Cali on same-sex marriage

[Wooz]

Judeo-Christian definition of marriage

Ah-hah! I knew there was always something queer about the Muslims!

 

[Thrawn]

Consentual adults is the difference for most of these cases except incest, where the main argument against marriage is the consequences for their children (which have a big chance of ending up handicapped). Animals and children are not and cannot be consenting adults and hence those

If there were no chance to have childern or better yet, no sexual activity at all, would you support the idea of me marrying my sister?

Plus a female dog in heat activly searches for sex and is therefore, concenting.

So your argument is 'It was always like this it should always be like this'.
That's a pretty dumbassed argument, there.

My point is when you start changing laws you have to look at where they are headed and where you would draw the line that says "this is wrong, but this is right".

That is really the only difference between people who disagree with incest and people who disagree with homosexuality.

Also, how does two men or two women being allowed to be married affect *your* marriage adversely?

It doesn't and I would never say it does. I would say though that I don't like seeing anyone make out in public, and a lot of times it seems like homosexuals feel that their lifestyle give them the license to do so.

Also, people, saying 'you're an idiot' is basically spam and not very useful. So don't.

It is okay, it kind of cracks me up.

Back a few years ago there was a "traditional marriage" rally here in Seattle at our baseball stadium. As we entered there was a bunch of people outside calling us bigots.

I asked one of them "Why would you call me a bigot? You don't even know why I am here, you just assume. Doesn't that make you a bigot?"

She didn't really have an answer.

 

[Sander]

If there were no chance to have childern or better yet, no sexual activity at all, would you support the idea of me marrying my sister?

I wouldn't give two shits about it, no.

Plus a female dog in heat activly searches for sex and is therefore, concenting.

A female dog isn't intelligent enough to be considered a consenting adult, smartass.

My point is when you start changing laws you have to look at where they are headed and where you would draw the line that says "this is wrong, but this is right".

Allowing two men to marry has absolutely nothing to do with allowing a man to marry his dog. It's not even close.

Again: allowing two men or two women to marry means you are allowing exactly that, and nothing else. Going 'but maybe we'll allow more in the future!!!' is a retarded argument.
Hey, maybe we should just abolish prison sentences for stealing because maybe we'll be giving people prison sentences for buying stuff in the future!

That is really the only difference between people who disagree with incest and people who disagree with homosexuality.

No, the difference is that there's a very sensible argument based on facts against incest, and there is *none* against homosexuality.

It doesn't and I would never say it does. I would say though that I don't like seeing anyone make out in public, and a lot of times it seems like homosexuals feel that their lifestyle give them the license to do so.

And how does this have anything to do with their marrying?
Also, I see many more straight couples making out than I do gay couples, and I live in the Netherlands.

It is okay, it kind of cracks me up.

Back a few years ago there was a "traditional marriage" rally here in Seattle at our baseball stadium. As we entered there was a bunch of people outside calling us bigots.

I asked one of them "Why would you call me a bigot? You don't even know why I am here, you just assume. Doesn't that make you a bigot?"

She didn't really have an answer.

Then she was an idiot because the very correct and easy answer is 'because you oppose gay marriage'.

 

[horse]

hmm i see some validity in thrawns argumentation. hard to negate that SOME people will go down the "slippery-slope" path of argumentation trying to establish acceptance for the more, say, deviant deviations. on the other hand, there is still hope that common sense will forbid that.

 

[Thrawn]

Plus a female dog in heat activly searches for sex and is therefore, concenting.

A female dog isn't intelligent enough to be considered a consenting adult, smartass.

Here I am speficily talking about sex, not marriage. But by this logic, are the metally handicapped not smart enough to be married?

My point is when you start changing laws you have to look at where they are headed and where you would draw the line that says "this is wrong, but this is right".

Allowing two men to marry has absolutely nothing to do with allowing a man to marry his dog. It's not even close.

Again: allowing two men or two women to marry means you are allowing exactly that, and nothing else. Going 'but maybe we'll allow more in the future!!!' is a retarded argument.
Hey, maybe we should just abolish prison sentences for stealing because maybe we'll be giving people prison sentences for buying stuff in the future!

The reason I am against gay marriage is not because of the slippery slope argument, it is because when you ask a perfectly reasonable "is homosexual sex okay?" and they say "Yes, of course!" but then you ask "What about having sex with your brother?" and they say "No way! that is gross!"

That is really the only difference between people who disagree with incest and people who disagree with homosexuality.

No, the difference is that there's a very sensible argument based on facts against incest, and there is *none* against homosexuality.

Actually a study recently found that first cusions can procreate without abnormal risks. But again, this isn't a question of offspring, it is a question of morality and the "eww" factor.

It doesn't and I would never say it does. I would say though that I don't like seeing anyone make out in public, and a lot of times it seems like homosexuals feel that their lifestyle give them the license to do so.

And how does this have anything to do with their marrying?
Also, I see many more straight couples making out than I do gay couples, and I live in the Netherlands.
[/quote]

You have a fair point. I really should have seperated those two arguements because they do not have anything to do with eachother.

My point there was that when a man and a woman are making out at Safeco field in seattle and the usher asks them to knock it off, they stop. When lesbians do the same thing it becomes a national news story.

It is okay, it kind of cracks me up.

Back a few years ago there was a "traditional marriage" rally here in Seattle at our baseball stadium. As we entered there was a bunch of people outside calling us bigots.

I asked one of them "Why would you call me a bigot? You don't even know why I am here, you just assume. Doesn't that make you a bigot?"

She didn't really have an answer.

Then she was an idiot because the very correct and easy answer is 'because you oppose gay marriage'.

Actually, I was there to speficily to hear someone explain how opposing gay marriage in 1999 was different from opposing interracial marriage in 1899.

I think you are a bigot for assume everyone who walked into that stadium that day was there to gay bash.

 

[fedaykin]

Considering you haven't produced any compelling argument against gay marriage except what amounts to "because people say it's gross", you are a bigot.

 

[Sander]

Here I am speficily talking about sex, not marriage. But by this logic, are the metally handicapped not smart enough to be married?

If a mentally handicapped person is not capable of making adult decisions, then she should not be considered an adult, no.
And in fact, most jurisdictions have laws surrounding this, IIRC.

The reason I am against gay marriage is not because of the slippery slope argument, it is because when you ask a perfectly reasonable "is homosexual sex okay?" and they say "Yes, of course!" but then you ask "What about having sex with your brother?" and they say "No way! that is gross!"

Ehm, that's not an argument at all. That doesn't even resemble an argument in form. What the hell are you talking about? You're against gay marriage because some people think homosexual sex is fine but incest isn't? How does that make sense?

Actually a study recently found that first cusions can procreate without abnormal risks.

Link?
Also, that then defeats the entire purpose of these laws and there is hence thus a very valid reason to rescind those laws.
The fact that you find it icky isn't exactly relevant.

But again, this isn't a question of offspring, it is a question of morality and the "eww" factor.

No, actually, it isn't. What does the fact that you think something is icky have to do with legal issues surrounding personal rights?

You have a fair point. I really should have seperated those two arguements because they do not have anything to do with eachother.

My point there was that when a man and a woman are making out at Safeco field in seattle and the usher asks them to knock it off, they stop. When lesbians do the same thing it becomes a national news story.

Ehm, so? That just shows hipocrisy and news bias, which is completely irrelevant here.

Actually, I was there to speficily to hear someone explain how opposing gay marriage in 1999 was different from opposing interracial marriage in 1899.

I think you are a bigot for assume everyone who walked into that stadium that day was there to gay bash.

Eh? You just said you showed up for an anti-gay marriage rally and I responded to that. Not to the apparent fact that there was also a pro gay-marriage lecture at the same time which you neglected to mention.

In fact, you simply created a situation where you made yourself look bad and then said 'lol bigot' when someone actually thought you looked bad. Hey, how's that for idiocy?

 

[Thrawn]

The reason I am against gay marriage is not because of the slippery slope argument, it is because when you ask a perfectly reasonable "is homosexual sex okay?" and they say "Yes, of course!" but then you ask "What about having sex with your brother?" and they say "No way! that is gross!"

Ehm, that's not an argument at all. That doesn't even resemble an argument in form. What the hell are you talking about? You're against gay marriage because some people think homosexual sex is fine but incest isn't? How does that make sense?

You are right, I worded that pretty stupidly. I point I was trying to make is that you are not considered a bigot if you think incest is gross but you are if you think homosexuality is. That sentence shouldn't have started with "The reason I am against gay marriage"

Actually a study recently found that first cusions can procreate without abnormal risks.

Link?
Also, that then defeats the entire purpose of these laws and there is hence thus a very valid reason to rescind those laws.
The fact that you find it icky isn't exactly relevant.

http://www.news.com.au/perthnow/story/0,21598,23792218-2761,00.html

But again, this isn't a question of offspring, it is a question of morality and the "eww" factor.

No, actually, it isn't. What does the fact that you think something is icky have to do with legal issues surrounding personal rights?

What are the legal reasons for public nudity being illegal? What are the legal reasons American's can't cook and consume dog, cat or horse? What are the legal reasons a man can not consume or fornicate with his dead wife?

Something considered immoral by a society is grounds enough for it to be illegal so long as it is illegal for everyone and once again this goes back to the idea that marriage as it stands in America today is equal for every person.

Actually, I was there to speficily to hear someone explain how opposing gay marriage in 1999 was different from opposing interracial marriage in 1899.

I think you are a bigot for assume everyone who walked into that stadium that day was there to gay bash.

Eh? You just said you showed up for an anti-gay marriage rally and I responded to that. Not to the apparent fact that there was also a pro gay-marriage lecture at the same time which you neglected to mention.

There was no pro-gay-marriage lecture. I just figured they would explore that half of the issue. In my defense I was 16 at the time.

In fact, you simply created a situation where you made yourself look bad and then said 'lol bigot' when someone actually thought you looked bad. Hey, how's that for idiocy?

Rofl. That is a pretty stupid statement. So if someone I knew attended Amadijad's university speech I would be fine to call them anti-semitic and it would be idiocy for them to expect anything else?

Guilty by association is bigotry or at least shows a large prejudice.

 

[Sander]

You are right, I worded that pretty stupidly. I point I was trying to make is that you are not considered a bigot if you think incest is gross but you are if you think homosexuality is.

No, actually, you are considered a bigot if you think homosexuality is evil/inferior/should be banned. You can think it's gross all you want, I don't like seeing two men have sex any more than you do.

What are the legal reasons for public nudity being illegal? What are the legal reasons American's can't cook and consume dog, cat or horse? What are the legal reasons a man can not consume or fornicate with his dead wife?

The first two are, in fact, rather silly and stupid laws (and I don't know whether it is illegal to cook and consume household animals in the US).
The latter has to do with respect for the dead, and the belief that something remains of someone who has died.

Something considered immoral by a society is grounds enough for it to be illegal so long as it is illegal for everyone and once again this goes back to the idea that marriage as it stands in America today is equal for every person.

Oh, I forgot to comment on this before: this is simply not true. The law is supposed to be blind to the sexes. In fact, it is not. Only women can marry men, only men can marry women. The fact that you have the same rights as other *men* in marrying people is irrelevant, *everyone* should have the same rights.

See also universal suffrage.

Rofl. That is a pretty stupid statement. So if someone I knew attended Amadijad's university speech I would be fine to call them anti-semitic and it would be idiocy for them to expect anything else?

If the speech is anti-semitic then that's a pretty reasonable assumption, yes.
You expect people to attend a John McCain meeting to be Republicans, right?

Guilty by association is bigotry or at least shows a large prejudice.

No it doesn't, it shows common sense. People showing up for such a lecture generally agree with what is discussed in the lecture. Until I'm presented with some counter-evidence, this is an entirely reasonable assumption.

This isn't bigotry at all, most importantly because bigotry is in fact a stubborn intolerance of a belief, creed or opinion. The fact that I think someone attending an anti-gay marriage rally is likely to be a bigot doesn't reflect on my tolerance or intolerance of that belief at all, it merely means that I think people who attend such a lecture are rather likely to be stubbornly intolerant of homosexuality or gay marriage. A rather logical conclusion, if you ask me.

 

[Jotisz]

I don't really like this thing.
The main reason for marrige is to make a family, children.
Note: I don't have problem with homosexuals but they can't have children on their own (atleast in the near future) so why should they be marriged. Its a nonsense

 

[Wooz]

This isn't bigotry at all, most importantly because bigotry is in fact a stubborn intolerance of a belief, creed or opinion. The fact that I think someone attending an anti-gay marriage rally is likely to be a bigot doesn't reflect on my tolerance or intolerance of that belief at all, it merely means that I think people who attend such a lecture are rather likely to be stubbornly intolerant of homosexuality or gay marriage. A rather logical conclusion, if you ask me.

I don't really like this thing.
The main reason for marrige is to make a family, children.
Note: I don't have problem with homosexuals but they can't have children on their own (atleast in the near future) so why should they be marriged. Its a nonsense

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

The main reason for marrige is to make a family, children.

says who? your fucking bible? jesus man, this is the 21st century. people like you scare me more than any terrorist ever possibly could.

 

[Jotisz]

The main reason for marrige is to make a family, children.

says who? your fucking bible? jesus man, this is the 21st century. people like you scare me more than any terrorist ever possibly could.

I don't belive in god

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

then you're speaking merely of conservative tradition but your complaints are hypocritical (not to mention juvenile and simple).

one of the most important aspects of this situation is governmental recognition of equality. secondly, it protects the legal rights inherent in the unions between gay couples through marriage. in fact, this situation being passed would reinforce the idea of family for gay couples who want to adopt (or lesbians becoming artificially inseminated). now...are you about to tell us all here that you find that not having your "own" children does not qualify you as a "family"? because if you don't, then i don't see your argument as having a leg to stand on.

 

[Phil the Nuka-Cola Dude]

*snip*

You can't hold a logical debate with 'people' like that.


It doesn't matter how well constructed your arguments are, or how you support them with facts... what you're saying is falling on deaf ears.


"My inbred wife-beating daddy taught me to hate queers" trumps "Gays/Lesbians should have equal rights and this is why..."

 

[TwinkieGorilla]

*sigh*

hold me, phil.

 

[Snackpack]

The main issue, and what many opponents of gay marriage fail to realize, is one of health care and economic equality.

As it stands in the states if your spouse would qualify for health care through your work, but you happen to be gay, no dice. Married couples also get many tax breaks, why should you suffer an economic disadvantage because you happen to be in love and cohabiting with someone of the same sex? It's discrimination pure and simple, and has nothing to do with the definition of the word marriage. If preserving the religious definition is really your concern, how would you feel if instead of "marriage" for homosexuals it was called "Juicy Flaming Man Love 24/7 366!" but carried the exact same economic benefits? It's semantics pure and simple. And you can't argue that less Americans should be eligible for health care! Shit, I've never had a job that offered health care, and I couldn't afford college so chances are it will remain that way. The last time I was at a doctor was in 6th grade (roughly 14 years ago) and you better believe that if I were gay and my spouses job offered family health care benefits which we were not eligible for I would be pissed.

One other thing that makes me chuckle, not about gay marriage but homosexuality in general:

To all you guys out there who say "yah lesbians are hot, but gay dudes?? thats fucking gross" Do you watch lesbian only porno? If not, somewhere deep, deeep down, you loves the cock! Heh, suck on that for awhile!

 

[Lukus]

You're all forgetting that the main issue here is how gay buttsex is kind of gross.

Seriously though; listen to Snackpack and Twinkles, for they are wise in the ways of debating gay marriage.

 

[Neamos]

Uhm? What?! Buttsex owns.

We have a prostate for a reason, you know!


On topic, was the news that Ahhnold veto'd the proposal to ban same-sex marriage posted?
He's probably the best republican ever, he doesn't let his opinion get in the way of law and equality.
Off topic, why does a blue state like Cali have a republican governor?

 

[Ah-Teen]

Because it's Arnold. The mother fucking govanata!

He also isn't absurdly far right. Hell, he drives a fleet of hummers and a private jet to work every day but saves the planet with carbon credits!