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

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

You know Hoot, if you actually had an argument here, you might have replied to Message 31, where I answered the question that you asked.Instead you are hiding behind some irrelevant crap about sexual activity on a ferry.Homosexual activity is legal.
Kissing in public is legal.
Thus it is legal for homosexuals to kiss in public. If you don't like it, that is officially your problem.Sexual acts of the kind you describe are illegal in public, whether between same-sex or opposite sex couples.If you don't like seeing people jerk each other off on your ferry trip (and I can see why you wouldn't) then call a cop.It's as simple as that and precisely none of it is in the slightest bit related to gay marriage.That fact is that your argument so far amounts to;1) If gays want legally recognised marriage, then no-one can have it!2) Ewww! Guys kissing! That's gross!3) Something about consummating the marriage.4) You know they're only doing this out to be a pain in the ass, don't ya?5) Loving v. Virginia? Nope, never heard of it. La la la...I'm not listening...Not very convincing I'm afraid.

---

Mutate and Survive

You have any idea how hard it is for gay people to adopt?

---

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

Granny, you've gone hysterical. I haven't harmed any gay people yet. And your said post way back when is too complicated for me to deal with, given the lead in my bigoted bidge. Can you pose a simpler question for your elderly victim?”HM

Wonder why. Kooties?

Experience tells me that women know best about women issues and men likewise. If children are a natural follow on from marriage (which will inevitably mean they are a 'natural' follow on from gay marriage) then I don't see how this issue is to be resolved.Given that there is more to bringing up children that just a female/female view or a male/male view.Unless homosexual male now = hetrosexual female and vice versaEdited by iano, : No reason given.

Sorry, subbie, but I can't agree. You can't call Mr. and Mrs, John bigots; they are the core of America, and it's a matter of opinion anyway. Take a vote. If you believe in democracy you can't negate the opinions of Mr. and Mrs. Jones.”HM

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

Er..kids aren't extraneous to the issue of marriage. Not in Ireland and likely not in your neck of the woods either. You'll (likely) find that the states view of marriage (the institution) revolves around the issue of encouragement of procreation, protection and raising of kids. Rights and benefits and protections are aimed thus.To suppose marriage to be other than child directed (whilst accepting that childless marriages occur) is to talk out of your arse.

Way to go, iano!

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

I'm insisting nothing of the sort. I'm insisting that marriage (the institution) has traditionally attracted state benefits and protection due to it's being the environment wherein children could be expected to be procreated and raised. Consider it the states quid pro quo.That a minority of folk couldn't/chose not to // have children doesn't impact on the reasons for those benefits / protections accruing to the institution in the first place. No system can expect to cover all possible angles.

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?

---

OK, so we're all bigots, even the atheists. We can handle that.subbie, here a test on prejudice for you: If you parented four children wouldn't you hope that two were gay? After all, they're good people, too, who deserve equal rights and equal love. Would you have hopes for the homosexuality of your children that equal those for heterosexuality?If you fail this test, subbie, I might call you a bigot.”HM