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

Personally, I do not find homosexuality in anyway an unwelcome departure. However, I suppose homophobes and bigots might very well feel threatened by it, and therefore not be all the welcoming...but that's why we have a Constitution...to prevent homophobes, bigots, racists, etc, from determining what is and what is not allowed in this Country. Then it's not a choice. You could say the exact same thing about many forms of cancer. Stupid people...choosing to have cancer. I now feel no sorrow for my late father (a victim of cancer) now that I know it was a choice he made. You're a real piece of work there, Hoot Mon. I find it rather stunning that anyone can seriously believe this. Really, in what Century are you living, Hoot Mon??

I don't follow. Why do I have to hope that half my children are gay or be considered (by you) to be a bigot? It's a total bullshit premise, Hoot Mon. I would hope all my children (by the way, my wife and I will NOT be having any children...just so we're clear on this) are basically healthy, and that's about it. Why do I have to hope that two are gay anymore than I have to hope that two have red (or blond, or black, or brown) hair, or risk being considered a bigot because I prefer blonds (or red, or brown, or whatever)...or that I must have two boys and two girls rather than all of one sex, or be considered a sexist? This line of argument is meaningless and makes no sense. And you know this how? Yes...why would I do otherwise? If they're "born with it" then it's not a choice. Is that a concept beyond your comprehension, Hoot Mon?
And who gives a flying fuck what "might" happen down the road? We're talking in the here and now, Hoot Mon. Not some fairly-tail BS world where everything that you find distasteful or threatening is simply wished away or cured by a magic pill.

I can say in all honesty that the sexual orientation of any of my children would be so far done the list the things I would give a shit about, as to be virtually nonexistent.I would admittedly, however, feel somewhat worried for any homosexual children I (or any other parent) would have because of bigoted assholes that would want to deny them equal rights solely because of their sexual orientation...and the physical and mental harm that so many gay people have to endure, also because of people like yourself.For those reasons alone, in this current environment, I would hope that my children would be heterosexual. No...you would be showing a preference. So, as it turns out, since "all you know is" turns out to be wrong, it stands that apparently you know nothing. Look, if you acted in such a manner as to restrict (ie show an intolerance towards) the rights of those individuals that possessed things not of your preference(s), then you would be a bigot. Showing a preference is not bigotry, Hoot Mon. Showing intolerance is. Bull shit. They are simply two different "forms" of bigotry, but both are most certainly bigotry. One is not necessarily "better" than the other, Hoot Mon...they both suck.

There is nothing in the Constitution about straight people and their equal rights to get married...but yet straight people CAN get married. So that's kinda the great thing about the Constitution, Hoot Mon. It Guarantees equal treatment under the law for everyone. Why is this so difficult for you to grasp? Bullshit, Hoot Mon. We're having this debate because they are not free to choose. I notice that even though many of us have defined what a "bigot" is to you, you still don't understand. By allowing gays the same rights as the rest of us, we are stopping bigotry. You, by wanting to limit the rights of others because of their sexual orientation, are being bigoted. Again, why are these simple concepts so difficult for you to grasp. My ten-year old niece gets it Hoot Mon, maybe you should repeat the 4th grade.

We (those of us in support of gay marriage) don't want to change the definition of marriage. You guys are the one wanting definition changes to be implemented based (currently) on sexual orientation. All "we" want is for gay people to be allowed to marry. No changes needed. Well, I'm not so sure you are correct about you "consummation" law. Are you required, by law, to consummate the marriage or is the lack of consummation simply grounds for annulment if one party decides as such? There's a difference there, CS. It doesn't matter CS...it's a meaningless argument. The Constitution guarantees equal treatment under the law. It supersedes other laws. An inconvenience is not grounds for denying someone their Constitutional rights.

Yes you can. And I think that you should be allowed to...so I'm in agreement with you here. And this garbage supports your position on gay marriage how? I'm gong to go R E A L S L O W here, try to keep up. It's not a matter of opinion...it's a matter of intolerance.It's the intolerance...Hoot Mon...and the inability of you to grasp this concept is simply baffling.Look, when the entire population of the planet thought that the Earth was flat and only one guy stated differently, guess what..the fucking Earth was not flat, despite the preponderance of opinion.So again. Hoot Mon...you are confusing the word "bigot" with the word "opinion"...two different things entirely.Edited by FliesOnly, : Fix a typo

What sort of BS excuse is this? Define marriage as something between a man and women so you can later claim that you're not banning homosexual marriage? What a complete load of crap. Good luck with that defense. I mean, really Catholic Scientist...what a completely fucked up, shitty, petty, stupid, condescending, asshole thing to use as an excuse simply because you're a homophobe. And this relates to gay marriage how, exactly? You're denying homosexuals the orange, Catholic Scientist.Or wait...are you now saying that an orange is and orange except if your gay...in which case an orange is defined as an apple...and therefore, you can deny oranges to gay people because you're really denying them apples..as per your pathetic definition? You guys really need to learn the difference between bigotry and opinion. Can you not grasp the idea of intolerance? Being inconvienenced, or having a differing opinion is not the same as being denied a basic fundamental right (as defined by our Constitution) because of you sexual orientation.

I can only hope you see how pathetic this excuse happens to be. You basically just wrote that the definition was defined by how it was defined? Circular perhaps? Yeah...I see...you're not homophobic...you just don't want them to have the same rights as the rest of us. For some reason only you know...I guess...but you're not a homophobe. Again...this is meaningless crappola. Why do we need two definitions for marriage? What is your, non-homophobic justification for thinking we need two definitions for the same fucking thing? Jumpin Jesus on a pogo stick, Catholic Scientist. I am expressing my opinion when I say "what a completely fucked up, shitty, petty, stupid, condescending, asshole thing to use as an excuse simply because you're a homophobe." My opinion. Get it!! Now, if I were trying to deny you some basic Constitutional right because of how I feel about you...then I'd be a bigot. If I were to say we need a law preventing fucked up, shitty, petty, stupid, condescending, assholes from being allowed to marry, then I'd be a bigot. Now do you see the difference? "Intolerance"...look it up. And here we go again with the BS double-talk. We can't deny them a marriage because we defined it as being between a man and women, so we're not discriminating because they don't fit the definition we came up with in order to deny them marriage. What a crock.

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?

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.

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.

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.

So if this is how you two really feel, then why do you give a flying fuck if homosexuals are allowed to marry one another?