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

Hysterical parody of the moronic arguments trotted out to oppose gay marriage, HM!Well done!

---

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

quote:

---

The elephant in the room is the fact that "gay marriage" is a only a device used by gays to annoy people for the sake of coming of the closet. If it were not the gays would be perfectly happy to be civilly united.

---

Quite right.It's just like them coloreds back in the day, demanding to go to the same school as whites, when the schools they were sent to were just as good.

---

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

quote:

---

Why isn't a CIVIL UNION between same sexes enough to make them happy?

​

Answer: Because they want to push their agendas all the way up the noses of those straight sons-a-bitches. They want the whole biblical "marriage" bit, even if they don't have the right equipment to consummate it.

---

Exactly!Just like those uppity nigras, wanting the same schools, water fountains and restrooms as white folk.BTW, I think you'll find, if you bother to look into it, that failure to consummate is not a ground for annulment in most states. Instead, it's an inability to consummate that was unknown to the other party at the time of the marriage. But hey, don't let the facts get in the way of a good rant.

---

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

Certainly it's not as dire, but the parallels are there.Gays are getting killed, just for being gay.Religious bigots are denying them the same opportunities as straights, for no articulable reason other than religious bigotry. (This is not to say that all religious people are bigots, but the anti-gay position would be dead in the water without the religious opposition.)The idea that they should just settle for a separate but equal institution, and those who don't are trying to shove something down someone else's throat.I wouldn't have a problem with your proposal to take government out of the marriage business all together, just issue civil unions and let churches, do the marrying, but that will never happen, and there's no particular reason to do so. Other than the fact that gays can't marry, there's really nothing particularly wrong with the way that the institution of marriage is a blend of religious and governmental consequences. You can get married by a judge or by a minister/priest/rabbi/etc. So what? What's the problem with that? Overhauling the whole institution just to deal with the issue of gay marriage seems ridiculously extreme, unless there's another problem that I'm not aware of.

---

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

quote:

---

I really don't understand why a straight person, religious otherwise, needs to be labeled anti-gay and called a bigot just because he wants to see marriage preserved for couples of opposes sexes.

---

Well, it's a conclusion I've come to, based on the fact that nobody has been able to articulate a reason for being opposed to gay marriage other than bigotry. People talk all the time about gay marriage being an attack on traditional marriage, and defending heterosexual marriage, but I've never heard any rational explanation about how gay marriage will change heterosexual marriage in any way. I'll still be married to my wife. My brothers will still be married to their wives. My dad will still be married to his wife. It just means that other people will be able to enter into the same kind of union with people of the same sex. How does that change mine? Or anyone else's?

quote:

---

Please tell me what I gain by the legalization of gay "marriage." It's does nothing to or for me either way. Gay marriage is an out-of-the-closet issue of third-rate importance.

---

Wow.Defining the importance of any issue by how it affects you, with no consideration whatsoever for other people, is about the shallowest way that any person can approach life. I fully admit that it will have no bearing on me personally. But at the same time, I'm aware of the fact that I'm not the only person in the country. And I'm not so self-absorbed that I'm unable to see that other people different from me still want many of the same things that I do. And if they can have an opportunity to have that in a way that will not interfere with my happiness in any way, well, that tells me that the question isn't why should they have it, but why shouldn't they?As far as whether it directly affects you or not, do you have any children? What if one of them were gay? Would you want them to have the same right to marry whomever they loved? What about grandchildren?It's perhaps of no importance to you because it doesn't affect you. You know what? I can live with that. What I can't understand or tolerate is someone who's against it, fully knowing that it won't affect them in any way, but they're still against it because of what they think their god wants.It costs them nothing; it doesn't affect them in any way; yet they still want to deny it to others. If that doesn't equate to bigotry, you're going to have to explain to me why not.

---

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

quote:

---

1. Gay people already have every single right that I have under the law. They can get married, just like me, to any member of the opposite sex.

---

They can't marry the person they are in love with. How is that the same as you?

quote:

---

3. Unlike black people, gay people choose to be gay. So now they are the ones feeling left out for the choices they made. There is no scientific reason I know of to explain how a gay person's biology makes them gay.

---

Far as I know, the jury's still out on this matter. But it's irrelevant any way.We protect the government from discriminating against people on the basis of religious beliefs, and there's no doubt that that's a matter of choice. So the whole choice issue is a red herring, trotted out by people who don't have a substantive objection. Choice or not is meaningless.{quote2. There is no need to change the law or make a special one to accommodate gays. Just take the word "marriage" out of it.[/quote]That would fix the problem. So would letting gays marry. I've already explained that I'd accept that fix, but it's not going to happen. You still have not offered any reason for rejecting gay marriage.

quote:

---

4. Bigotry is a term thrown by people who are bigots in their own right. Gay bigotry is another word for in-your-face, same-sex french kissing on the ferry while you're commuting home from work at night. Bigotry by gays is done all the time to offend people for their out-of-the-closet pleasure.

---

So why isn't it bigotry for heterosexuals to do the same thing?

quote:

---

Am I a bigot for not wanted to use Seattle's downtown public toilets that are inhabited by homeless people, drug addicts, and prostitutes? Do they even have a choice in the matter? Which is more offensive to human rights, a homeless person with no pot to piss in or a homosexual who can't marry his locker-room buddy?

---

Hmmmm, a whole string of things that have nothing to do with the topic. Dodge much?Letting gays marry wouldn't change heterosexual marriage in any way. How is not allowing them to do that for no reason other than religious prejudice not bigotry?

---

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

How long are you going to ignore this simple question?

quote:

---

Letting gays marry wouldn't change heterosexual marriage in any way. How is not allowing them to do that for no reason other than religious prejudice not bigotry?

---

---

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

For the third time in this thread alone, I'd accept your solution.What you keep ignoring, as I and others have told you, is the practical fact that that's not going to happen in our society. It's a complete dodge for you to insist on one particular solution that you know full well will never happen and refuse to address the actual situation as it exists, and is likely to for at least the rest of our lifetimes. What's more, it's also dodging to refuse to answer the question that is actually posed by our real world:

quote:

---

Letting gays marry wouldn't change heterosexual marriage in any way. How is not allowing them to do that for no reason other than religious prejudice not bigotry?

---

---

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

I have no doubt that many people, probably most, would express an opinion that gay marriage would harm heterosexual marriage. What I do doubt is that they could come up with any discreet harm that would actually or even likely result. So far, nobody I've asked has been able to, even you, despite repeated requests.

quote:

---

This issue makes bigots out of a lot of good people.

---

Certainly does.This of course, raises the follow two questions:Are you agreeing that there's no basis for opposing it than bigotry?If not, what basis do you have?Edited by subbie, : Tyop

---

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

If you are unable to discuss the issue of gay marriage without bringing extraneous issues in, you're demonstrating quite clearly that the only thing that is motivating you is bigotry.Marriage does not necessarily equal child raising.If you can't stick to the topic, we'll know you don't have anything intelligent to say about it. If all you want to do is bible thump, I'm sure we've all been around long enough to pencil in some typical bible bigotry or other in your absence.

---

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

That's a fine attitude to take. It's what lead this country to 85 years of slavery, over 100 years of women not voting, and dozens of other injustices.Majority rule is wonderful as far as it goes. Its biggest limitation is what very wise men have called the tyranny of the majority. I do believe in democracy, but tempered by Constitutional protections of certain rights that I believe all people are entitled to, even when it goes against the will of the majority, and particularly when it goes against the will of the majority that is supported by nothing more than bigotry.I'm now practically convinced that you in fact have nothing to say on the subject that isn't, at bottom, backed by bigotry. Despite repated requests for a justification, the most you've come up with is an acknowledgment that this issue makes bigots of good people, and it's the will of a majority of those bigoted people.I certainly can call Mr. and Mrs. Jones bigots if they have no reason for their opinion other than that some religious leader or other said so. As I've said many times in this thread:

quote:

---

Letting gays marry wouldn't change heterosexual marriage in any way. How is not allowing them to do that for no reason other than religious prejudice not bigotry?

---

---

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

I'm married, and have no plans whatsoever to have kids with my current wife.My dad's been married for more than 20 years to a woman he won't have children with.I have many friends who are married and will not have any children.It's quite common for elderly singles well past child bearing years to marry one another.To insist that marriage is the same as childrearing it to acknowledge your inability to distinguish one issue from another. If you are incapable of understanding the benefits of marriage apart from childraising, you are for all intents and purposes disqualifying yourself from any further participation in this discussion based on lack of cranial activity.

---

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

Then I shall ask you the same question that Hoot Man has been anble to answer:

quote:

---

Letting gays marry wouldn't change heterosexual marriage in any way. How is not allowing them to do that for no reason other than religious prejudice not bigotry?

---

I have a son.I hope he's not gay. My main reason for doing so is that I'm quite certain he would have considerable pain and unhappiness in his life as a result of being gay that he would not have if he's straight. I will admit, secondarily, that I would be disappointed, in that it would be unlikely that he would have any natural born children, that I wouldn't have any grandchildren to spoil in my dotage.However, that being said, if my son were to come to me tomorrow and tell me he's gay, I'd hug him, tell him how much I loved him, how his homosexuality made no difference to me, that I will always love him, and that I wished only for his happiness in life. I would never, NEVER let him see anything in me other than acceptance and love. He'd never know of my disappointment, or of my fears for his future.The hopes that I would have for my son wouldn't appreciably change. I'd still hope for his happiness. I'd hope that he would find someone he loves and that loves him to make a happy life together. I'd hope that he would get everything in life that he wanted.Now, if you can find any bigotry in there, you're working with a completely different definition of the word than the rest of the world uses.How would you answer your own question, HM?

---

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

That doesn't answer the question at all.How would allowing gay marriages change anything? The government could continue to give the same benefits to marriage that it does now. Those benefits would continue to go to some couples that will never have children. Some of those couples would be gay.How would heterosexual marriage change in any way?

---

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