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

This is the argument f a petulant child who won't let others play with his football if he can't make all the rules. It amounts to little more than "Screw you guys, I'm going home!".Trying to expunge marriage from legislation would involve descending into a world of ridiculous double-speak, where we have to refer to an arrangement which is clearly a marriage as a "civil partnership" or some such. It achieves nothing. Besides, it's never going to happen. Do you really think that Christians across America are going to stand for being told that the state will no longer recognise their wedding ceremonies? Its a pipe dream that serves no purpose. Because it's patronising."Civil Partnership" is a ridiculous euphemism. The implicit suggestion is that gay marriage can't be spoken of out loud, that it must exist under cover. It makes civil partnership a second-rate version of marriage. Homosexuals don't want pretend marriages; those have been around for years. What is required here is equality; genuine equality. Equal but separate is not equal. Mildred Loving died a couple of weeks ago, but it seems that the lessons of Loving v. Virginia have still not filtered through. Civil partnerships are unconstitutional in the US and I wish they were in the UK as well (I wish we actually had a constitution over here, but that's another argument...). Wow. Did you actually watch the video that Taz posted at the start of this thread? Do you really think that the women in that tape were leaping about and crying and phoning all their friends because they had just been given license to annoy some Christians? Seriously? Do you really imagine that the whole gay marriage movement is aimed at irritating you? Are you insane? This much effort, just to annoy some bigots? Wouldn't it be simpler just to knock on their doors and run away leaving a bag of burning poop on their doorsteps? Do you think this is a game?This isn't motivated out of spite, but out of a genuine desire for equality. I'm still finding hard to tell whether you are really serious, because I'm finding it hard to believe that anybody other than IamJoseph could promote an argument this absurd and wrong-headed.

---

Mutate and Survive

OH MY GOD! Hoot Mon has to WATCH MEN KISSING?! In public?! The horror!Well, that changes everything. Let's round gays up and put them in giant "out-of-sight-out-of-mind" camps, so that poor Hoot Mon isn't forced to witness any more such shocking scenes. Maybe we could allow a few gays to walk the streets, on the express condition that they don't kiss each other and that they wear little pink triangles to warn Hoot of their approach. It's the only way to defend Hoot Mon's delicate sensibilities.Hmmm... Does this only apply to men, or is it OK for women to kiss in public? Only if they're hot right?

---

Mutate and Survive

I am so ok with that that it's ridiculous.

---

KindlyTa-da ≠ QED

So is that a good thing? I've been married three times and I wouldn't recommend it to anyone.”HM

Taz, what balls you have! But they were slaves. They had a bigger problem to deal with, and it wasn't one of their choosing. Not sure I do. Well, if therapeutic measures become available then the gays can get straightened out if they want to. It will be a clearer matter of choice for them. So why do our laws need to flex with their whims and free choices? Maybe we need to enact other laws guaranteeing other peoples' free choices, too, like the freedom to raise dogs for food. Some cultures allow it. Possibly senile. I'm old, you know. But I don't recall that discussion. Furthermore, why couldn't biology have something to do with choice? Which is it? I think it's probably biology, and it think it probably can be fixed. And if it can, then it's choice.”HM

Funny thing, Granny, but I've never seen a man stick his tongue down the throat of his wife while riding home on the Bremerton ferry. But I've seen men do that to each other, and even stick their hands down each other's pants and fumble around, just to entertain and insult the straight folks. And I've seen it more than once.Gosh, maybe they would behave most decently if we let them get married and have babies...oops, forget the babies.”HM

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

Only one, the First Amendment: "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion..."”HM

Uh... I wasn't referring to the time before the Emancipation Proclamation. Again, are you senile? We also had a long discussion about this in which you also admitted after I pointed out that if a "cure" could be found for homosexuality then being straight is also a choice. Yup, I'd say you're senile. This is the only explanation to why you forgot a whole conversation and went back to your old misconceptions.

---

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

I just find it interesting that the very people who are biggets opposers to gay marriage are also the very people that have gone through many marriages and divorces. Rush Limbaugh, for example, I think have lost count on how many marriages and divorces he's been through. All the while the gay couple I know who have been together for 15 years can't even get recognized by the law.

---

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

subbie, for me the answer is simple: I don't see a good reason why the government should be in the business of marrying people. Let it do its job of granting civil unions to couples for their legal protection. Then let religion do its job and take care of marrying people. If the government doesn't discriminate against same-sex civil unions then who cares if the churches want to marry them? It's none of my busines because it's none of the government's business. And I don't see why the definition of marriage should end there, either. If Frank wants to marry his pooch in the privacy of his own home and out of my sight, I don't care. Why should I? It doesn't bother me. I only care what my government is in the business of doing.Why do you insist that the government should be in the marriage business. Tradition, perhap?”HM

Any children yet?

Yes, this is the ideal you're hiding behind. But it's obvious that this isn't the forefront of your position.If this is what you were worried about... you'd do what you say. You'd be working on removing the word "marriage" from the law. But you're not doing that. You're here, in a gay-rights thread, arguing against gay rights.You're hiding behind what you think is a neutral cause. But it's not working. Your actions give you away.If getting the government out of the marriage business is your goal, then start acting like that's your goal. Once that's accomplished, and only once that's accomplished, can you actually argue your 'neutral ground' against gays getting married. Before then, like now, your anti-gay sentiments come across for exactly what they are: bigoted actions.You're not fooling anybody.

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

subbie, come with me across the Heartland of America, from sea to shining sea, and let's visit every farmhouse together and ask those fine people one question: Mr. and Mrs. Jones, do you believe that the institution of marriage, "holy matrimony," would suffer if gays were allow to get married?" And then let's have a beer in New York and tally up the results. Any bets on what they might be?This issue makes bigots out of a lot of good people.”HM