good enough.Time for you to be specific: Why are you so obsessed with other people's sex lives?

quote:

---

the slur bigot is common if one does not agree with the homosexual position.

---

That's because, by definition, it is bigoted to deny equality to people in all areas based upon their sexual orientation.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hoot Mon responds to me:

quote:

---

quote:

---

But Hoot Mon, the opinion of the vast majority is that "interracial marriage" is not the same thing as marriage between people of the same races.

---

​

Do you believe this? If so, you're deluded.

---

Oh no? Do you really think most people would be happy if their daughters decided to marry someone of a different race?At any rate, at the time that Loving v. Virginia was decided, more than 70% of the American population felt that people of different races shouldn't be allowed to get married. That's more than the current percentage of people who think that gay people shouldn't be allowed to get married. And yet, the SCOTUS struck down miscegenation laws.Were they wrong to do so?

quote:

---

quote:

---

There isn't anything gay people do that straight people don't.

---

​

Straight men don't try to have sex with other men. Straight women don't try to have sex with other women. Do these count for anything?

---

Huh? What kind of sex do people of the same sex have that people of the opposite sex cannot have?

quote:

---

quote:

---

Gay people can't get married.

---

​

Wrong! NOTHING prohibits them from marriage, so long as they do it with members of opposite sexes.

---

Which means they can't get married. Gay people don't marry people of the opposite sex except under duress.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Gay people can't serve in the military.

---

​

What ever happened to "Don't ask. Don't tell."?

---

Discharges went up. That's what happened. DADT didn't actually make it OK for gay people to serve. You don't have to say or do anything. All it takes is for somebody else to say something. What DADT did is force gay people to become liars. And by lying, that makes a person subject to discharge.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Gay people can be fired for being gay.
Gay people can lose custody of their children for being gay.
Gay people can be denied housing for being gay.
Gay people can have their wills overturned for being gay.
Gay children can be legally tortured by their parents in attempts to make them straight.

---

​

Are you saying then that gays can do a lot of this that straights can't do?

---

Oh, you have got to be kidding me. Could we possibly keep this in the realm of rationality? Are you saying that it's an honor and privilege to be fired, lose your children, kicked out of your house, have your will overturned?Are you saying people should be grateful to be tortured?

quote:

---

quote:

---

The arguments you are making are exactly the same ones, word for word, that people used to deny marriage to people of different races. If it was illegitimate in the question of race, why is it suddenly legitimate in the question of sex?

---

​

Fundamental flaw: Race and sexual orientation are two entirely different things.

---

Indeed. But what is it about sexual orientation that makes it OK to torture people while it would be beyond the pale to do so on the basis of race?

quote:

---

For you to imply, by way of your assertion, that a black man's plight in our culture is equal to that of a gay man then you are a bigot of the highest order.

---

Huh? It hasn't been legal to lynch black people for years.It's still OK to torture gay people. It's called "reparative therapy."We are on the brink of electing a black person to be president. We would never countenance electing a gay person. For crying out loud, the US Senate refused to confirm James C. Hormel ambassador to Luxemborg specifically because he was gay even though Luxemborg was specifically requesting him.And while I am loathe to bring it up for fear of invoking Godwin's Law, I should point out that when the concentration camps were liberated during World War II, the gay people were not freed but instead sent to prison because it was still illegal to be gay.It is not an implication, I'm directly saying it: The plight of gay people is equivalent to those who aren't white and to deny it is bigotry of the highest order. The most common reason for youth suicide in this country is being gay. Your parents don't throw you out of the house when they find out your race since you don't have to tell people your race. The most common reason for youth homelessness in this country (outside of the parents also being homeless) is because their parents have kicked them out for being gay.

quote:

---

quote:

---

You're going to be forced into a marriage you don't want because gay people can get married? That makes no sense. What, precisely are you "being a party to"?

---

​

Have you forgotten that our government is constituted to be "of the people, by the people, and for the people"? This put ME right in the middle of what my government does.

---

That doesn't answer the question. The government allows neo-Nazis to march in the streets, Pat Robertson to claim that the terrorist attacks were god's punishment because of gays, feminists, pagans, and abortion, and all sorts of other things I'm sure we all agree we would rather see less of.Are you saying that the government forces you to be a bigot simply because it allows people to express bigotry?What in your life will change if gay people are allowed to get married?Be specific.

quote:

---

The problem is that the state needs to get out of the business of "marriage" and restrict its jurisdiction to civil unions.

---

But you don't really believe that. The only time you ever seem to make this statement is when the topic of conversation turns to gay people getting married. If you truly believed this, you'd be down at the office of the registrar picketing against marriage.Since you were married three times yourself, you clearly don't believe that at all unless you're saying you never had any of your marriages licensed.

quote:

---

There are no valid arguments for why the state should do the business of the church.

---

But marriage isn't a religious contract with regard to the state. It's a civil contract. So what's the problem?

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Catholic Scientist writes:

quote:

---

A bigot is someone who is unwilling to respect another person's opinion.

---

And who here is unwilling to respect your opinion? Nobody is forcing you to do anything you don't want to do, are they?If gay people were to be equal in all aspects of life, what would change in your life?Be specific.Refusing to accept intolerance is not intolerance.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

I didn't choose to be heterosexual either. Do you know for sure that gay people do not choose to be homosexual?

---

Huh? You're perfectly willing to accept that you didn't choose your sexual orientation but you have nothing but doubt for other people who say the same thing?At any rate, why does it matter? If sexual orientation were as fluid as religion, then it would still be bigoted and unconstitutional to discriminate on the basis of sexual orientation for precisely the same reason: You have the right to yourself.

quote:

---

And let's suppose that science discovers a cure for it: gene therapy; dietary supplements, surgical procedures. Now, given a real chance to reverse their homosexuality, would gay people choose to be cured?

---

Excuse me? "Cure"? You mean like "curing" brown eyes, kinky hair, and dark skin? Given a real chance to reverse being black, would black people choose to be cured?

quote:

---

There are already claims of therapies being available for correcting sexual orientation (see NARTH).

---

(*chuckle*)You do know that they involve the use of torture and don't actually work, yes? The "reparative therapy" movement doesn't actually keep track of their outcomes since they know that they don't actually work.And on top of that, we find that those who go through "reparative therapy" are much more likely to be depressed and commit suicide than those who don't.

quote:

---

We're suppose to change the law because of choices people make for themselves.

---

Yeah, that whole freedom of religion, expression, and association...it's all a bunch of bullshit and should be repealed as soon as possible. It causes nothing but trouble.You claim to be an atheist, Hoot Mon. By your logic, you would have no problem with the theists in this country making your choice not to believe a capital crime.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Hoot Mon writes:

quote:

---

But they ought to be civilly united if they wish, so as to get their equal rights under the law.

---

"Separate but equal"? Didn't we already learn this lesson? There ain't no such thing.Look, if you want to have your "special friendship," then why don't you pass a law that those people of the opposite sex who wish to have a "special friendship" can get one while those of the same sex and those of the opposite sex who choose to do so can get "married."If the problem is semantic, then the solution is for you to come up with a new word to describe your "special friendship." Everybody already understands what "married" means and for two people of the same sex to say that they are "married" causes no confusion.You're the one having the trouble. You're the one who wants to keep your "special friendship" separate from all the other marriages. Therefore, you should figure out what you want to call it.

---

Rrhain

---

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.

Rrhain, you have a serious flaw in your argument. Here are some indicators. From Message 294 And from Message 296: And from Message 297: You see, Rrhain, you are wrongly conflating two different things: race and sexual orientation. And, by doing so, you are asserting that both have genetic roots, or at least roots in heritable characteristics. You need to present evidence that homosexuality has genetic roots in order to place it on the landscape of heritable characteristics. People don’t choose what they inherit. But you COULD choose your sexual orientation, and many do.I call upon you are others contributing to this discussion who believe race and sexual orientation are equivalents in both biological and legal contexts to reexamine your assertions. For you to compare the struggle of minority races in this country, especially the ones who were enslaved, with the whimsy of homosexuals who assert their rights to “gay marriage” is a public embarrassment for you. By doing so you reveal yourself as an ignorant bigot.”HM

Well, if gay marriage is allowed, then you will be allowed to marry someone of the same gender as yourself. All it means is that gays can marry the one they love.

But in what you are saying about Rrhain's statements you are revealing yourself as an ignorant bigot. Just because, at this time it is unknown whether sexual orientation is hereditary or not does not mean that it should be all right to discriminate against someone who is different in sexual orientation any more that it is alright to discriminate against one because of his race, creed, ethicity, social position, sex or any disability.

---

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