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

I agree. I've been in love with more than one woman at a time. I think my person record is five. But I couldn't marry them all at once, not legally. So, as you say, I don't have the RIGHT to concurrently marry every woman I love.”HM

No...you said "that's the definition used"...read you own quote. So you do think that two men should be allowed to marry each other? Sorry for the confusion. If...for some unknown reason, men were not allowed to marry women, only other men...you would be saying this same stupid thing? Provide this "legally binding, Government dictated definition please. Again, please provide this definition that prevented homosexuals from marrying. How am I forcing my intolerance upon you? And where did I say that I do not "respect" your opinion? Seriously, Catholic Scientist, stop playing stupid semantics and at least try to understand what it means to truly be a bigot. Can you not see the difference between me disagreeing with your point of view (but respecting your right to hold such a point of view), and not allowing some individuals the same rights you have simply because of their sexual orientation?

Sorry to butt in here, but isn't bestiality a sexual orientation?”HM

The three requisite elements of a contract are offer, consideration and acceptance. Sheep are unable to comply with any of them.

---

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

I can see how this would turn into a boring conversation. Although I'm basically on your side in this, FO, I can't help but notice that you've switched roles a bit here: it used to be CS and his side of the debate hiding behind the "letter of the law." If there was a "legally-binding, Government-dictated definition" of marriage (as you've asked him to provide), would you even respect it? Wouldn't you just say it was unethical, anyway? My understanding is that your side of the debate is asking directly for just such a legally-binding, government-dictated definition to be overturned.I don't think it's very fair of you to ask CS to provide as evidence for his argument something that you're probably not going to honor anyway.And, he also didn't say the definition was legally-binding or government-dictated: it was a "spirit of the law" argument wherein a definition was always implicitly understood until somebody tried to push the envelope. So, he's actually right, although I don't know that I'd agree with using his logic to defend the DOMA definition as ethical, moral and Constitutional (because I don't think it is any of these).

---

Darwin loves you.

You mean to say the sheep don't dig it?

I'm sure I wouldn't know; however, getting them to state as much or to sign a paper to that effect is problematic.AbE: And as a nod to the topic: For your logic to hold that gay men already have the same rights to marry as do you, for women to have rights equal to and not beyond men, they too should only be allowed to marry women. For a man to have the same rights as a women, he must be allowed to marry a man.Edited by lyx2no, : No reason given.

---

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

You know...this is a serious topic that has real-world ramifications for millions of Americans...and you treat it like some sort of kindergarten playground spat. Grow up and debate seriously.Can you even put forth a valid argument as to why homosexuals should not be allowed, in this Country, to marry one another. And if you want to cite DOMA as your excuse, then see if you can give me a moral, legal, valid reason why DOMA should stand and not be over turned on the grounds that it's Unconstitutional.

Oh, I see...now you're using an "implied definition" as your bullshit about the definition of marriage being defined as between one man and one women prior to DOMA. You're a real piece of work, ya know that Catholic Scientist. Hog wash. You know it, I know it, everyone with the IQ above that of a doughnut knows it. Are you going to support this claim with anything other than your "implied definition" nonsense?

Yes...that's exactly what I mean to say. Really? How so. Special treatment! Are you fucking kidding me? Self chosen aberrations! Are you serious?Look, we've covered the whole "majority of Americans" crappola numerous times. Just because you are too fucking thick headed to get it through your skull that the Constitution is written precisely to protect the minority from the tyranny of the majority, doesn't mean the rest are. But can you in any way, whatsoever, support your claim the homosexuality is a choice?It never ceases to amaze me the level of intolerance some people have towards homosexuals. What are you so afraid of Hoot Mon? Why do you give a crap if two guys or two girls get married? So now you're equating homosexuality with BBQing puppies. Nice. I could not care less.

yeah... when it was written. Like, when the laws where written the definition for marriage that they understood was between a man and a woman. I did have a grammatical error there. It should have said "because that was the definition used when it was written. According to current law, no.But they still have the same rights as me. I cannot marry a man either.What right do I have that they don't? The reason DOMA was needed is because there wasn't a legally binding government dictated definition of marriage. People understood the word to mean husband and wife so it went unstated, but as things changed the definition needed to be explicit and goverment dictated. Thus DOMA. To be a bigot is to be intolerant of another's opinions. To be intolerant is to be unwilling to respect another's opinions. When you called my opinion 'fucked up, shitty, petty, stupid, and condescending', you were being unwilling to respect my opinion. Ergo, you're a bigot.

Well its the truth. If you want to deny the truth, then so be it. What about the people who actually passed the law:From Congress of the United States
House of Representatives

​

SUMMARY AND ANALYSIS

​

DEFENSE OF MARRIAGE ACT
AS INTRODUCED ON MAY 7, 1996

quote:

---

The second substantive section of the bill amends the U.S. Code to make
explicit what has been understood under federal law for over 200 years;
that a marriage is the legal union of a man and a woman as husband and
wife, and a spouse is a husband or wife of the opposite sex. The DOMA
definition of marriage is derived most immediately from a Washington
state case from 1974, Singer v. Hara, which is included in the 1990
edition of Black's Law Dictionary. More than a century ago, the U.S.
Supreme Court spoke of the "union for life of one man and one woman in
the holy estate of matrimony." Murphy v. Ramsey, 114 U.S. 15, 45
(1985).

---

So now what kind of bullshit are you going to make up?

Well, he (CS) has been arguing about the existence of a supposed preDOMA definition that prevented homosexuals from marrying. I've simply asked him to provide it. I would want to see it's Constitutionality tested by SCOTUS. My hope would be that the Justices would uphold the Constitution and strike down DOMA as being discriminatory against a portion of American citizens. True...but what I wanted from CS was his definition prior to DOMA. He claimed repeatedly that such a definition existed (which made me wonder why we even needed DOMA then), and I just wanted to see it. Now I find out it's implied. Sorry...but that doesn't really cut it in my book...nor apparently in the homophobic Republican Congress at the time...otherwise there truly would have been no need for DOMA. Why is that? What does it matter if I personally honor it or not? I simply want proof of his claim. If it's going to used in a Court of Law to prevent homosexuals from being treated the same as heterosexuals, then it had better damned well be legally binding. How so? I have yet to see a preDOMA definition. I only have his assertion that is was implied. I say "bullshit" to that. If it were implied then DOMA was not needed. A Court would have stated that the definition was implied and, as such, two men (or two women) cannot get married. So he (and you, I guess) has yet to show in anyway how "he's actually right" Neither do I...and I can only hope that neither do even the ultraconservative Justices the W appointed to the Supreme Court.

And from the vast, undifferentiated plane we get this: Well, he can always have a sex change, you know. Then he could marry the man he loves. He's free to do that; so am I. The only thing that separates us from doing that is CHOICE. And his choices are EXACTLY the same as mine.”HM

You know, debating this topic with people (like yourself) that state this sort of crap just drives up my blood pressure. It's not worth it. You're right. Fuck the homosexuals (no pun intended). Seriously CS, when you put forth such a loaded, total piece of crap, stupid, insulting argument like: "I cannot marry a man either", then what's the point? How do I counter such an asshole statement...by being a bigger asshole? Well, I'm not sure that's possible.Telling a homosexual man to basically just shut up and marry a women is a about as bigoted, derogatory remark as is possible. I have nothing left..you win...fuck off.but first And what was it that changed? Be careful here, because you do claim that it (DOMA) was not meant to deny homosexuals the right to marry someone of the same sex. So what changed such that a Republican Congress felt that DOMA was needed?and then this No...you're simply assuming that I do not respect your opinion. I do respect your opinion, I just happen to think that it's "fucked up, shitty, petty, stupid, and condescending"...but I would never deny you the right to express or hold that opinion. Look, I know you're not stupid so I'm relatively certain that you can see the difference between accepting or disagreeing with someones opinion, and doing some overt act to prevent that person from having access to the same rights you have. And please don't repeat the same ole "they can marry a man" argument. It's stupid, petty, condescending, derogatory, and extra stupid...and you're smart enough to know that.