The other side has no precedent? Doesn't have any facts? Doesn't even have any experts. Is this fucking cheap ass sell out, publicity grabbing motherfucker lawyer kidding me? What dumb fucking lawyer he is to make such fucking stupid statement. So, no precedent? when the institution of marriage has been around for thousands of years. This fucking lawyer is a joke.
This isn't about equality. It's about who holds the power. It forces occupations such as a pastor, pope, and other religious occupations to be forced to go against their religious beliefs. They will be made to accept gay marriage as equal to a man and a woman and cannot refuse to marry them. If they refuse or talk or speak against it, gays and others can sue them for hate crime. A direct violation of the first amendment.
@4Ventus in america everyone is equal regardless of gender or sexual preference. your operating on fear and hatred. fuck the church that stupid bible is how people 3000 years ago saw the world we know the earth is round not flat we know america is not the new world like columbus thought but rather another land mass on earth. we know that 99% of all speices living on earth are now extict. and that earth is billions of years old. when will you finally except reality. gay folks are fine. take a nap
On the marriage to non-human animals, NOT until animals can become CITIZENS of the UNITED STATES, for one thing (among many, many, MANY other issues blocking "THAT one!") When animals are ever declared citizens of the United States, either by native birth into its states or territories, or by being allowed to take the oath of citizenship, THEN we'll talk. (HOW insane can these arguments BE? Just when they went as low as I thought possible, they come back and DIG A HOLE, I swear...)
Can you marry a horse? Why NOT? Men and women can marry peoples or animals if they chose ad want to!!! Can you marry or sleep with a dog/homosexuals/monkey? Of curse you can!!!!
Democracy cannot work when you can breed numbnuts at the rate humans do - that's why the US is a Republic.
Also, nobody lost a thing. Christians are not forced to marry gays & gays can share in the act of marraige & the benifits that go with it.
The next step is to ease the burdon of the orphanages (& certain Catholic priests) to allow gays to adopt. if the original, hetro breeders don't want the child, that is not a good argument to say they are the only ones allowed to be parents ;)
Regardless of your religious views. No one can vote to take away the rights of others. Everyone who voted "yes" to Prop 8 seems to forget that the US Constitution overrides the California Constitution. Those who shout "the will of the people" let me ask you a question. If a community had a majority of Muslims and they wanted to vote on whether all woman had to be covered from head to toe, would "the will of the people" still apply?
@rockfordguy24 Your viewpoint and argument is so logical. How can it not be seen as clearly as the nose on one's face? Everyone should know that if the vote of the majority rode over the rights of the minorities then women, "blacks", and conscious "whites" that fell in love with "blacks" wouldn't have any rights they share today. How could that not been understood by the Prop. Haters and religious bigots?
I SUPPORT MARRIAGE EQUALITY & YOU SHOULD TOO BECAUSE IT'S THE HUMANE & LOGICAL THING TO DO today in the year 2010. :)
And to all of those whom in one way or another are against the legalization of same-sex marriage in all 50 U.S States of The U.S.A. Logically speaking: How is allowing gay & lesbian couples in the U.S.A to get a marriage license going to affect you in a negative way? - Think about it for a second, and you'll find out that in reality there's nothing wrong with same-sex marriage.
"When you can't hide, discrimination falls . . ." David Boies May we see in the next generation a true & heartfelt victory over the last bastion of discrimination! And may hearts of haters change toward those who already have laws but still get treated like garbage!
People who fight to get marriage banned between gay men and lesbian women don't realize that is only a matter of time before someone is fighting to get their rights banned. People come to America for freedom, so what right do we have to take that freedom away? He is right, discrimination only survives when it is hidden in the dark. So I personally want to say thank you to those who fought for my right,and others, to get married like everyone else.
well....heres the deal....a moral wrong cannot be a civil right....and because this is a country for of and by the people then we have a right by majority rule to not allow our country to be tainted by this...
@Dem0nz890 Thankfully, the Constitution protects us from the tyranny of the majority, from people like you. It does not matter how many people vote for something or how big the majority is. If something is unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional - period.
Those who wish to discriminate against gays and lesbians do not have facts or truth on their side. They only have hate and ignorance, and those qualities will not stand, which has been proved time and time again in our great nation.
@chronomitch its not tyrannical you believe so because your...side...is pathetic....we can chose to run our country in the direction we believe is best for us all, marriage is banned because it is a sacred sacrament meant for man and woman mostly for procreational purposes...being in a relationship is not and that is as far as it can go
as for it being unconstitutional? no, although it is close i am not going to lie.
1) So if married people do not have children, should their marriage be considered null and void? People marry for many different reasons, such as love, financial reasons, wanting to raise kids, etc. In times past, marriages were arranged. Just because you or your religion thinks marriage is only for raising children does not make it so.
@chronomitch once again...you do not listen....its mainly for a man and a woman because of that possible result...kids....i personally am married with no kids. in no way should a childless marriage be made null...you cannot just say that taking a part of my reply out of context.
@chronomitch why cant you get it into your head that im only saying that the main reason its only for man+woman is because children can come out of it...children have to come from somewhere right? where did you come from?...read carefully and take nothing out of context
And as I said before, people marry for many different reasons, not just children. In the past, marriages were arranged for financial or political reasons. Today, it's mostly about love and wanting to spend the rest of your life with someone. However, it's not the same for everyone. You have no right to dictate the reasons why people marry any more than I do. It's up to them to decide.
What's more is that you seem to indicate that marriage is REQUIRED for children, which I think is a plainly ridiculous notion. Likewise, gay couples can raise children as well. It's called adoption. I would rather have orphaned kids raised by loving gay couples than raised in a poorly run state institution.
@chronomitch marriage isnt required obviously not...im trying to give you the goodie 2 shoes example but anyway gays adopting children poses another problem so lets not go off topic....and you sir cannot imply that our whole national adoption system is poorly run...
@Dem0nz890 "gays adopting children poses another problem" ... so you have issues with gays adopting children that heterosexual couples either do not or cannot (insufficient number of couples interested in adopting) adopt, thus leaving them in a situation where no one adopts them?
@Dem0nz890 "its mainly for a man and a woman" ... and the inclusion of the LGBT community (which ranges in estimation from 2% to 15% of the population) will mean that marriage will still be "mainly for a man and a woman". "because of that possible result...kids" ... what about people who are infertile? It is not possible for that result to occur. If everyone knew in advance of the marriage that these two were infertile, not something they discover later on, would it still be appropriate?
2) Marriage brings many rights, such as tax breaks, visitation rights, etc. If you think you can discriminate against people and take away those rights simply by having a majority of people vote for it, then that is tyranny by the majority. It's the same thing as thinking you can remove a person's freedom of speech by having a majority of people vote on it. It's unconstitutional.
@5random1 Wrong, marriage did distinguish between heterosexual and homosexual as far back as ancient Greece, where homosexuality was more tolerated. Why are you asking me what marriages are? As a result of overturning prop 8 there's no current definition. If you wanna fill that vacuum with a definition go right ahead. I don't have time for the rest of your liberal shaming tactics.
@drealm "Wrong, marriage did distinguish between heterosexual and homosexual" ... I don't think that is the point he was making ... "Lots of homosexuals married the opposite sex. Even had kids together. Are those marriages?" ... I think we would call them bisexual now, but due to extreme (death, imprisonment) discrimination against even declaring oneself gay in the past, it was necessary to 'keep up appearances'.
I read the entire 136 page ruling. Anybody who disagrees with the ruling really needs to read it and see what it says. Because in spite of their best effort to prove all the reasons gays and lesbians shouldn't be allowed to marry, the proponents of Prop 8 were not able to prove one shred of evidence that they are right. They're flat wrong. Not only did they fail to prove their case, but their witnesses' testimony actually helped prove the plaintiffs' case--that Prop 8 is discriminatory. Read it!
@ananiasacts Are you talking about the one from Courage Campaign? I haven't ever watched it, but was aware of it. I will have to check that out when I have the time to watch it all. Thanks! Let me know if there's another good one I'm not aware of.
@lanceawatt, Yes but religion does give us a compelling reason to endorse and even promote gay marriage: it pisses off an evil celestial dictator purported to have a "plan" for each of us. And if it provokes a reaction then maybe it was god's idea in the first place and another one of his famous demonstrations. Either way we win.
You can have you're marriage any way you damn well want it liberal fucking america. I'll move to the middle east where they murder you faggots simply for existing. This is not FUCKING DEBATABLE. Marriage is product of evolution for recognizing the father of a woman's child. Can FAGGOTS AND LEZBOS HAVE CHILDREN? FUCK NO!? They can't fucking reproduce so why the fuck is this even debated?
@ananiasacts I don't understand your question. One, I don't mind them having sex (if you can call it that). Two, I don't want them to get married because it invalidates marriage for everyone who chose to marry under a traditional rule set. Like I said to someone else, can I now marry my toaster? My car? How about my pet dog?
@drealm, That doesn't make any sense. Someone else's understanding of what something means cannot change the meaning you give it. By what mechanism? We are constantly making revisions to longstanding bits of our culture. It's the basis of all progress. For cultural reasons we have a present day society that is homophobic. We can improve the lives of everyone, save money, and have more time to do more constructive things if we cease needlessly demonizing that which doesn't warrant persecution.
@ananiasacts 1. It invalidates marriage because marriage is not only a contract between two people being married, but also a public recognition by peers. Prior to prop 8 being overturned you could say "I'm married" and this would automatically mean a man and a woman. Post prop 8 being overturned there's room for confusion. Heterosexual couples can now wrongfully be associated as homosexual because the term "marriage" no longer distinguishes between heterosexual and homosexual.
@drealm "because marriage is not only a contract between two people" ... I'm glad that you leave that part genderless ... "this would automatically mean a man and a woman" ... and traditionally, in the USA, it automatically meant between a white man and a white woman, and then it traditionally became between a man and a woman of the same racial background ... are you looking for those days to come back too? I mean there must have been some confusion when those laws were overturned as well.
@Alitari Please don't assume I'm racist bigot. Also don't assume I'm for or against gay marriage. I simply think the current argument for gay marriage is weak. I'm merely having a friendly conversation with you because I have no one else to discuss this issue with. To answer your question: blacks and whites are the same - they're both men. Men and women are different when it comes to sexual organs.
@drealm "Please don't assume I'm a racist bigot." ... I'm not, I simply asked a question, using other forms of traditional marriage. "I simply think the current argument for gay marriage is weak." ... as I also feel the current argument for heterosexual marriage is weak. "Men and women are different when it comes to sexual organs." ... true, but what about transitional gendered individuals? Or people who undergo sex changes? Their DNA may say one thing, but their 'equipment' may say another.
@Alitari If marriage was starting over from scratch, as in it had never existed then you could much more easily define the requirements, purpose and meaning. As it stands now marriage is the oldest institution in civilization, several millennium old. The legitimacy of traditions aren't based on technicalities alone but also heritage that's attached to them. Just like pure races or ethnicity's don't really exist anymore yet people still deeply identify with soccer teams in the world cup.
@drealm "The legitimacy of traditions aren't based on technicalities alone but also heritage that's attached to them." ... simply because we've been doing something in a certain way for longer than recorded history, doesn't necessarily mean that what we're doing or how we're doing it is the best or the right way of doing it. Consider prostitution, widely stated as the oldest profession .. simply because it has been around for a long time, is it a good thing to support it as it is 'traditional'?
@Alitari Length of time alone doesn't validate a tradition. But time is very powerful. I'll even go so far as to say, it's insensitive to not factor in time in policy making. Are the pyramids of eqypt impressive because they're an architectural marvel? Perhaps, but they're also impressive because they're some of the oldest structures on earth. Similarly I live near the redwoods in California. These are very old trees, they're impressive because they're old.
@drealm "Are the pyramids of egypt impressive because they're an architectural marvel?" ... "the redwoods in California. These are very old trees, they're impressive because they're old." ... I would argue, on both cases, they're impressive because they're big. The Great Basin Bristlecone Pine hold the top two records for the "oldest known living non-clonal organism(s)". You don't hear about them, though, because they're not impressive to look at ... they're not big like the Giant Sequoia.
@drealm, but having sex is not the sole or even primary reason why people get married. The argument is absurd because even if true, there's an absence of malice. You have no case. Homosexuals are not anxious to get married for the purpose of defaming heterosexual couples. It's hard to believe you consider this much of a problem. It's like women getting the vote or something--well past due and something for everyone to celebrate. It's another domino in a long chain leading to a fair world.
@ananiasacts 2. "We are constantly making revisions to longstanding bits of our culture. It's the basis of all progress." Wrong. We may constantly be making revisions, but all revisions aren't progress. The only reason you can make this argument is because these decisions don't involve multiple generations yet. You cannot base your conclusions on premature observations. All societies that have embraced a feminist/liberal agenda have been eventually conquered by strong patriarchal societies.
@drealm, certainly whether or not any given change is considered progress is a subjective matter. But I think most folks agree that overall, our world today is a preferable to the one we had 50, 100, 150, ... years ago (ad infinitum.) Thus, any well reasoned change made today has a higher probability of being a bit of progress than it does regress. I think we see what we look for. If we see other people as enemies or competitors or unworthy we'll only find ways to treat them that way. Not smart.
@drealm, I think you can. Everything is related to other things and thus it will always be possible to find losers, some of them lovely, that vanish in the negligence of progress like unnoticed lifeforms. If all future people are condemned to hell because our culture becomes too toxic for Christianity to endure then so be it. Read Leviticus and Deuteronomy. It's just not a big deal. God does stuff like this alla time. I reckon it might be just his style--god's way of signing his work.
@ananiasacts Communism is newer than capitalism, does that mean it's better? If that were the case the whole world would be like the Soviet Union. Just because positive change occurs in one area doesn't mean it's connected or supported by change in another area. Change isn't positive simply by chronological association. Most liberal changes in the last couple decades are beginning to surface as negative decisions made in retrospect.
@drealm "Most liberal changes in the last couple decades are beginning to surface as negative decisions made in retrospect." ... as you are citing 'most', perhaps it would be simpler for you to give examples of the "liberal changes in the past couple decades" that have been positive "decisions made in retrospect." And further, even if they are negative, how would we have known, for certain, that they were, if they weren't tried?
@drealm, That's just dead wrong. Communism is the original system of government and survives today as the economics of every family (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.) You sure utter a lot of utterly inane remarks, like the idea that gay marriage somehow "invalidates" all existing marriages. Do you listen to a lot of Glen Beck or did you come by your derangement more organically?
@ananiasacts Communism is not the original system of government by any stretch of the imagination. Unless you consider the primitive tribal collective to be communism. By communism I'm referring specifically to modern super states where members of the governing body aren't blood relatives as in astronomically smaller scale tribal collectives. The only thing here that's mentally deranged is liberalism. Eventually a strong patriarchal culture will conquer a limp wristed America.
@drealm, LOL. You folks are so hysterically demented. In your world the solution to every problem is simply some combination of guns, bibles, and butter.
@ananiasacts When Koran worshiping towel heads decide to commit jihad on America's soil, limp wristed liberals better hope there's a gun toting redneck around to shoot shit.
@drealm, Why? So they can exacerbate the situation by seeking revenge? Violence really isn't a solution to this or any but a handful of contrived situations. You can't become what you abhor in order to deal with it. That's actually a form of failure. Life works by outwitting reality, not using brute force. We cannot defeat that which thrives on ignorance, poverty, and persecution with any of those things. We must undermine their capacity to remain that way, and are doing so vert rapidly.
@ananiasacts Violence stops violence. You cannot legislate safety. Simply because you write a law stating firearms are outlawed, doesn't mean they'll disappear. Your lofty ideals have no proven track record in history. If you want to discuss fictional hypotheticals that never need to be proven outside the intellectual realm, then knock yourself out.
@drealm, the world is not as simple as you wish to believe. Violence can stop violence, it can also provoke it. The point is only that it's the very last resort of the thoughtful and the very first reaction of the thoughtless. They world isn't made of archetypes like good and evil. You see it that way because you've adopted an ontology which contains little else. You see the entire world in those terms and it shows in everything you say. You live in a world of fear dominated by evil.
@drealm "Arguing with a liberal is like arguing with a flat earther." ... I think if the shoe was on the other foot, you'd argue that "Arguing with a" conservative "is like aruging with a flat earther." ... the I understand the difficulty that you are coming from, is that you are certain, based on your personal experience, that a certain way or truth is the best way or truth ... but you extend that belief in truth to all people in all situations, and life isn't black and white like that.
@drealm "Simply because you write a law stating firearms are outlawed, doesn't mean they'll disappear. Your lofty ideals have no proven track record in history." ... interesting article I read in the Globe and Mail this morning then, wherein provinces (in Canada) where wearing a bicycle helmet is mandatory, more people wear bicycle helmets! And with that increase in helmet wearing, there are less head injuries as a result of bicycle accidents. Amazing how laws work to protect people!
@Alitari You're example is a positive law (do something), my example is a negative law (don't do something). There's no comparison between a hardened criminal carrying a gun and someone who chooses to buck the law by not wearing a helmet. These crimes are vastly different in their severity.
@drealm "You're example is a positive law (do something), my example is a negative law (don't do something)." ... how do you differentiate between 'Drive the speed limit' and 'Don't drive over the speed limit'? The first asks you to do something, the second asks you to not do something, but they are asking for the same result. Similarly, 'Do give the public clean water supplies' and 'Don't give the public contaminated water supplies'.
@Alitari "how do you differentiate between 'Drive the speed limit' and 'Don't drive over the speed limit'?" The word "don't". It's not a flaw proof way of categorizing laws, but it's easiest way to tell them apart. Your new examples are more ambiguous, I'd argue other laws are easier to categorize.
@drealm "I'd argue other laws are easier to categorize." ... well let's take that and get back on point about Prop 8. To boil it down, one could say that it said 'Marry only couples consisting of a man and a woman.' or 'Don't marry any couples who aren't just a man and a woman' ... do you see the law as being a positive law or negative law (in the context of our previous discussion of positive / negative)? Are both of my interpretations equal in how they would be applied?
@Alitari I consider them both negative. The word "only" is substituted for "don't". Whether a law is negative or positive doesn't really have anything to do with the legitimacy of a law. My point about negative and positive laws is that they differ in their difficulty to apply.
@drealm "Violence stops violence." ... isn't it also said that 'Violence begats violence'? Under that reasoning, as they say, if we live in an eye for an eye society, all that it takes is one person to take out another's eyes, and we'll never see an end to it ... someone has to decide to not use violence for the cycle to break. Certainly, self defence, the defence of others, is acceptable, but we cannot respond to every minor assault with the responding police officer shooting the assailant.
@Alitari I don't think violence begets violence. If you think that's the case, then you need to come up with your own solutions. If you kill a person, they're not going to shoot you back - people stay dead.
@drealm "If you kill a person, they're not going to shoot you back - people stay dead." ... I would accept your hypothesis if you killed not only that person, but everyone who cared about that person, or heard about you killing that person and were upset by your actions (and then killed all the people that fanned out from those sets of people accordingly). There's a reason why ancient societies came up with stuff like the Weregild, so that violence has a non-violence based cost.
@Alitari Weregild is interresting, I had to look that up. I don't think it's true that everyone related to someone has the strength to murder back the people who killed their loved one. Most people find it hard to kill. Then you need to factor in that whoever has superior fire power wins. Generally speaking authorities will have superior fire power.
@drealm "I don't think it's true that everyone related to someone has the strength to murder back the people who killed their loved one." ... I agree, but it only takes one to keep the cycle fresh. "Then you need to factor in that whoever has superior fire power wins." ... 'Starship Troopers' ... a cadet asks why they are learning to throw knives if wars are just about pushing buttons ... the instructor impales the cadets hand ... "If you cannot use your hand you cannot press the button."
@drealm "Then you need to factor in that whoever has superior fire power wins." ... didn't the USA have superior fire-power when they went into Vietnam? (And keeping up with the movie references, "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight." which has a logical collolory based on my previous example, "Don't bring a gun to a knife fight." ... know the fight you'll be getting into, and the best weapon for one task, is not the best weapon for all tasks)
@Alitari Youtube ate up my comment. This isn't the first time it's happened and it surely won't be the last. To answer your question, war isn't only about superior fire power. It's also about economics and politics. You can have superior fire power but bleed dry when it comes to resources to sustain the conflict. Similarly politics can make the war unpopular to support.
@drealm "war isn't only about superior fire power" ... contrast with ... "Then you need to factor in that whoever has superior fire power wins." ... what works at the personal level exists at the national level. "Violence stops violence." ... in that case, with the superior fire power that the USA levelled against its enemies in Vietnam, they should have won ... each soldier who used violence to stop the violence of the Viet Cong should have stopped everyone else, ending the war swiftly.
@Alitari Firepower costs money. Also in any sustained conflict you eventually need an indigenous population to take up the fire power. Manpower isn't infinitely expendable.
@drealm "You cannot legislate safety." ... certainly we can. Take the airline industry. Why is it so much safer to fly than it is to drive? Because the airlines are required, by law, to adhere to rulings on how their are to build, maintain, and fly their aircraft. If they are shown to not adhere to those rules, they can be grounded and fined. We prohibit lead being used in paint for children's toys, and we have meat and water inspectors to make sure what we eat and drink is safe.
@Alitari All of your examples are laws being applied to law abiding bodies. The subjects the laws are being applied to have a proven track record of following laws. This differs from criminals whom don't have any track record of following laws.
@drealm "This differs from criminals whom don't have any track record of following laws." ... so their obvious, consistent, lawless behaviour would make it easier for police or members of the public to identify, keep a close eye on, and catch when they did perform a criminal act. Yet they do say that 'locks keep honest men honest', and so while we may not be able to prevent crime from people who don't care about laws, we do prevent crime from those who do.
@drealm ... your example ... "Simply because you write a law stating firearms are outlawed, doesn't mean they'll disappear." ... so wording wise you could say 'Don't carry guns' or 'Be unarmed.' Certainly you could argue that 'unarmed' is simply a negative of 'armed' and thus has the same effect as 'don't' but as you said, 'don't' is the key difference, not a negative in general (I'm trying to be specific, not to be ambiguous).
@drealm "When Koran worshiping towel heads decide to commit jihad on America's soil" ... didn't that already happen in 2001? Didn't the whole nation, "limp wristed liberals" and "gun totating redneck(s)" alike, rise up in anger and indignation to face this threat to western ideals?
@drealm "them having sex (if you can call it that)." ... so if a heterosexual couple decides to try out anal sex, you would question whether or not it is sex? "it invalidates marriage for everyone who chose to marry under a traditional rule set." ... please explain how that works. In South Africa, for instance, marriages can occur as young as 12 for girls and 14 for boys. That is also a traditional rule set.
@Alitari 1. For the word sex I apply the strictest definition. If it can't cause reproduction it's masturbation. 2. I already explained how gay marriage invalidates a traditional rule set, I'll explain again though. If someone identifies themselves as married now and provides no description whatsoever about whom they married, you can rightfully assume that person's either homosexual or heterosexual. The description alone no longer denotes heterosexual. A person can now mistakenly be called gay.
@drealm "If it can't cause reproduction it's masturbation." ... so Clinton didn't have sex with Monica, as he said. "A person can now mistakenly be called gay." ... indeed, people are mistakenly called gay all the time, and so long as we continue to treat people who identify as gay differently, people will want to avoid being called gay to avoid being treated differently. It is a bit sad that people would need the protection of marriage, in its gender specificity, to avoid such a fate.
@Alitari Yes, I'd call bill and his whore "masturbation". Yes people are mistakenly called gay all the time, but usually for things outside their control. A couple who chose to marry 50 years ago before the dawn of gay awareness, chose to marry on already established terms with society. They chose to marry knowing they'd automatically be considered heterosexual. People whom choose to marry now will know going in they can be mistaken as gay. Already married people don't have that choice.
@drealm ... again I refer you back to the laws that prevented interracial marriage. "A couple who chose to marry 50 years" before that law was changed, "chose to marry on already established terms with society". "They chose to marry knowing they'd automatically be considered" an inner racial marriage. "People whom choose to marry" after that law was changed "will know going in they can be mistaken" as inter racial. "Already married people don't have that choice."
@Alitari You're correct that a couple can now be mistaken for being interracial. And you're correct the same argument applies. However there's two differences. One, non-interracial couples still choose to marry. It's unproven whether non-homosexual couples will marry under turning prop 8. If non-homosexual couples choose not to marry, then I think it proves my point that this invalidates marriage for one group while legitimizing it for another. Second homosexuality carries more stigma than race.
@drealm "It's unproven whether non-homosexual couples will marry under turning prop 8" ... now you're getting into the "unsubstantiated claims". Do you feel that people will stop doing something that other people have been doing for a long time, simply because other people are now also doing it that used to not be allowed to do it? We do have places in the world where gays marry ... such as Canada ... and we haven't heard reports of heterosexual marriages dropping off.
@drealm "Second homosexuality carries more stigma than race." .. I agree, and that is unfortunate. Many homosexuals say that they have always been this way, that it isn't a 'choice' as others like to claim it is ... and they can't change their sexual preference any more than someone else can change their race. The real 'terror' I think comes from it's invisibility ... 'at least' with race you can tell someone is different ... with sexuality ... anyone can be gay, and there are no visual clues.
@drealm, a person can mistaken be called lots of this, what's the point? Are you seriously reaching that far? Trying to claim this is needlessly and recklessly injurious to normal married couples? That's pretty hard to believe. But let's assume you're correct, how much therapy do you believe will be necessary to redress the average couple or family that's been harmed by this change in policy?
@ananiasacts You don't need to be sarcastic. People wouldn't be mentally damaged or need to see a therapist. But they would have their marriage arrangement invalidated against their choice without any warning. If someone chooses to marry now with awareness of this new law, they're fair game. But someone whom married prior to this law is having their arrangement unfairly invalidated. Perhaps there should be a clause in the law for becoming unmarried without it being called divorced.
@drealm "they would have their marriage arrangement invalidated against their choice without any warning." ... how is a couple's marriage invalid if another couple with different sexual preferences gets married? Along the same lines, since there are same-sex couples getting married in Canada, is every opposite-sex couples' marriages invalidated everywhere? Or just in Canada? Is it at a one to one ratio, or is it if one same-sex couple gets married, it invalidates all opposite-sex marriages?
@drealm How does gays getting married invalidate marriage for everyone else? My wife and I live in California (and we were among the 6.4 million people who voted against Prop 8) and there have been 18,000 gay couples married here for quite some time now. Our marriage is just fine. No loss of sanctity. No difference at all that I can tell, nope, everything is just fine here. My son is just fine. No danger to him. Nothing has changed. So... I don't get what the big deal is?
@WhistlersBrother You're arguing with emotions, not logic. You don't get what the big deal is for two reasons. One, traditional marriage has already been reduced by feminism. So the jump from a post-feminist marriage to a homosexual marriage isn't very big. Two, you're a very emotional thinker who probably doesn't care to examine things like definitions.
@drealm What? LOL Everything I just said was factual in nature. I said my marriage is fine; I said there has been no loss of sanctity to my traditional marriage; I said my son is just fine. Where did you read emotion in any of that?
I just don't understand why people care about other people's marriages. If the sanctity or validity of my marriage was so fragile that it even remotely depended upon what other people did, then I have big problems that can't be solved by telling others what to do.
@WhistlersBrother I think you're trying to be honest, but you're using your own family members as antidotes to this question. It's a very emotional way of approaching a question that deserves a more serious look. You need start with definitions for the argument to have substance. The reason you're marriage doesn't appear to be invalidated is because marriage has already been reduced in value by feminism.
@drealm I think you are projecting your own problems onto others. Because, while I don't know you, it has been my experience that the pro-gay marriage side tends to debate things with logic and fact, while the argument for keeping gays from marrying is anchored in a deep swamp of emotion, fueled by religion, and fear that somehow people's children are suddenly going to start "choosing" to become homosexuals, which religious folks see as a vile, evil, scary perversion.
@WhistlersBrother Then the fact that I'm an atheist should dispel your assumption. I'm not even necessarily against or for gay marriage. I just think the argument for gay marriage is weak. I argue it because I'd like to be proven wrong. The only way I think I can be proven wrong is if pro gay marriage folks are also willing to extend the new definition of marriage beyond just homosexuality. If two homosexuals are allowed to marry, then a someone should also be allowed to marry other things.
@drealm OK... Fair enough. I am surprised to hear you're atheist, to be honest. I did make an assumption there.
So... Have you read the 136 page ruling of the case? If you are looking to be proven wrong, and/or even to understand why there is even the possibility for a logical argument why gays should have the right to marry whoever they want, then I think you really should read the ruling because it is extremely detailed and it addresses every single argument from both sides. It's a good read.
@WhistlersBrother I would read it, but I don't want to invest that much time in this argument. I'm willing to assume the possibility that I may change my viewpoint based on reading the legal proceedings, but I'm not trained in legal speak or penal code. To be perfectly honest I'm fairly mediocre thinker, my only strong point is that I'm stubborn.
@drealm I'm no lawyer, but I was able to understand all of it. There are some little legal notations in there where they are referring to the transcripts of the court proceedings and stuff, but after the first couple pages you pretty much forget they're there and skim past them. If you ever get the time to read it, I highly recommend it. I thought I was pretty well versed on this topic before, and was surprised I learned several new things from it. Anyway, nice debating with you. Take care.
@drealm "If two homosexuals are allowed to marry, then a someone should also be allowed to marry other things." ... There is a big difference between two humans marrying one another, and a human marrying a dog. There is little difference between two humans marrying one another who happen to be the same gender, and two humans marrying one another who happen to be of different genders. Please explain how sexual preferences breaks down the borders of our species.
@Alitari 1. The problem is gay marriage isn't proposing a new definition. You're proposing a definition "species", but this certainly isn't a definition being proposed by gay marriage proponents. The gay marriage proposal is an attack on an already existing definition, not a fully worked out proposal for an alternative definition.
@drealm "The gay marriage proposal is an attack on an already existing definition" ... what would that definition be? In Prop 8 it was "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." ... so how do you define those terms? California, easy, you can go and point to the borders, cartographers eat your heart out! But how do you define a man?
@Alitari I think the definition is that marriage only exists to recognize the father of offspring. Gay marriage obviously doesn't meet this definition. So the question becomes since it's no longer designated for meeting the original purpose, what's the new purpose? I don't know what the new purpose is, but if I had to apply a loose definition it would be "marriage is for recreational purposes". Under this definition I think it's fair for people marry many other things.
@drealm "I think the definition is that marriage only exists to recognize the father of offspring. ... So the question becomes since it's no longer designated for meeting the original purpose, what's the new purpose?" ... there are far more dimensions to marriage, even traditional ones, than just the offspring angle. Inheritance, dowries, power of attorney, next of kin ... all of these things have nothing to do with children, but everything to do with marriage.
@drealm "I think the offspring factor pre-dates all other angles mentioned." ... and so we have, over the years, expanded what marriage means, what benefits one gets from it, how other people relate to it ... but to expand it to include a couple who can't have children is going too far and invalidates the entire operation?
@Alitari Yes, because we're basing traditional marriage on the origin, not the supporting iterations. All gay marriage proponents need to do is define their new goal/purpose/definition of marriage. Though I suspect it will be hard to define these things without opening up marriage to a wider range of things to marry.
@drealm "Though I suspect it will be hard to define these things without opening up marriage to a wider range of things to marry." ... as I have previously suggested, why not simply say that marriage is a social (the expectation that this other person will stay with you through thick and thin, for the remainder of their natural lives) and economic (with all the issues of property, employment benefits, etc.) pact made publicly between one human being and another?
@Alitari The question is will homosexuals define the new standard as a "pact made publicly between one human being and another". So far homosexual have only attacked the original definition, they haven't advanced your new definition as a replacement. Since they haven't we're going through a period of free reign. And even if they do advance that position, I don't see why someone else can't advance an even wider position.
@drealm "I don't see why someone else can't advance an even wider position." ... if you want to advance that wider position, for whatever reason you have to do so, feel free ... but also be aware that you are opening yourself up to ridicule, as you will not be able to deflect the responsibility for your position onto anyone else, because no one else will agree that that's what they're fighting for. You may see it as a logical conclusion, but no one else will.
@Alitari You are correct it takes responsibility and work to advance a position. However since homosexual have already created marriage 2.0, it will take less time to redefine marriage once more. I won't be advancing this position but I'd damn well bet some other people will. I know of several segments of the population who'd want an even wider definition who will protest for it eventually. If gay marriage folks don't like this, they shouldn't of opened pandoras box.
@drealm "since homosexual have already created marriage 2.0, it will take less time to redefine marriage once more." ... I would suggest, using your reasoning, that the USA is on marriage 4.0 when it comes to LGBT marriage ... marriage 2.0 was slaves being allowed to marry, and marriage 3.0 was interracial marriages.
@drealm "If gay marriage folks don't like this, they shouldn't of opened pandoras box." ... so we shouldn't ridicule people who make foolish claims, but instead heap blame and responsibility for this people on other people who laid foundations in a related area? If that is the logic you choose to use, why aren't you blaming the Mormons for the overturn of Prop 8, as the judge sited the overturning of legalized persecution of them as precedent.
@Alitari I think the examples are too different to be compared. Anyways I'm not talking about legal precedent, I'm talking about historical precedent. I'm talking about what people will remember in their own lives. And I think I'm right when I say, this is the day people will remember opening pandoras box. I certainly didn't open it and I certainly won't be the one expanding it further but I know someone will. I see no point arguing with inevitability.
@drealm "I certainly won't be the one expanding it further but I know someone will. I see no point arguing with inevitability." ... and we're right back to the slippery slope fallacy. Another point to make about the 'can I marry my dog / toaster' argument, is one of consent. I've never been married, but I have been to a few weddings and know a few married people ... and as I recall, you need to have both parties sign documents in front of people with the legal standing to vouch for the union.
@Alitari By slippery slope though you're implying negative exaggerated examples are being used to discredit more accepted tame examples. The examples I provide may be exaggerated with our current perspective, but they certainly aren't trying to discredit gay marriage. The future will stand on it's own. I see no point in arguing with something that's inevitable. I always knew gay marriage would be passed. I can easily see people getting around document signing in front of witnesses.
@drealm "I can easily see people getting around document singing in front of witnesses." ... indeed, but then they'd be breaking the law and the 'marriage' that they claim to have, would not be valid. "By slippery slope though you're implying negative exaggerated examples" .. not quite. A slippery slope "ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B." So from black to white rather then from black to grey to white (or finer steps).
@drealm "I can easily see people getting around document signing in front of witnesses." ... similarly how people can get around polyandry and polygamy, by legally marrying one person, then 'going through the motions' for the other(s). The other 'marriages' are not legal. The fundamental reason why we don't have multiple marriages is because it becomes a logistical nightmare to figure out details like who actually gets power of attorney (for instance) when there are several claimants.
@Alitari No I don't mean people will get around legalities. I mean other things. One, how do you approach document signatures with mentally retarded or physically handicapped people whom don't have the mental or physical capacity to sign for marriage? Two, I have referenced someone marrying a toaster. I'm actually being sarcastic, by toaster I mean robot. A robot could be programmed to sign documents.
@drealm "by toaster I mean robot." ... there might come a day, when robots are considered sentient, and we might have to adjust our contract laws accordingly ... currently only humans are recognized as being sufficiently self aware to be able to enter knowingly into contracts ... if we discover or create a species or machine that is sufficiently self aware, is it right to deny it the ability to enter knowingly into a contract?
@Alitari I don't have the answer to that. But like the theme of my message goes "there's no point arguing with inevitability". We can argue all day long about what's right, what's wrong, what defines marriage, what doesn't define marriage, but at the end of the day it's going to end up a certain way and no amount of discussion will change that outcome. It's a waste of time to fight the future. The future is too powerful.
@Alitari 2. I'm basing the definition of traditional marriage on the origin of marriage. If I'm to do the same for the origin of homosexual marriage, I'd be pressed to define the characteristics of homosexual marriage. The origin of traditional marriage is for father's of offspring to be recognized. The origin of homosexual marriage seem to be purely for pleasure, since no offspring can exist. Under this arrangement I think it's fair to expand even further what someone can marry.
@drealm "The origin of homosexual marriage seem to be purely for pleasure, since no offspring can exist. Under this arrangement I think it's fair to expand even further what someone can marry." ... so your argument is that gays don't want, really, to marry a fellow human being, just something, anything, that gives them pleasure, but in this one, very special case, it just happens to be a human being?
@Alitari Yes, that is my argument. Maybe pleasure is the wrong word. Perhaps "recreation" or "companionship" are better words. Whatever the case, homosexual marriage by default cannot be for recreation, so it has to be for some other reason. Homosexual have yet to define this reason, so I have my hands tied and I'm forced to guess what it is.
@drealm "homosexual marriage by default cannot be for recreation" ... please explain. Going back to your previous definition that sex is only vaginal and everything else is masturbation, I would suggest most people would prefer to 'masturbate' as you say, with someone else, than 'masturbate' on their own ... and if you don't consider 'masturbation' "a means of refreshment or diversion" what do you consider it to be?
@drealm "Homosexual can't reproduce." ... nor can the infertile. If the recognition of offspring is paramount to marriage, and no offspring can be produced, for whatever reason, it is not a solid argument to use. Remember, this is law we're talking about, not just how we think things should be, but a realm in which definitions are the most important things in the world ... where they have pages before what the law states, defining everything that those words mean.
@Alitari Since exceptions to the rule apply, I also don't think it's a soundproof argument. I think we've gotten to the bottom of it in your other comment "why not simply say that marriage is a social (the expectation that this other person will stay with you through thick and thin, for the remainder of their natural lives) and economic (with all the issues of property, employment benefits, etc.) pact made publicly between one human being and another?".
@drealm Also, you say using my own family as an "antidote" to the question is an "emotional way of approaching a question that deserves a more serious look." Actually, the opposite is true. I approached the question by taking a more serious look, a look at the facts. My marriage is just fine, my family is just fine, and we are perfectly happy here in spite of the thousands of gays who are currently married in California. If that isn't taking a closer look at the facts, then I don't know what is.
@drealm "traditional marriage has already been reduced by feminism." ... please explain. "you're a very emotional thinker who probably doesn't care to examine things like definitions." ... as I noted earlier, making a law that states that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman requires a lot of defining of those terms. What makes a man a man and not a woman? How do we define those people who fall between those categories, either physically or mentally?
@Alitari About feminism, where do you want me to begin? It's a broad question. Whole books and essays exist to address this issue. Definitions are difficult to define. I don't necessarily have the answer. I was just saying definitions are important and I don't think personal antidotes like whistlersbrother put fourth substitute for discussing definitions.
@drealm "where do you want me to begin?" ... "traditional marriage has already been reduced by feminism." ... let's start there. How has feminism, "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes" reduced traditional marriage? Do you feel, for instance, that for traditional marriage to work/survive/prosper, that the sexes must be unequal politically, economically, or socially?
@Alitari Unequal is a dangerous word to use. If we supplement the word different for unequal I think the answer is yes. However I have no way of elaborating on this answer or guaranteeing I won't be misinterpreted in such a small frame of space to explain.
@drealm "Unequal is a dangerous word to use." ... with the word "equality" in the definition of feminism it makes it hard to ignore. If you feel you cannot answer that question without being misinterpreted, we can instead go back to my other question "How has feminism, "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes" reduced traditional marriage?"
@Alitari If we can't ignore the word unequal, then I'll answer straightforward. Yes I do think the sexes need to be unequal politically, economically and socially. However I think the word equal in the definition of feminism is loaded and corrupted. The clearest sign that feminism has reduced traditional marriage in a soundbite is the massive decline in western birthrates. This will be a long discussion. Would you like to chat through private messages instead?
@drealm "The clearest sign that feminism has reduced traditional marriage in a soundbite is the massive decline in western birthrates." ... correlation is not causation. Read the article on Wikipedia on Sub-replacement fertility, specifically under causes, and while issues important to feminism are there, they are not sole contributing cause to population decline, and I would suggest that as economies improve, people will have less babies, whatever their feelings on feminism are.
@Alitari "correlation is not causation" is not a quote I agree with. Nor I do think my statement is correlation. It's true that in advanced societies children become high value investments as opposed to agrarian societies, which require little investment or nurturing.
@drealm "Nor I do think my statement is correlation" ... so how do you feel about the other reasons listed in that Wikipedia article I suggested you read? Wealth (more kids means each kid gets less inheritance), urbanization (larger families need larger houses, so people have small families to save money), the Malthusian arguments, or the "decline in religiosity"? If you said that 'feminism is a contributing factor to the decline in western birthrates', I would agree ... but you didn't.
@drealm "I didn't read the article." ... choosing to not know more details about a topic which might disprove your position, when given the chance, is not a rational means of approaching a discussion, particularly when one emphasizing how important definitions are. Lacking knowledge is a natural state ... choosing to not educate oneself on a topic of discussion when given the chance, is a sad choice.
@Alitari I agree. However there's a clause. I acknowledge my opinion could shift should I invest the time in more research. However time is limited so I can never have a truly proven idea.
@drealm "I don't necessarily have the answer. I was just saying definitions are important" ... I agree with the latter (as I noted, with the discussion of how to define a man or a woman), but to the former you have made a truth claim, that "traditional marriage has already been reduced by feminsim." Have you, for instance, read these books and essays you have referred to, or is it just anecdotal evidence that you heard from someone else, just as anecdotal as you claim whistlerbrother is being?
The other side has no precedent? Doesn't have any facts? Doesn't even have any experts. Is this fucking cheap ass sell out, publicity grabbing motherfucker lawyer kidding me? What dumb fucking lawyer he is to make such fucking stupid statement. So, no precedent? when the institution of marriage has been around for thousands of years. This fucking lawyer is a joke.
Rex11m 1 month ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Thousands of profiles for girl naneedj.info
janakiumayangana 1 year ago
This isn't about equality. It's about who holds the power. It forces occupations such as a pastor, pope, and other religious occupations to be forced to go against their religious beliefs. They will be made to accept gay marriage as equal to a man and a woman and cannot refuse to marry them. If they refuse or talk or speak against it, gays and others can sue them for hate crime. A direct violation of the first amendment.
4Ventus 1 year ago
@4Ventus that is complete nonsense.
BTW there's no such thing as "suing for a hate crime" (or suing for any other criminal offense)
LegalEagleX 1 year ago
@4Ventus in america everyone is equal regardless of gender or sexual preference. your operating on fear and hatred. fuck the church that stupid bible is how people 3000 years ago saw the world we know the earth is round not flat we know america is not the new world like columbus thought but rather another land mass on earth. we know that 99% of all speices living on earth are now extict. and that earth is billions of years old. when will you finally except reality. gay folks are fine. take a nap
chipatzuwa 11 months ago 2
@4Ventus You can get married at a Court House, it doesn't have to be done by a religious leader, it can be done by a Judge.
loveless3138 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You like marry this girls ** rockmycity.info **
aviishabegam 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Try to change your life ** rockmycity.info **
adahweisingerkxc 1 year ago
@ForaTv
All of this is mute now! A decision has been handed down. Californias'
nefarious Proposition 8 is in histories' ash can. The LDS Church has been
kicked to the curb, its mask having been ripped off its face. And
this week the Judiciary did something congress didn't have the stomach
for! Farewell to D.A.D.T. , and good riddens!
Yeah!!!
Blaine
blainebill39 1 year ago
On the marriage to non-human animals, NOT until animals can become CITIZENS of the UNITED STATES, for one thing (among many, many, MANY other issues blocking "THAT one!") When animals are ever declared citizens of the United States, either by native birth into its states or territories, or by being allowed to take the oath of citizenship, THEN we'll talk. (HOW insane can these arguments BE? Just when they went as low as I thought possible, they come back and DIG A HOLE, I swear...)
bimboblacky 1 year ago
Can you marry a horse? Why NOT? Men and women can marry peoples or animals if they chose ad want to!!! Can you marry or sleep with a dog/homosexuals/monkey? Of curse you can!!!!
Airlightf 1 year ago
Democracy cannot work when you can breed numbnuts at the rate humans do - that's why the US is a Republic.
Also, nobody lost a thing. Christians are not forced to marry gays & gays can share in the act of marraige & the benifits that go with it.
The next step is to ease the burdon of the orphanages (& certain Catholic priests) to allow gays to adopt. if the original, hetro breeders don't want the child, that is not a good argument to say they are the only ones allowed to be parents ;)
MilitantPeaceist 1 year ago
Regardless of your religious views. No one can vote to take away the rights of others. Everyone who voted "yes" to Prop 8 seems to forget that the US Constitution overrides the California Constitution. Those who shout "the will of the people" let me ask you a question. If a community had a majority of Muslims and they wanted to vote on whether all woman had to be covered from head to toe, would "the will of the people" still apply?
rockfordguy24 1 year ago 11
@rockfordguy24 Your viewpoint and argument is so logical. How can it not be seen as clearly as the nose on one's face? Everyone should know that if the vote of the majority rode over the rights of the minorities then women, "blacks", and conscious "whites" that fell in love with "blacks" wouldn't have any rights they share today. How could that not been understood by the Prop. Haters and religious bigots?
girraud 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Ron Paul on gay marriage (Dr. Paul says yes and even wins the Values Summit GOP Straw Poll!)
/watch?v=l1gzs27HswQ on gay marriage statement
/watch?v=ug1nZSI_fsA Values Straw Poll result conservation
Vote Ron Paul, President 2012! -- The anti-war candidate -- and champion of the Constitution!
vechorik 5 months ago
I SUPPORT MARRIAGE EQUALITY & YOU SHOULD TOO BECAUSE IT'S THE HUMANE & LOGICAL THING TO DO today in the year 2010. :)
And to all of those whom in one way or another are against the legalization of same-sex marriage in all 50 U.S States of The U.S.A. Logically speaking: How is allowing gay & lesbian couples in the U.S.A to get a marriage license going to affect you in a negative way? - Think about it for a second, and you'll find out that in reality there's nothing wrong with same-sex marriage.
aYTcritic 1 year ago
ALL THOSE AGAINST GAY MARRIAGE NEED TO GET A LIFE! ....live and let live haters
zano0071 1 year ago
"When you can't hide, discrimination falls . . ." David Boies May we see in the next generation a true & heartfelt victory over the last bastion of discrimination! And may hearts of haters change toward those who already have laws but still get treated like garbage!
Princesstipsy2 1 year ago
People who fight to get marriage banned between gay men and lesbian women don't realize that is only a matter of time before someone is fighting to get their rights banned. People come to America for freedom, so what right do we have to take that freedom away? He is right, discrimination only survives when it is hidden in the dark. So I personally want to say thank you to those who fought for my right,and others, to get married like everyone else.
lilpup51 1 year ago 6
how can people watch such an inspired speech and continue on with such petty and hateful arguments... it is truly sad.
ARKaneify 1 year ago
well....heres the deal....a moral wrong cannot be a civil right....and because this is a country for of and by the people then we have a right by majority rule to not allow our country to be tainted by this...
Dem0nz890 1 year ago
@Dem0nz890 Thankfully, the Constitution protects us from the tyranny of the majority, from people like you. It does not matter how many people vote for something or how big the majority is. If something is unconstitutional, it's unconstitutional - period.
Those who wish to discriminate against gays and lesbians do not have facts or truth on their side. They only have hate and ignorance, and those qualities will not stand, which has been proved time and time again in our great nation.
chronomitch 1 year ago
@chronomitch its not tyrannical you believe so because your...side...is pathetic....we can chose to run our country in the direction we believe is best for us all, marriage is banned because it is a sacred sacrament meant for man and woman mostly for procreational purposes...being in a relationship is not and that is as far as it can go
as for it being unconstitutional? no, although it is close i am not going to lie.
Dem0nz890 1 year ago
@Dem0nz890
1) So if married people do not have children, should their marriage be considered null and void? People marry for many different reasons, such as love, financial reasons, wanting to raise kids, etc. In times past, marriages were arranged. Just because you or your religion thinks marriage is only for raising children does not make it so.
chronomitch 1 year ago
@chronomitch once again...you do not listen....its mainly for a man and a woman because of that possible result...kids....i personally am married with no kids. in no way should a childless marriage be made null...you cannot just say that taking a part of my reply out of context.
Dem0nz890 1 year ago
@Dem0nz890
You say that marriage is for raising children, but then you defend your own childless marriage? Sound pretty hypocritical to me.
chronomitch 1 year ago
@chronomitch why cant you get it into your head that im only saying that the main reason its only for man+woman is because children can come out of it...children have to come from somewhere right? where did you come from?...read carefully and take nothing out of context
Dem0nz890 1 year ago
@Dem0nz890
And as I said before, people marry for many different reasons, not just children. In the past, marriages were arranged for financial or political reasons. Today, it's mostly about love and wanting to spend the rest of your life with someone. However, it's not the same for everyone. You have no right to dictate the reasons why people marry any more than I do. It's up to them to decide.
chronomitch 1 year ago
@Dem0nz890
What's more is that you seem to indicate that marriage is REQUIRED for children, which I think is a plainly ridiculous notion. Likewise, gay couples can raise children as well. It's called adoption. I would rather have orphaned kids raised by loving gay couples than raised in a poorly run state institution.
chronomitch 1 year ago
@chronomitch marriage isnt required obviously not...im trying to give you the goodie 2 shoes example but anyway gays adopting children poses another problem so lets not go off topic....and you sir cannot imply that our whole national adoption system is poorly run...
Dem0nz890 1 year ago
@Dem0nz890 "gays adopting children poses another problem" ... so you have issues with gays adopting children that heterosexual couples either do not or cannot (insufficient number of couples interested in adopting) adopt, thus leaving them in a situation where no one adopts them?
Alitari 1 year ago
@Dem0nz890 "its mainly for a man and a woman" ... and the inclusion of the LGBT community (which ranges in estimation from 2% to 15% of the population) will mean that marriage will still be "mainly for a man and a woman". "because of that possible result...kids" ... what about people who are infertile? It is not possible for that result to occur. If everyone knew in advance of the marriage that these two were infertile, not something they discover later on, would it still be appropriate?
Alitari 1 year ago
@Dem0nz890
2) Marriage brings many rights, such as tax breaks, visitation rights, etc. If you think you can discriminate against people and take away those rights simply by having a majority of people vote for it, then that is tyranny by the majority. It's the same thing as thinking you can remove a person's freedom of speech by having a majority of people vote on it. It's unconstitutional.
chronomitch 1 year ago
@5random1 I'm not sure what you mean by "Everyone grows up, someday. "Married" could now mean "adult." We all benefit from that.".
drealm 1 year ago
@5random1 Wrong, marriage did distinguish between heterosexual and homosexual as far back as ancient Greece, where homosexuality was more tolerated. Why are you asking me what marriages are? As a result of overturning prop 8 there's no current definition. If you wanna fill that vacuum with a definition go right ahead. I don't have time for the rest of your liberal shaming tactics.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "Wrong, marriage did distinguish between heterosexual and homosexual" ... I don't think that is the point he was making ... "Lots of homosexuals married the opposite sex. Even had kids together. Are those marriages?" ... I think we would call them bisexual now, but due to extreme (death, imprisonment) discrimination against even declaring oneself gay in the past, it was necessary to 'keep up appearances'.
Alitari 1 year ago
I read the entire 136 page ruling. Anybody who disagrees with the ruling really needs to read it and see what it says. Because in spite of their best effort to prove all the reasons gays and lesbians shouldn't be allowed to marry, the proponents of Prop 8 were not able to prove one shred of evidence that they are right. They're flat wrong. Not only did they fail to prove their case, but their witnesses' testimony actually helped prove the plaintiffs' case--that Prop 8 is discriminatory. Read it!
WhistlersBrother 1 year ago
@WhistlersBrother, you can watch an enactment of the entire case. Its interesting as well.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts Are you talking about the one from Courage Campaign? I haven't ever watched it, but was aware of it. I will have to check that out when I have the time to watch it all. Thanks! Let me know if there's another good one I'm not aware of.
WhistlersBrother 1 year ago
couldn't have said it better myself.
sage0857 1 year ago
No legitimate arguemenst against gay marriage = No legitimate arguement for religion.
lanceawatt 1 year ago
@lanceawatt, Yes but religion does give us a compelling reason to endorse and even promote gay marriage: it pisses off an evil celestial dictator purported to have a "plan" for each of us. And if it provokes a reaction then maybe it was god's idea in the first place and another one of his famous demonstrations. Either way we win.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts yes. We win. But more importantly - of human rights and all we say it stands for wins!
lanceawatt 1 year ago
You can have you're marriage any way you damn well want it liberal fucking america. I'll move to the middle east where they murder you faggots simply for existing. This is not FUCKING DEBATABLE. Marriage is product of evolution for recognizing the father of a woman's child. Can FAGGOTS AND LEZBOS HAVE CHILDREN? FUCK NO!? They can't fucking reproduce so why the fuck is this even debated?
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm, If you don't like the idea of them having sex why don't you want them to get married?
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts I don't understand your question. One, I don't mind them having sex (if you can call it that). Two, I don't want them to get married because it invalidates marriage for everyone who chose to marry under a traditional rule set. Like I said to someone else, can I now marry my toaster? My car? How about my pet dog?
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm, That doesn't make any sense. Someone else's understanding of what something means cannot change the meaning you give it. By what mechanism? We are constantly making revisions to longstanding bits of our culture. It's the basis of all progress. For cultural reasons we have a present day society that is homophobic. We can improve the lives of everyone, save money, and have more time to do more constructive things if we cease needlessly demonizing that which doesn't warrant persecution.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts 1. It invalidates marriage because marriage is not only a contract between two people being married, but also a public recognition by peers. Prior to prop 8 being overturned you could say "I'm married" and this would automatically mean a man and a woman. Post prop 8 being overturned there's room for confusion. Heterosexual couples can now wrongfully be associated as homosexual because the term "marriage" no longer distinguishes between heterosexual and homosexual.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "because marriage is not only a contract between two people" ... I'm glad that you leave that part genderless ... "this would automatically mean a man and a woman" ... and traditionally, in the USA, it automatically meant between a white man and a white woman, and then it traditionally became between a man and a woman of the same racial background ... are you looking for those days to come back too? I mean there must have been some confusion when those laws were overturned as well.
Alitari 1 year ago
@Alitari Please don't assume I'm racist bigot. Also don't assume I'm for or against gay marriage. I simply think the current argument for gay marriage is weak. I'm merely having a friendly conversation with you because I have no one else to discuss this issue with. To answer your question: blacks and whites are the same - they're both men. Men and women are different when it comes to sexual organs.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "Please don't assume I'm a racist bigot." ... I'm not, I simply asked a question, using other forms of traditional marriage. "I simply think the current argument for gay marriage is weak." ... as I also feel the current argument for heterosexual marriage is weak. "Men and women are different when it comes to sexual organs." ... true, but what about transitional gendered individuals? Or people who undergo sex changes? Their DNA may say one thing, but their 'equipment' may say another.
Alitari 1 year ago
@Alitari If marriage was starting over from scratch, as in it had never existed then you could much more easily define the requirements, purpose and meaning. As it stands now marriage is the oldest institution in civilization, several millennium old. The legitimacy of traditions aren't based on technicalities alone but also heritage that's attached to them. Just like pure races or ethnicity's don't really exist anymore yet people still deeply identify with soccer teams in the world cup.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "The legitimacy of traditions aren't based on technicalities alone but also heritage that's attached to them." ... simply because we've been doing something in a certain way for longer than recorded history, doesn't necessarily mean that what we're doing or how we're doing it is the best or the right way of doing it. Consider prostitution, widely stated as the oldest profession .. simply because it has been around for a long time, is it a good thing to support it as it is 'traditional'?
Alitari 1 year ago
@Alitari Length of time alone doesn't validate a tradition. But time is very powerful. I'll even go so far as to say, it's insensitive to not factor in time in policy making. Are the pyramids of eqypt impressive because they're an architectural marvel? Perhaps, but they're also impressive because they're some of the oldest structures on earth. Similarly I live near the redwoods in California. These are very old trees, they're impressive because they're old.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "Are the pyramids of egypt impressive because they're an architectural marvel?" ... "the redwoods in California. These are very old trees, they're impressive because they're old." ... I would argue, on both cases, they're impressive because they're big. The Great Basin Bristlecone Pine hold the top two records for the "oldest known living non-clonal organism(s)". You don't hear about them, though, because they're not impressive to look at ... they're not big like the Giant Sequoia.
Alitari 1 year ago
@drealm, but having sex is not the sole or even primary reason why people get married. The argument is absurd because even if true, there's an absence of malice. You have no case. Homosexuals are not anxious to get married for the purpose of defaming heterosexual couples. It's hard to believe you consider this much of a problem. It's like women getting the vote or something--well past due and something for everyone to celebrate. It's another domino in a long chain leading to a fair world.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts 2. "We are constantly making revisions to longstanding bits of our culture. It's the basis of all progress." Wrong. We may constantly be making revisions, but all revisions aren't progress. The only reason you can make this argument is because these decisions don't involve multiple generations yet. You cannot base your conclusions on premature observations. All societies that have embraced a feminist/liberal agenda have been eventually conquered by strong patriarchal societies.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm, certainly whether or not any given change is considered progress is a subjective matter. But I think most folks agree that overall, our world today is a preferable to the one we had 50, 100, 150, ... years ago (ad infinitum.) Thus, any well reasoned change made today has a higher probability of being a bit of progress than it does regress. I think we see what we look for. If we see other people as enemies or competitors or unworthy we'll only find ways to treat them that way. Not smart.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts You can't say overall. Progress in one area does not mean simultaneous progress in all other areas.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm, I think you can. Everything is related to other things and thus it will always be possible to find losers, some of them lovely, that vanish in the negligence of progress like unnoticed lifeforms. If all future people are condemned to hell because our culture becomes too toxic for Christianity to endure then so be it. Read Leviticus and Deuteronomy. It's just not a big deal. God does stuff like this alla time. I reckon it might be just his style--god's way of signing his work.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts Communism is newer than capitalism, does that mean it's better? If that were the case the whole world would be like the Soviet Union. Just because positive change occurs in one area doesn't mean it's connected or supported by change in another area. Change isn't positive simply by chronological association. Most liberal changes in the last couple decades are beginning to surface as negative decisions made in retrospect.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "Most liberal changes in the last couple decades are beginning to surface as negative decisions made in retrospect." ... as you are citing 'most', perhaps it would be simpler for you to give examples of the "liberal changes in the past couple decades" that have been positive "decisions made in retrospect." And further, even if they are negative, how would we have known, for certain, that they were, if they weren't tried?
Alitari 1 year ago
@drealm, That's just dead wrong. Communism is the original system of government and survives today as the economics of every family (from each according to his ability, to each according to his need.) You sure utter a lot of utterly inane remarks, like the idea that gay marriage somehow "invalidates" all existing marriages. Do you listen to a lot of Glen Beck or did you come by your derangement more organically?
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts Communism is not the original system of government by any stretch of the imagination. Unless you consider the primitive tribal collective to be communism. By communism I'm referring specifically to modern super states where members of the governing body aren't blood relatives as in astronomically smaller scale tribal collectives. The only thing here that's mentally deranged is liberalism. Eventually a strong patriarchal culture will conquer a limp wristed America.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm, LOL. You folks are so hysterically demented. In your world the solution to every problem is simply some combination of guns, bibles, and butter.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts When Koran worshiping towel heads decide to commit jihad on America's soil, limp wristed liberals better hope there's a gun toting redneck around to shoot shit.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm, Why? So they can exacerbate the situation by seeking revenge? Violence really isn't a solution to this or any but a handful of contrived situations. You can't become what you abhor in order to deal with it. That's actually a form of failure. Life works by outwitting reality, not using brute force. We cannot defeat that which thrives on ignorance, poverty, and persecution with any of those things. We must undermine their capacity to remain that way, and are doing so vert rapidly.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts Violence stops violence. You cannot legislate safety. Simply because you write a law stating firearms are outlawed, doesn't mean they'll disappear. Your lofty ideals have no proven track record in history. If you want to discuss fictional hypotheticals that never need to be proven outside the intellectual realm, then knock yourself out.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm, the world is not as simple as you wish to believe. Violence can stop violence, it can also provoke it. The point is only that it's the very last resort of the thoughtful and the very first reaction of the thoughtless. They world isn't made of archetypes like good and evil. You see it that way because you've adopted an ontology which contains little else. You see the entire world in those terms and it shows in everything you say. You live in a world of fear dominated by evil.
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts Arguing with a liberal is like arguing with a flat earther.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "Arguing with a liberal is like arguing with a flat earther." ... I think if the shoe was on the other foot, you'd argue that "Arguing with a" conservative "is like aruging with a flat earther." ... the I understand the difficulty that you are coming from, is that you are certain, based on your personal experience, that a certain way or truth is the best way or truth ... but you extend that belief in truth to all people in all situations, and life isn't black and white like that.
Alitari 1 year ago
@drealm "Simply because you write a law stating firearms are outlawed, doesn't mean they'll disappear. Your lofty ideals have no proven track record in history." ... interesting article I read in the Globe and Mail this morning then, wherein provinces (in Canada) where wearing a bicycle helmet is mandatory, more people wear bicycle helmets! And with that increase in helmet wearing, there are less head injuries as a result of bicycle accidents. Amazing how laws work to protect people!
Alitari 1 year ago
@Alitari You're example is a positive law (do something), my example is a negative law (don't do something). There's no comparison between a hardened criminal carrying a gun and someone who chooses to buck the law by not wearing a helmet. These crimes are vastly different in their severity.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "You're example is a positive law (do something), my example is a negative law (don't do something)." ... how do you differentiate between 'Drive the speed limit' and 'Don't drive over the speed limit'? The first asks you to do something, the second asks you to not do something, but they are asking for the same result. Similarly, 'Do give the public clean water supplies' and 'Don't give the public contaminated water supplies'.
Alitari 1 year ago
@Alitari "how do you differentiate between 'Drive the speed limit' and 'Don't drive over the speed limit'?" The word "don't". It's not a flaw proof way of categorizing laws, but it's easiest way to tell them apart. Your new examples are more ambiguous, I'd argue other laws are easier to categorize.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "I'd argue other laws are easier to categorize." ... well let's take that and get back on point about Prop 8. To boil it down, one could say that it said 'Marry only couples consisting of a man and a woman.' or 'Don't marry any couples who aren't just a man and a woman' ... do you see the law as being a positive law or negative law (in the context of our previous discussion of positive / negative)? Are both of my interpretations equal in how they would be applied?
Alitari 1 year ago
@Alitari I consider them both negative. The word "only" is substituted for "don't". Whether a law is negative or positive doesn't really have anything to do with the legitimacy of a law. My point about negative and positive laws is that they differ in their difficulty to apply.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "Violence stops violence." ... isn't it also said that 'Violence begats violence'? Under that reasoning, as they say, if we live in an eye for an eye society, all that it takes is one person to take out another's eyes, and we'll never see an end to it ... someone has to decide to not use violence for the cycle to break. Certainly, self defence, the defence of others, is acceptable, but we cannot respond to every minor assault with the responding police officer shooting the assailant.
Alitari 1 year ago
@Alitari I don't think violence begets violence. If you think that's the case, then you need to come up with your own solutions. If you kill a person, they're not going to shoot you back - people stay dead.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "If you kill a person, they're not going to shoot you back - people stay dead." ... I would accept your hypothesis if you killed not only that person, but everyone who cared about that person, or heard about you killing that person and were upset by your actions (and then killed all the people that fanned out from those sets of people accordingly). There's a reason why ancient societies came up with stuff like the Weregild, so that violence has a non-violence based cost.
Alitari 1 year ago
@Alitari Weregild is interresting, I had to look that up. I don't think it's true that everyone related to someone has the strength to murder back the people who killed their loved one. Most people find it hard to kill. Then you need to factor in that whoever has superior fire power wins. Generally speaking authorities will have superior fire power.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "I don't think it's true that everyone related to someone has the strength to murder back the people who killed their loved one." ... I agree, but it only takes one to keep the cycle fresh. "Then you need to factor in that whoever has superior fire power wins." ... 'Starship Troopers' ... a cadet asks why they are learning to throw knives if wars are just about pushing buttons ... the instructor impales the cadets hand ... "If you cannot use your hand you cannot press the button."
Alitari 1 year ago
@drealm "Then you need to factor in that whoever has superior fire power wins." ... didn't the USA have superior fire-power when they went into Vietnam? (And keeping up with the movie references, "Don't bring a knife to a gun fight." which has a logical collolory based on my previous example, "Don't bring a gun to a knife fight." ... know the fight you'll be getting into, and the best weapon for one task, is not the best weapon for all tasks)
Alitari 1 year ago
@Alitari Youtube ate up my comment. This isn't the first time it's happened and it surely won't be the last. To answer your question, war isn't only about superior fire power. It's also about economics and politics. You can have superior fire power but bleed dry when it comes to resources to sustain the conflict. Similarly politics can make the war unpopular to support.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "war isn't only about superior fire power" ... contrast with ... "Then you need to factor in that whoever has superior fire power wins." ... what works at the personal level exists at the national level. "Violence stops violence." ... in that case, with the superior fire power that the USA levelled against its enemies in Vietnam, they should have won ... each soldier who used violence to stop the violence of the Viet Cong should have stopped everyone else, ending the war swiftly.
Alitari 1 year ago
@Alitari Firepower costs money. Also in any sustained conflict you eventually need an indigenous population to take up the fire power. Manpower isn't infinitely expendable.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "You cannot legislate safety." ... certainly we can. Take the airline industry. Why is it so much safer to fly than it is to drive? Because the airlines are required, by law, to adhere to rulings on how their are to build, maintain, and fly their aircraft. If they are shown to not adhere to those rules, they can be grounded and fined. We prohibit lead being used in paint for children's toys, and we have meat and water inspectors to make sure what we eat and drink is safe.
Alitari 1 year ago
@Alitari All of your examples are laws being applied to law abiding bodies. The subjects the laws are being applied to have a proven track record of following laws. This differs from criminals whom don't have any track record of following laws.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "This differs from criminals whom don't have any track record of following laws." ... so their obvious, consistent, lawless behaviour would make it easier for police or members of the public to identify, keep a close eye on, and catch when they did perform a criminal act. Yet they do say that 'locks keep honest men honest', and so while we may not be able to prevent crime from people who don't care about laws, we do prevent crime from those who do.
Alitari 1 year ago
@drealm ... your example ... "Simply because you write a law stating firearms are outlawed, doesn't mean they'll disappear." ... so wording wise you could say 'Don't carry guns' or 'Be unarmed.' Certainly you could argue that 'unarmed' is simply a negative of 'armed' and thus has the same effect as 'don't' but as you said, 'don't' is the key difference, not a negative in general (I'm trying to be specific, not to be ambiguous).
Alitari 1 year ago
@drealm "When Koran worshiping towel heads decide to commit jihad on America's soil" ... didn't that already happen in 2001? Didn't the whole nation, "limp wristed liberals" and "gun totating redneck(s)" alike, rise up in anger and indignation to face this threat to western ideals?
Alitari 1 year ago
@drealm "them having sex (if you can call it that)." ... so if a heterosexual couple decides to try out anal sex, you would question whether or not it is sex? "it invalidates marriage for everyone who chose to marry under a traditional rule set." ... please explain how that works. In South Africa, for instance, marriages can occur as young as 12 for girls and 14 for boys. That is also a traditional rule set.
Alitari 1 year ago
@Alitari 1. For the word sex I apply the strictest definition. If it can't cause reproduction it's masturbation. 2. I already explained how gay marriage invalidates a traditional rule set, I'll explain again though. If someone identifies themselves as married now and provides no description whatsoever about whom they married, you can rightfully assume that person's either homosexual or heterosexual. The description alone no longer denotes heterosexual. A person can now mistakenly be called gay.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "If it can't cause reproduction it's masturbation." ... so Clinton didn't have sex with Monica, as he said. "A person can now mistakenly be called gay." ... indeed, people are mistakenly called gay all the time, and so long as we continue to treat people who identify as gay differently, people will want to avoid being called gay to avoid being treated differently. It is a bit sad that people would need the protection of marriage, in its gender specificity, to avoid such a fate.
Alitari 1 year ago
@Alitari Yes, I'd call bill and his whore "masturbation". Yes people are mistakenly called gay all the time, but usually for things outside their control. A couple who chose to marry 50 years ago before the dawn of gay awareness, chose to marry on already established terms with society. They chose to marry knowing they'd automatically be considered heterosexual. People whom choose to marry now will know going in they can be mistaken as gay. Already married people don't have that choice.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm ... again I refer you back to the laws that prevented interracial marriage. "A couple who chose to marry 50 years" before that law was changed, "chose to marry on already established terms with society". "They chose to marry knowing they'd automatically be considered" an inner racial marriage. "People whom choose to marry" after that law was changed "will know going in they can be mistaken" as inter racial. "Already married people don't have that choice."
Alitari 1 year ago
@Alitari You're correct that a couple can now be mistaken for being interracial. And you're correct the same argument applies. However there's two differences. One, non-interracial couples still choose to marry. It's unproven whether non-homosexual couples will marry under turning prop 8. If non-homosexual couples choose not to marry, then I think it proves my point that this invalidates marriage for one group while legitimizing it for another. Second homosexuality carries more stigma than race.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "It's unproven whether non-homosexual couples will marry under turning prop 8" ... now you're getting into the "unsubstantiated claims". Do you feel that people will stop doing something that other people have been doing for a long time, simply because other people are now also doing it that used to not be allowed to do it? We do have places in the world where gays marry ... such as Canada ... and we haven't heard reports of heterosexual marriages dropping off.
Alitari 1 year ago
@drealm "Second homosexuality carries more stigma than race." .. I agree, and that is unfortunate. Many homosexuals say that they have always been this way, that it isn't a 'choice' as others like to claim it is ... and they can't change their sexual preference any more than someone else can change their race. The real 'terror' I think comes from it's invisibility ... 'at least' with race you can tell someone is different ... with sexuality ... anyone can be gay, and there are no visual clues.
Alitari 1 year ago
@drealm, a person can mistaken be called lots of this, what's the point? Are you seriously reaching that far? Trying to claim this is needlessly and recklessly injurious to normal married couples? That's pretty hard to believe. But let's assume you're correct, how much therapy do you believe will be necessary to redress the average couple or family that's been harmed by this change in policy?
ananiasacts 1 year ago
@ananiasacts You don't need to be sarcastic. People wouldn't be mentally damaged or need to see a therapist. But they would have their marriage arrangement invalidated against their choice without any warning. If someone chooses to marry now with awareness of this new law, they're fair game. But someone whom married prior to this law is having their arrangement unfairly invalidated. Perhaps there should be a clause in the law for becoming unmarried without it being called divorced.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "they would have their marriage arrangement invalidated against their choice without any warning." ... how is a couple's marriage invalid if another couple with different sexual preferences gets married? Along the same lines, since there are same-sex couples getting married in Canada, is every opposite-sex couples' marriages invalidated everywhere? Or just in Canada? Is it at a one to one ratio, or is it if one same-sex couple gets married, it invalidates all opposite-sex marriages?
Alitari 1 year ago
@drealm How does gays getting married invalidate marriage for everyone else? My wife and I live in California (and we were among the 6.4 million people who voted against Prop 8) and there have been 18,000 gay couples married here for quite some time now. Our marriage is just fine. No loss of sanctity. No difference at all that I can tell, nope, everything is just fine here. My son is just fine. No danger to him. Nothing has changed. So... I don't get what the big deal is?
WhistlersBrother 1 year ago
@WhistlersBrother You're arguing with emotions, not logic. You don't get what the big deal is for two reasons. One, traditional marriage has already been reduced by feminism. So the jump from a post-feminist marriage to a homosexual marriage isn't very big. Two, you're a very emotional thinker who probably doesn't care to examine things like definitions.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm What? LOL Everything I just said was factual in nature. I said my marriage is fine; I said there has been no loss of sanctity to my traditional marriage; I said my son is just fine. Where did you read emotion in any of that?
I just don't understand why people care about other people's marriages. If the sanctity or validity of my marriage was so fragile that it even remotely depended upon what other people did, then I have big problems that can't be solved by telling others what to do.
WhistlersBrother 1 year ago
@WhistlersBrother I think you're trying to be honest, but you're using your own family members as antidotes to this question. It's a very emotional way of approaching a question that deserves a more serious look. You need start with definitions for the argument to have substance. The reason you're marriage doesn't appear to be invalidated is because marriage has already been reduced in value by feminism.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm I think you are projecting your own problems onto others. Because, while I don't know you, it has been my experience that the pro-gay marriage side tends to debate things with logic and fact, while the argument for keeping gays from marrying is anchored in a deep swamp of emotion, fueled by religion, and fear that somehow people's children are suddenly going to start "choosing" to become homosexuals, which religious folks see as a vile, evil, scary perversion.
WhistlersBrother 1 year ago
@WhistlersBrother Then the fact that I'm an atheist should dispel your assumption. I'm not even necessarily against or for gay marriage. I just think the argument for gay marriage is weak. I argue it because I'd like to be proven wrong. The only way I think I can be proven wrong is if pro gay marriage folks are also willing to extend the new definition of marriage beyond just homosexuality. If two homosexuals are allowed to marry, then a someone should also be allowed to marry other things.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm OK... Fair enough. I am surprised to hear you're atheist, to be honest. I did make an assumption there.
So... Have you read the 136 page ruling of the case? If you are looking to be proven wrong, and/or even to understand why there is even the possibility for a logical argument why gays should have the right to marry whoever they want, then I think you really should read the ruling because it is extremely detailed and it addresses every single argument from both sides. It's a good read.
WhistlersBrother 1 year ago
@WhistlersBrother I would read it, but I don't want to invest that much time in this argument. I'm willing to assume the possibility that I may change my viewpoint based on reading the legal proceedings, but I'm not trained in legal speak or penal code. To be perfectly honest I'm fairly mediocre thinker, my only strong point is that I'm stubborn.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm I'm no lawyer, but I was able to understand all of it. There are some little legal notations in there where they are referring to the transcripts of the court proceedings and stuff, but after the first couple pages you pretty much forget they're there and skim past them. If you ever get the time to read it, I highly recommend it. I thought I was pretty well versed on this topic before, and was surprised I learned several new things from it. Anyway, nice debating with you. Take care.
WhistlersBrother 1 year ago
@drealm "If two homosexuals are allowed to marry, then a someone should also be allowed to marry other things." ... There is a big difference between two humans marrying one another, and a human marrying a dog. There is little difference between two humans marrying one another who happen to be the same gender, and two humans marrying one another who happen to be of different genders. Please explain how sexual preferences breaks down the borders of our species.
Alitari 1 year ago
@Alitari 1. The problem is gay marriage isn't proposing a new definition. You're proposing a definition "species", but this certainly isn't a definition being proposed by gay marriage proponents. The gay marriage proposal is an attack on an already existing definition, not a fully worked out proposal for an alternative definition.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "The gay marriage proposal is an attack on an already existing definition" ... what would that definition be? In Prop 8 it was "only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California." ... so how do you define those terms? California, easy, you can go and point to the borders, cartographers eat your heart out! But how do you define a man?
Alitari 1 year ago
@Alitari I think the definition is that marriage only exists to recognize the father of offspring. Gay marriage obviously doesn't meet this definition. So the question becomes since it's no longer designated for meeting the original purpose, what's the new purpose? I don't know what the new purpose is, but if I had to apply a loose definition it would be "marriage is for recreational purposes". Under this definition I think it's fair for people marry many other things.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "I think the definition is that marriage only exists to recognize the father of offspring. ... So the question becomes since it's no longer designated for meeting the original purpose, what's the new purpose?" ... there are far more dimensions to marriage, even traditional ones, than just the offspring angle. Inheritance, dowries, power of attorney, next of kin ... all of these things have nothing to do with children, but everything to do with marriage.
Alitari 1 year ago
@Alitari I think the offspring factor pre-dates all other angles mentioned.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "I think the offspring factor pre-dates all other angles mentioned." ... and so we have, over the years, expanded what marriage means, what benefits one gets from it, how other people relate to it ... but to expand it to include a couple who can't have children is going too far and invalidates the entire operation?
Alitari 1 year ago
@Alitari Yes, because we're basing traditional marriage on the origin, not the supporting iterations. All gay marriage proponents need to do is define their new goal/purpose/definition of marriage. Though I suspect it will be hard to define these things without opening up marriage to a wider range of things to marry.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "Though I suspect it will be hard to define these things without opening up marriage to a wider range of things to marry." ... as I have previously suggested, why not simply say that marriage is a social (the expectation that this other person will stay with you through thick and thin, for the remainder of their natural lives) and economic (with all the issues of property, employment benefits, etc.) pact made publicly between one human being and another?
Alitari 1 year ago
@Alitari The question is will homosexuals define the new standard as a "pact made publicly between one human being and another". So far homosexual have only attacked the original definition, they haven't advanced your new definition as a replacement. Since they haven't we're going through a period of free reign. And even if they do advance that position, I don't see why someone else can't advance an even wider position.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "I don't see why someone else can't advance an even wider position." ... if you want to advance that wider position, for whatever reason you have to do so, feel free ... but also be aware that you are opening yourself up to ridicule, as you will not be able to deflect the responsibility for your position onto anyone else, because no one else will agree that that's what they're fighting for. You may see it as a logical conclusion, but no one else will.
Alitari 1 year ago
@Alitari You are correct it takes responsibility and work to advance a position. However since homosexual have already created marriage 2.0, it will take less time to redefine marriage once more. I won't be advancing this position but I'd damn well bet some other people will. I know of several segments of the population who'd want an even wider definition who will protest for it eventually. If gay marriage folks don't like this, they shouldn't of opened pandoras box.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "since homosexual have already created marriage 2.0, it will take less time to redefine marriage once more." ... I would suggest, using your reasoning, that the USA is on marriage 4.0 when it comes to LGBT marriage ... marriage 2.0 was slaves being allowed to marry, and marriage 3.0 was interracial marriages.
Alitari 1 year ago
@Alitari Agreed.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "If gay marriage folks don't like this, they shouldn't of opened pandoras box." ... so we shouldn't ridicule people who make foolish claims, but instead heap blame and responsibility for this people on other people who laid foundations in a related area? If that is the logic you choose to use, why aren't you blaming the Mormons for the overturn of Prop 8, as the judge sited the overturning of legalized persecution of them as precedent.
Alitari 1 year ago
@Alitari I think the examples are too different to be compared. Anyways I'm not talking about legal precedent, I'm talking about historical precedent. I'm talking about what people will remember in their own lives. And I think I'm right when I say, this is the day people will remember opening pandoras box. I certainly didn't open it and I certainly won't be the one expanding it further but I know someone will. I see no point arguing with inevitability.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "I certainly won't be the one expanding it further but I know someone will. I see no point arguing with inevitability." ... and we're right back to the slippery slope fallacy. Another point to make about the 'can I marry my dog / toaster' argument, is one of consent. I've never been married, but I have been to a few weddings and know a few married people ... and as I recall, you need to have both parties sign documents in front of people with the legal standing to vouch for the union.
Alitari 1 year ago
@Alitari By slippery slope though you're implying negative exaggerated examples are being used to discredit more accepted tame examples. The examples I provide may be exaggerated with our current perspective, but they certainly aren't trying to discredit gay marriage. The future will stand on it's own. I see no point in arguing with something that's inevitable. I always knew gay marriage would be passed. I can easily see people getting around document signing in front of witnesses.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "I can easily see people getting around document singing in front of witnesses." ... indeed, but then they'd be breaking the law and the 'marriage' that they claim to have, would not be valid. "By slippery slope though you're implying negative exaggerated examples" .. not quite. A slippery slope "ignores the possibility of middle ground and assumes a discrete transition from category A to category B." So from black to white rather then from black to grey to white (or finer steps).
Alitari 1 year ago
@Alitari Gay marriage is the middle ground.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "I can easily see people getting around document signing in front of witnesses." ... similarly how people can get around polyandry and polygamy, by legally marrying one person, then 'going through the motions' for the other(s). The other 'marriages' are not legal. The fundamental reason why we don't have multiple marriages is because it becomes a logistical nightmare to figure out details like who actually gets power of attorney (for instance) when there are several claimants.
Alitari 1 year ago
@Alitari No I don't mean people will get around legalities. I mean other things. One, how do you approach document signatures with mentally retarded or physically handicapped people whom don't have the mental or physical capacity to sign for marriage? Two, I have referenced someone marrying a toaster. I'm actually being sarcastic, by toaster I mean robot. A robot could be programmed to sign documents.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "by toaster I mean robot." ... there might come a day, when robots are considered sentient, and we might have to adjust our contract laws accordingly ... currently only humans are recognized as being sufficiently self aware to be able to enter knowingly into contracts ... if we discover or create a species or machine that is sufficiently self aware, is it right to deny it the ability to enter knowingly into a contract?
Alitari 1 year ago
@Alitari I don't have the answer to that. But like the theme of my message goes "there's no point arguing with inevitability". We can argue all day long about what's right, what's wrong, what defines marriage, what doesn't define marriage, but at the end of the day it's going to end up a certain way and no amount of discussion will change that outcome. It's a waste of time to fight the future. The future is too powerful.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm we make our own futures
idiatico 1 year ago
@idiatico That's the same thing the samurai said before being blown away by early muskets.
drealm 1 year ago
@Alitari 2. I'm basing the definition of traditional marriage on the origin of marriage. If I'm to do the same for the origin of homosexual marriage, I'd be pressed to define the characteristics of homosexual marriage. The origin of traditional marriage is for father's of offspring to be recognized. The origin of homosexual marriage seem to be purely for pleasure, since no offspring can exist. Under this arrangement I think it's fair to expand even further what someone can marry.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "The origin of homosexual marriage seem to be purely for pleasure, since no offspring can exist. Under this arrangement I think it's fair to expand even further what someone can marry." ... so your argument is that gays don't want, really, to marry a fellow human being, just something, anything, that gives them pleasure, but in this one, very special case, it just happens to be a human being?
Alitari 1 year ago
@Alitari Yes, that is my argument. Maybe pleasure is the wrong word. Perhaps "recreation" or "companionship" are better words. Whatever the case, homosexual marriage by default cannot be for recreation, so it has to be for some other reason. Homosexual have yet to define this reason, so I have my hands tied and I'm forced to guess what it is.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "homosexual marriage by default cannot be for recreation" ... please explain. Going back to your previous definition that sex is only vaginal and everything else is masturbation, I would suggest most people would prefer to 'masturbate' as you say, with someone else, than 'masturbate' on their own ... and if you don't consider 'masturbation' "a means of refreshment or diversion" what do you consider it to be?
Alitari 1 year ago
@Alitari I'm not sure what there is to explain. Homosexual can't reproduce.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "Homosexual can't reproduce." ... nor can the infertile. If the recognition of offspring is paramount to marriage, and no offspring can be produced, for whatever reason, it is not a solid argument to use. Remember, this is law we're talking about, not just how we think things should be, but a realm in which definitions are the most important things in the world ... where they have pages before what the law states, defining everything that those words mean.
Alitari 1 year ago
@Alitari Since exceptions to the rule apply, I also don't think it's a soundproof argument. I think we've gotten to the bottom of it in your other comment "why not simply say that marriage is a social (the expectation that this other person will stay with you through thick and thin, for the remainder of their natural lives) and economic (with all the issues of property, employment benefits, etc.) pact made publicly between one human being and another?".
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm Also, you say using my own family as an "antidote" to the question is an "emotional way of approaching a question that deserves a more serious look." Actually, the opposite is true. I approached the question by taking a more serious look, a look at the facts. My marriage is just fine, my family is just fine, and we are perfectly happy here in spite of the thousands of gays who are currently married in California. If that isn't taking a closer look at the facts, then I don't know what is.
WhistlersBrother 1 year ago
@drealm "traditional marriage has already been reduced by feminism." ... please explain. "you're a very emotional thinker who probably doesn't care to examine things like definitions." ... as I noted earlier, making a law that states that marriage can only occur between a man and a woman requires a lot of defining of those terms. What makes a man a man and not a woman? How do we define those people who fall between those categories, either physically or mentally?
Alitari 1 year ago
@Alitari About feminism, where do you want me to begin? It's a broad question. Whole books and essays exist to address this issue. Definitions are difficult to define. I don't necessarily have the answer. I was just saying definitions are important and I don't think personal antidotes like whistlersbrother put fourth substitute for discussing definitions.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "where do you want me to begin?" ... "traditional marriage has already been reduced by feminism." ... let's start there. How has feminism, "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes" reduced traditional marriage? Do you feel, for instance, that for traditional marriage to work/survive/prosper, that the sexes must be unequal politically, economically, or socially?
Alitari 1 year ago
@Alitari Unequal is a dangerous word to use. If we supplement the word different for unequal I think the answer is yes. However I have no way of elaborating on this answer or guaranteeing I won't be misinterpreted in such a small frame of space to explain.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "Unequal is a dangerous word to use." ... with the word "equality" in the definition of feminism it makes it hard to ignore. If you feel you cannot answer that question without being misinterpreted, we can instead go back to my other question "How has feminism, "the theory of the political, economic, and social equality of the sexes" reduced traditional marriage?"
Alitari 1 year ago
@Alitari If we can't ignore the word unequal, then I'll answer straightforward. Yes I do think the sexes need to be unequal politically, economically and socially. However I think the word equal in the definition of feminism is loaded and corrupted. The clearest sign that feminism has reduced traditional marriage in a soundbite is the massive decline in western birthrates. This will be a long discussion. Would you like to chat through private messages instead?
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "The clearest sign that feminism has reduced traditional marriage in a soundbite is the massive decline in western birthrates." ... correlation is not causation. Read the article on Wikipedia on Sub-replacement fertility, specifically under causes, and while issues important to feminism are there, they are not sole contributing cause to population decline, and I would suggest that as economies improve, people will have less babies, whatever their feelings on feminism are.
Alitari 1 year ago
@Alitari "correlation is not causation" is not a quote I agree with. Nor I do think my statement is correlation. It's true that in advanced societies children become high value investments as opposed to agrarian societies, which require little investment or nurturing.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "Nor I do think my statement is correlation" ... so how do you feel about the other reasons listed in that Wikipedia article I suggested you read? Wealth (more kids means each kid gets less inheritance), urbanization (larger families need larger houses, so people have small families to save money), the Malthusian arguments, or the "decline in religiosity"? If you said that 'feminism is a contributing factor to the decline in western birthrates', I would agree ... but you didn't.
Alitari 1 year ago
@Alitari I didn't read the article.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "I didn't read the article." ... choosing to not know more details about a topic which might disprove your position, when given the chance, is not a rational means of approaching a discussion, particularly when one emphasizing how important definitions are. Lacking knowledge is a natural state ... choosing to not educate oneself on a topic of discussion when given the chance, is a sad choice.
Alitari 1 year ago
@Alitari I agree. However there's a clause. I acknowledge my opinion could shift should I invest the time in more research. However time is limited so I can never have a truly proven idea.
drealm 1 year ago
@drealm "I don't necessarily have the answer. I was just saying definitions are important" ... I agree with the latter (as I noted, with the discussion of how to define a man or a woman), but to the former you have made a truth claim, that "traditional marriage has already been reduced by feminsim." Have you, for instance, read these books and essays you have referred to, or is it just anecdotal evidence that you heard from someone else, just as anecdotal as you claim whistlerbrother is being?