Grounds to strike down Prop 8

[Bonestorm]

One more time for the retarded...
If
you
allow
shit
to
be
included
as
a
topping
it
will
not
cause
death
to
anyone
not
eating
the
ice
cream

There is no law that prohibits gay people from engaging in homosexual relations, they can fuck each other in the ass all they like! No one has proposed such a law, or tried to deny them the right to fuck each other in the ass. There is no law prohibiting gay couples from having a ceremony and calling it 'marriage' or whatever they want to call it. There is, however, a 5000+ year-old definition of "marriage" and it is indeed, a religious institution and foundation for family and church. Currently, state governments 'certify' marriage between a man and a woman, because this is what 'marriage' is. Civil Unions legislation would remedy all legal complaints of gay couples, without interfering with the sanctity of marriage as a religious institution.

Civil marriage has nothing to do with religion and can be defined however the state sees fit so long as the definition is not unconstitutional.

 

[Socrtease]

*sigh* I gave you the difference. Gender is a fundamental prerequisite concerning marriage, race is not. Marriage is the union of a MAN and WOMAN, not a WHITE and BLACK. Race does not define marriage.

Here is an example... It's legal to sell ice cream... you can serve chocolate and vanilla ice cream... together in the same cone... you can't sell vanilla ice cream with chunks of shit in it, because shit is fecal matter and subject to health regulations. Granted, it may look the same, some people may like to eat shit with their ice cream, it may not hurt me one little bit to allow people to have or serve shit with their ice cream, but it is not the same thing as chocolate and vanilla ice cream! Is that a simple enough analogy for you, waterhead?

YOur logic on this is just plain stupid. Using your logic, the state COULD forbid marriage between a black man and a white woman because they are still not denying them the right to marry, they can marry a person of the opposite sex so long as they are not of opposite race. The black man can marry a black woman so really his rights have not been denied. Denying someone the right to enter into a marriage based on Gender of the other party is unequal protection. However, gender never requires the court look at the law under strict scrutiny so the outcome would still be the same. Bigots win.

 

[Cancel3]

One more time for the retarded...
If
you
allow
shit
to
be
included
as
a
topping
it
will
not
cause
death
to
anyone
not
eating
the
ice
cream

There is no law that prohibits gay people from engaging in homosexual relations, they can fuck each other in the ass all they like! No one has proposed such a law, or tried to deny them the right to fuck each other in the ass. There is no law prohibiting gay couples from having a ceremony and calling it 'marriage' or whatever they want to call it. There is, however, a 5000+ year-old definition of "marriage" and it is indeed, a religious institution and foundation for family and church. Currently, state governments 'certify' marriage between a man and a woman, because this is what 'marriage' is. Civil Unions legislation would remedy all legal complaints of gay couples, without interfering with the sanctity of marriage as a religious institution.

Allowing gay marriages would not change the religious institution one iota. I was married by a Justice of the Peace. Did that effect you at all?

At the time I married I was a practicing pagan. My marriage was not part of ANY religious institution. But I still get the benefits that the STATE bestows on married couples.

(lets stay off the Ben & Jerry's Fecal Flavors ice cream)

 

[Damocles]

One more time for the retarded...
If
you
allow
shit
to
be
included
as
a
topping
it
will
not
cause
death
to
anyone
not
eating
the
ice
cream

There is no law that prohibits gay people from engaging in homosexual relations, they can fuck each other in the ass all they like! No one has proposed such a law, or tried to deny them the right to fuck each other in the ass. There is no law prohibiting gay couples from having a ceremony and calling it 'marriage' or whatever they want to call it. There is, however, a 5000+ year-old definition of "marriage" and it is indeed, a religious institution and foundation for family and church. Currently, state governments 'certify' marriage between a man and a woman, because this is what 'marriage' is. Civil Unions legislation would remedy all legal complaints of gay couples, without interfering with the sanctity of marriage as a religious institution.

Again a failed analogy. There is no law that stops you from putting poop onto your ice cream. Attempting to make a law simply restricts others for no reason other than to make you feel better because you think it is "icky".

Just like this "law". It is "icky" therefore we don't want you to do it. Your analogy fails miserably because nobody is forcing anybody to include poop as a topping at an ice cream store even though it is not restricted. Some stores may include it if they wish, but nobody is forced to include it.

Your "risk" is not increased because there is no law that stops an ice cream store from including poop as a topping. Just as your marriage would not be at risk because others might get married as homosexuals. Nothing at all changes for you in either case. Nothing positive comes from making laws to stop others from doing something that doesn't create a victim.

If you could find some way that magically made it so that nobody ever engaged in anal sex unless they were homosexually married maybe you might have a valid point, but allowing them to marry doesn't change your risk at all. Nor does keeping them from marriage decrease your risk. The only thing it does is make you feel better because your ick factor isn't engaged.

 

[Damocles]

Basically and simply stated. The "marriage" of homosexuals will do nothing at all to increase or decrease your risk of AIDS and it is therefore a baseless and weak argument to base a denial on such a thesis.

In fact, if two uninfected homosexuals maintained a monogamous relationship, like a marriage, their risk is zero of catching it from their partner. If two infected homosexuals maintained monogamy there would still be zero risk of you catching it. If they were never married and acted promiscuously yet you and your wife were still monogamous your risk of catching AIDS would still be zero, but it would increase with promiscuity. It is the "unmarried" that increase the risk and those who won't keep their promises.

 

[BRUTALITOPS]

for the record I support gay marriage and also polygamy. You guys are just hypocrites because polygamy is not politically expedient right now. Why does it have to be limited to two people? Why can't 3 people join up together as well?

I'm not being facetious.

All of you are hypocrites.

 

[Socrtease]

for the record I support gay marriage and also polygamy. You guys are just hypocrites because polygamy is not politically expedient right now. Why does it have to be limited to two people? Why can't 3 people join up together as well?

I'm not being facetious.

All of you are hypocrites.

I agree with you completely. THere is NO REASON that three or more people can't be married. It is stupid but we can't and shouldn't legislate against that kind of stupidity.

 

[evince]

They can have a two person civil union and then go to a lawyer to arrange the other portions of their legal entanglement.

Civil unions should stay jsut between two people.

You could not stop at any number if you stretched it 3 people.

You would have to allow 100 people to make one contract.

Civil unions should be a quick cheap and easy way for two people to arrange their lives together.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

YOur logic on this is just plain stupid. Using your logic, the state COULD forbid marriage between a black man and a white woman because they are still not denying them the right to marry, they can marry a person of the opposite sex so long as they are not of opposite race. The black man can marry a black woman so really his rights have not been denied. Denying someone the right to enter into a marriage based on Gender of the other party is unequal protection. However, gender never requires the court look at the law under strict scrutiny so the outcome would still be the same. Bigots win.

Nope, not at all. It is your logic that is flawed. Race is not a defining factor of marriage, gender is. That is the difference here, and you continue to miss that fundamental distinction. Denying the "right" to marry same gender is no different than denying the right to marry animals, it is not 'unequal' protection, it is completely equal for all to marry a person of the opposite sex, regardless of your race. You have the 'right' to obtain a driver's license, but you can not obtain a license and drive a tank on the highway. Driver's licenses are issued for motor vehicles, not tanks. You could change the definition of 'motor vehicle' to include tanks, but as it stands, you can't say it's the same exact thing, or that tank drivers rights are being violated. You can point to trucks, and claim they have this 'right' so tank drivers should too, but it is an invalid comparison.

We 'deny' people's 'rights' all the time in licensing, blind people can't drive, smokers can't go into certain restaurants, you can't run around naked in public, you can't get shit on your ice cream, you can't obtain a firearm if you are a felon, you can't marry your horse! A 'rights' case can be made for any of these arguments, if you are willing to suspend rationality and objectivity.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Basically and simply stated. The "marriage" of homosexuals will do nothing at all to increase or decrease your risk of AIDS and it is therefore a baseless and weak argument to base a denial on such a thesis.

In fact, if two uninfected homosexuals maintained a monogamous relationship, like a marriage, their risk is zero of catching it from their partner. If two infected homosexuals maintained monogamy there would still be zero risk of you catching it. If they were never married and acted promiscuously yet you and your wife were still monogamous your risk of catching AIDS would still be zero, but it would increase with promiscuity. It is the "unmarried" that increase the risk and those who won't keep their promises.

No one has made the argument that same sex marriage shouldn't be allowed because of risk of AIDS. I know you wish to make that my 'argument' but I have clarified it for you twice now, it's not my argument. You said that my analogy about shit on ice cream failed, because shit on ice cream is a health risk... but it's only a health risk if you eat shit on your ice cream. My point was to counter your point, not to defend my position on gay marriage.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

We 'deny' people's 'rights' all the time in licensing, blind people can't drive, smokers can't go into certain restaurants, you can't run around naked in public, you can't get shit on your ice cream, you can't obtain a firearm if you are a felon, you can't marry your horse! A 'rights' case can be made for any of these arguments, if you are willing to suspend rationality and objectivity.

As sad as it is to say, I have to sort of agree with you here. Rights get denied because some people are just plain fucking stupid and would actually attempt to do some of the stupid shit you have in your post. I hate people.

 

[Bonestorm]

As sad as it is to say, I have to sort of agree with you here. Rights get denied because some people are just plain fucking stupid and would actually attempt to do some of the stupid shit you have in your post. I hate people.

The issue is whether sexual orientation is grounds to deny someone the right to marry. The Courts, unfortunately, have ruled that sexual orientation, unlike race, religion or sex, does not warrant great protection under the equal protection clause. That's why this strategy for getting Prop. 8 struck down won't work. At least not any time in the near future.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

As sad as it is to say, I have to sort of agree with you here. Rights get denied because some people are just plain fucking stupid and would actually attempt to do some of the stupid shit you have in your post. I hate people.

I've not done or said anything stupid. I have repeatedly gone out of my way to advocate and endorse Civil Unions legislation, which would give gay couples every single 'right' they claim to want. I have made perfectly logical analogies of why we shouldn't attempt to change the definition of 'marriage' in order to accomplish the desired result.

'Rights' are denied for a variety of reasons. Usually, it has absolutely nothing to do with 'stupidity' and everything to do with 'common sense.' Presently, gay couples are not being denied rights, they are unable to obtain legal remedy for a variety of things which traditional married couples are eligible, and this can be corrected through 'Civil Unions' legislation, without redefining marriage or interfering with the religious institution of marriage. It is the 'common sense' approach to this problem, but it is not accepted because certain people are not really concerned with fixing the problem, they seek to destroy religious sanctity and attack Christian moral values. That is what this is all about for them, not the "rights" of gay people.

 

[Socrtease]

The issue is whether sexual orientation is grounds to deny someone the right to marry. The Courts, unfortunately, have ruled that sexual orientation, unlike race, religion or sex, does not warrant great protection under the equal protection clause. That's why this strategy for getting Prop. 8 struck down won't work. At least not any time in the near future.

A stronger argument, but not strong enough, is that the distinction is made on gender of the parties. But like I said earlier, Gender does not trigger stict scrutiny and so even that one still fails. You have to get enough justices in the SCOTUS to listen to evidence that sexual orientation is hard wired and there for genetic. Then they have to decide that that evidence is stronger than evidence that sexual orientation is all choice. If that happened then I think the SCOTUS could make the argument that discrimination on the basis of genetics is a violation of the Constitution.

 

[SmarterthanYou]

I've not done or said anything stupid. I have repeatedly gone out of my way to advocate and endorse Civil Unions legislation, which would give gay couples every single 'right' they claim to want. I have made perfectly logical analogies of why we shouldn't attempt to change the definition of 'marriage' in order to accomplish the desired result.

for once in my posts, I wasn't declaring what YOU said was stupid. I was saying that there would be people stupid enough to want to do stupid shit you had in your post, like wanting shit on ice cream or to marry their horse.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

The issue is whether sexual orientation is grounds to deny someone the right to marry. The Courts, unfortunately, have ruled that sexual orientation, unlike race, religion or sex, does not warrant great protection under the equal protection clause. That's why this strategy for getting Prop. 8 struck down won't work. At least not any time in the near future.

Why should sexual behavior ever be a consideration in the definition of something? Some people like to fuck horses, should 'marriage' include the union of a horse and its lover? Why not? It's based on sexual behavior as well! It doesn't harm you or I in any way to allow it! Should Polygamy be allowed? Why not? It's a personal preference.... doesn't effect you or I... between consenting adults!

No one has been denied the right to marry! Sexual orientation does not matter with regard to marriage, you and I are equally protected under the law and can marry ANYONE of the opposite sex, providing they are of legal age and consent. No discrimination has taken place here! You want to interject sexual behavior into the debate, and base 'marriage' on that sexual behavior, and it is a dangerous slippery slope, as I just outlined. There is no need for such a 'redefinition' of 'marriage' based on sexual orientation or behavior! The exact same results can be obtained through Civil Unions legislation, and it would probably be accepted by society as a whole. The 'complaint' is over the 'redefinition' of 'marriage' and the blatant attack on a fundamental religious institution.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

A stronger argument, but not strong enough, is that the distinction is made on gender of the parties. But like I said earlier, Gender does not trigger stict scrutiny and so even that one still fails. You have to get enough justices in the SCOTUS to listen to evidence that sexual orientation is hard wired and there for genetic. Then they have to decide that that evidence is stronger than evidence that sexual orientation is all choice. If that happened then I think the SCOTUS could make the argument that discrimination on the basis of genetics is a violation of the Constitution.

The problem is, THERE IS NO DISCRIMINATION!

Every consenting adult in America is allowed to "MARRY" someone... "MARRIAGE" being, the legal union of a MAN and WOMAN!

 

[Bonestorm]

Why should sexual behavior ever be a consideration in the definition of something? Some people like to fuck horses, should 'marriage' include the union of a horse and its lover? Why not? It's based on sexual behavior as well! It doesn't harm you or I in any way to allow it! Should Polygamy be allowed? Why not? It's a personal preference.... doesn't effect you or I... between consenting adults!

No one has been denied the right to marry! Sexual orientation does not matter with regard to marriage, you and I are equally protected under the law and can marry ANYONE of the opposite sex, providing they are of legal age and consent. No discrimination has taken place here! You want to interject sexual behavior into the debate, and base 'marriage' on that sexual behavior, and it is a dangerous slippery slope, as I just outlined. There is no need for such a 'redefinition' of 'marriage' based on sexual orientation or behavior! The exact same results can be obtained through Civil Unions legislation, and it would probably be accepted by society as a whole. The 'complaint' is over the 'redefinition' of 'marriage' and the blatant attack on a fundamental religious institution.

But, as I have told you several times now, civil marriage is not a religious institution. How the state defines marriage has nothing to do with religion.

The issue is whether the state can deny a consenting adult the right to marry another consenting adult and on what grounds.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

But, as I have told you several times now, civil marriage is not a religious institution. How the state defines marriage has nothing to do with religion.

The issue is whether the state can deny a consenting adult the right to marry another consenting adult and on what grounds.

Marriage IS a religious institution. It is already defined as the union between a man and woman, and no one is being denied the right to marry. If marriage were defined as the union of two consenting adults, you would have a legitimate argument, but that is not marriage. The state doesn't define what words mean, and we can't start down the road of allowing them to redefine words based on sexual behaviors. Marriage is what it is, and the state can't just decide to change that. If that is the case, why couldn't they just decide to change the meaning of "freedom" or "rights" and any number of other words which have meaning?

 

[Bonestorm]

Marriage IS a religious institution. It is already defined as the union between a man and woman, and no one is being denied the right to marry. If marriage were defined as the union of two consenting adults, you would have a legitimate argument, but that is not marriage. The state doesn't define what words mean, and we can't start down the road of allowing them to redefine words based on sexual behaviors. Marriage is what it is, and the state can't just decide to change that. If that is the case, why couldn't they just decide to change the meaning of "freedom" or "rights" and any number of other words which have meaning?

Yes, marriage is religious institution. But that's not what we're talking about. What we are talking about is the secular institution of marriage as defined by the several states. The states can decide to define marriage any way they deem fit, provided, of course, that the definition does not violate the state or federal constitution.