California Gay Marriage Ban Lifted

[Swarley]

I'll play Devil's Advocate. How does marrying an animal cause harm or infringe on rights?

"Consenting" is probably a main part of that.

It's about damn time. Canada welcomes you to the future.

Sup Canada
Still 2000 years ahead of us I see
):

Don't worry, next we'll hook you up with this sweet new way to measure things. We call it "The Metric System"!

 

[CobraX]

It's about damn time. Canada welcomes you to the future.

Agreed. The fact that people are still arguing about gay marriage is sick.

 

[Bourne]

Democracy assumes everyone is an intelligent, good, logical, fair person.
The mere fact that prop 8 passed proves that not all people are as described above. Which is why we have governmental intervention, to slap around the idiots and to tell them just how large idiots they are.

Assuming the government is not comprised of idiots, of course, which is a mighty hasty assumption.

 

[blindthrall]

A victory for human rights! Hurrah!

But what of the human rights of the majority that voted to live in a state without gay marriage?


Anyways, I really don't care about the so called "Gay Marriage" or any marriage really. The government should keep their nose out of marriage and simply have people sign Civil Partnership Licenses, to provide legal protection and tax brakes.

Whether or not to oppress a large group of people isn't something to be voted on in the first place.

Oppression you say? Was there a clause that would allow the police to arrest homosexuals for being homosexual? Or to force them to wearing identifying badges on the fronts of their shirts? You know, I think we have laws that punish people for attacking or harassing homosexuals (or other minorities).

No what I think we have here is a population which does not want to change the definition of a legal institution (first from church law to civil law) that has existed for thousands of years. This change could be good or bad but the population does not want it.

You know, I hear a lot of people complain about gay marriage "changing the definition" of marriage. Why exactly is that a problem? Because we'll have to teach our children new things? Considering 50% of heterosexual marriages end in divorce, it's not that holy of a union to begin with. Oh, and the definition of marriage has already been changed. Other states and other countries allow same sex marriage, and the number is rising. Stop clinging to tradition and come to the 21st century. Get with the times. And yes, denying homosexuals the right to marry the person they love because of their sexuality is certainly oppression, just as it would be if someone was denied marriage over their race.

Indeed, let us throw out all the traditions of the past.

The United States of America seems to have a tradition of voting for leaders and representatives in the government, this should be stopped.

Many families seem to have a tradition of holding large gatherings, called family reunions, where the far flung branches get to meet and mingle, this should be stopped.

Couples that love each other seem to have this tradition of getting married, we've seen it since before recorded history began. It must be the most antediluvian or archaic tradition of them all, it should be stopped.



As you yourself said, the definition of marriage has changed in other states and countries but the population (that being the people of California) doesn't wish to change it in their home area and that is their right.

Like I said before, the government should keep it's nose out of marriage and issue Civil Partnership Licenses that would provide the same legal protection to a couple (any couple) and tax breaks that that current marriage license does.

Most people only use one strawman, but you crammed in two. Bravo. Also, alot of the pressure for Prop 8 came from the Mormons, who live in Utah. I don;t think for a second this was the will of the average Californian.

 

[blindthrall]

I'll play Devil's Advocate. How does marrying an animal cause harm or infringe on rights?

"Consenting" is probably a main part of that.

Is that an issue when something doesn't understand what consent is? Well, I guess it's kind of like screwing someone in a coma, which is infringing on rights. Still, if a dog is humping your leg, I think it's given consent.

But this is getting kind of silly.

 

[maturin]

Like I said before, the government should keep it's nose out of marriage and issue Civil Partnership Licenses that would provide the same legal protection to a couple (any couple) and tax breaks that that current marriage license does.

In which case the entire uproar would be over a word. Marriages for straights and civil unions for gays, both with equal rights and benefits. Keeping that hollow distinction to appease the crazies is idiotic. But since it materially achieves the same thing, it could be a good first step. Too bad any move on the slippery slope will be fought tooth and nail.

There should only be civil unions, as defined by law. It is a marriage if private citizens chose to call it a marriage. Churches chose whether or not to recognize it as a marriage, but all legal status is determined by the civil union license. All religious meaning is tacked on to the legal document through proper sacraments.

Couples that love each other seem to have this tradition of getting married, we've seen it since before recorded history began. It must be the most antediluvian or archaic tradition of them all, it should be stopped.

He did not say anything remotely like that, nor make any statement that could be construed as having that view or consequence. That was an extraordinarily dishonest argument and you should be ashamed of yourself. And you know it.

 

[MongoBaer]

First: where is peodphilia equated with Homosexuality? Specfically in mine or matt's post.

Second: Why are you discriminating against the Polyamrous community? Don't they deserve the same rights and everyone else?

Third: If you don't agree with something, fine. But you don't advance any thing by shutting down discussion by throwing out ad homind attacks. You don't "cure" ignorance with shouting "YOU'RE SO F**&(NG STUPID!!!"

Fourth: We are talking about a person acting on a moral belief asking what could be seen as a commen sense quesion. What is normal and what devates(used in the clinical sense) from the norm if you dont have a standard.

In order

1. The average person's response to why they oppose gay rights is the rumor started in the 1980's by Focus on the Family that Homosexuals are child molesters and the cause and source of AIDS

2. I suppose.

3. I get exasperated when people deny my parents the rights they deserve for no other reason than "My God says so" or "Becuase two guys kissing is gross"

4. There is no definition of normal. Any relationship in which two (or more) consenting adults love one another, in my book, is normal. Marrying your pet, or your neighbor's 9 year old daughter, is NOT normal.

1.)You didn't point out where I or matt SPECIFIC equated pedophilia with homosexuality. Judging by your reaction that was a common kneejerk reaction.

2.)I find your lack of support troubling. As such a vocal avocate for equality you should be more enthuasic. Equality for all, right?

3.)Another kneejerk response. You allow your biases to blind you. Instead of trying persuade how your arugement is superior, you attack the person with no regard to their point of view. "Your viewpoint/opinion/beliefs are wrong therefore I'm not going to listen to them."

4.)Nothing's normal so nothing's abnormal? Do you subscribe to a set of fixed ethics/morals or do they fluctuate? I'm not saying that your ethics or morals need to mirror mine or anyone else but if they are as free as the wind you're someone I wouldn't want to do business with.

 

[MongoBaer]

@ALuckyChance

NameIsRobertPaulson may not have been specificly targeting me but he quoted me. I interept that as a response to me.

 

[Buzz Killington_v1legacy]

But why - straight or gay - would you want the state (or church) to come in and recognise it?

A huge number of health and end-of-life issues, for one thing--inheritance, hospital visitation, living wills, and so on.

Also:

why the fuck do we vote in the first place if my communist state government is going to do whatever the hell they feel like any way.

Yes, that evil communist government run by a Republican governor and with a Federal district judge appointed by the notorious communist George H.W. Bush...wait, what?

 

[ctrl]

I do not agree with gay marriage. What is happening to this country.

why not? nobody can name three good reasons why gay people shouldnt marry. most of the given reasons all point to the same fact that people are just homophobic. for those who want to quote this i define a good reason as one with no homophobic roots that genuinely defines homosexuality as 'wrong'.

 

[Soushi]

And the political guy.

It's about damn time. Canada welcomes you to the future.

Not if stephen Harper gets his way. Canada is becoming more like teh states during the bush era, than the states is now, probably has something to do with the fact that mr. Harper has hired a lot of Bush's old advisors to help him out. The Conservatives are poisoning this country, and it is still getting worse.

And on topic, I'm not impressed. Yay, the states has entered the 2oth century, big fucking woop they still have a long way to go to undo all the theocratic damage they have been doing to themeselves for decades now andcontinue to do to themselves. I am glad that civil rights seems to have been victorious this time, but to me, the fact that we even have to discuss wether or not it is a civil right is just sad.

Way to look at every possible negative angle you could on this one. I'm a Canadian Native, I know about governments having to make up for shit they've done in the past, and I'm just happy they're trying to move forward.

And the "poisoned country" comment just makes me laugh. Canada isn't any more like the states because of Harper than it was before, we've been pretty similar since either the first or second world war. It comes with being so dependent on each other and sharing a media. This "poisoned country" is pretty damn good, especially compared to the conditions so much of the world is living in.[/quote]


****************************************************************************


I jsut have a few things to say. I read all of your comment, so i feel it is only fair that you bear with me and read mine.

Firstly, yes i do look at the negative on things like this, becasue it is but-numbingly irritating that this is even still an issue. I agree, the abolishment of this law is a good thing, but to applaud a so-called 'civilized' nation for getting this far by now is like giving a high schooler an "A" becasue they jsut figured out the 2+2=4. It just doesn't make any sense to me that we should even have to talk about this, it is a given, people have the right to marry whoever they want. As long as nothing is forced on anybody, marriage is an extension of us as a social race and should not be something that anybody can or should take away.

Secondly, i am glad you had a laugh, i do, after all, live to entertain

Thirdly, while it is a strong word, i still have to say poisoned. Look, Harper has changed this country in a very nagative way (not all nagative, but lets look at some highlights shall we). His MPs aren't allowed to speak to the press, he banned the press from being outside of the house of commons, he scrapped a multi billion dollar prject, at the cost of a few million,simply becasue it was liberal, he is fighting against gay marriage rights, his climate change program doesn't kick in till 2050 (or at least the last I heard), he is okay with torture, he helped the states get away with sending a canadian citizen to sudan to be tortured, he has hid and lied about information pretaining to the afghanistan mission and allegations that canada is condoning torture over there, he supported isreal in its terrorist attack on Lebanon,and he thinks it was a mistake not to going into the masterfully executed and beautiful war in Iraq. And what i said about Harper hiring bush's people isn't a lie, he hired them to advise him on A: how to run his party so that political darwinism wouldn't kick in (thus eliminating half of his freaking party) and B: to devise a 180 page document on how to cause chaos in teh house of commons without getting kicked out by the speaker, while at the same time griding the gears to a halt, and having the document leaked. He is also one of the first PM's to threaten charges of treason and sabotage agaisnt anyone who reveals anything about his agenda without it first going through is offices and last but not least, he jsut spent 1.3 billion (in the middle of a recession no less) on a pointless rich guys convention, putting it in a massive city rather than say, on a cruise liner in Hudson's Bay, and he thinks that the police who brutalized and terrified people at the protests were just doing a cracker jack job. As i said, I am aware he has done positive things and i know that there are a lot of other PMs that have done negative things, but i find it hard to believe that anyone can look at this list of massive blunders and still think that Harper hasn't changed this country, and the way he has changed it, well, it is appropraite that his party colours are Red White and Blue, and that makes me angry.

Fourthly, i am very proud of my country, i love Canada. I am well aware that, for the most part, we have it very damn good here. However, i will not simply ignore the things that piss me off becasue of that. When Canada does a whoopsy in its pants it is important, nay it is our duty, that we point that out, so that next time that shit doesn't leave a stench all over the country.

 

[johnman]

I love it when Americans start getting into a frenzy over the constitution no matter which side they are on. The Conservatives scream that it was passed unconsitutionally and that the Obama administration wants to murder everyone in their beds because they hate America, and the Democrats argue that the entire thing was unconstitutional from the start and should be overturned.
Thank god I live in England where all our polititions may be boring old farts, but they dont try and whip up a mass frenzy of misinformation and hate.

 

[LordWalter]

I love it when Americans start getting into a frenzy over the constitution no matter which side they are on. The Conservatives scream that it was passed unconsitutionally and that the Obama administration wants to murder everyone in their beds because they hate America, and the Democrats argue that the entire thing was unconstitutional from the start and should be overturned.
Thank god I live in England where all our polititions may be boring old farts, but they dont try and whip up a mass frenzy of misinformation and hate.

=p True. Hey, mind if I stay at your flat for awhile? aka forever?

 

[Vilcus]

I never understood people's aversion to allowing gay marriage in the first place. It's not like they're going to track you down, throw you to the ground, and proceed to beat you with a baseball bat once they have get married.

My personal opinion is that as long as it doesn't harm you, then you shouldn't care what others do.

 

[Pingieking]

Canada welcomes you back into the civilized society once again. You can have that empty seat next to Iowa; they're still having a bit of trouble fitting in.

I read some parts of the judge's ruling, and man did he raise the stakes on this issue. You just know that this case is ending up on the supreme court's desk soon, but that judge made prop 8 really hard to defend.

 

[DustyDrB]

While I'm not for a gay marriage ban (I'm a Christian, but our beliefs [and it's not that clear cut, by the way] shouldn't be made law), the fact that a judge can overturn a majority-voted policy bothers me. Have majorities been wrong in the past? Hell yes. But it's one of the core principles of American democracy. A judge (or a few judges) shouldn't override the majority.

 

[blindthrall]

I never understood people's aversion to allowing gay marriage in the first place. It's not like they're going to track you down, throw you to the ground, and proceed to beat you with a baseball bat once they have get married.

My personal opinion is that as long as it doesn't harm you, then you shouldn't care what others do.

The comedian Lewis Black had a great bit about this. The gist was that if gay people get rights, they'll take that as the cue to invade people's houses and start having homo sex right on the dinner table, spoiling gravy forever. And the real threat is that the sexually repressed normals of America might see something they like.

 

[ALuckyChance]

While I'm not for a gay marriage ban (I'm a Christian, but our beliefs [and it's not that clear cut, by the way] shouldn't be made law), the fact that a judge can overturn a majority-voted policy bothers me. Have majorities been wrong in the past? Hell yes. But it's one of the core principles of American democracy. A judge (or a few judges) shouldn't override the majority.

Well, the majority was -barely- in the lead, though I don't know if that makes a difference. Anyway, the people of the States are supposed to follow the Constitution. If the fourteenth amendment ends up stating that everyone is equal, then I don't think a simple majority vote will change things.

I'm just talking off the top of my head though, so I could be wrong.

 

[Dags90]

I never understood people's aversion to allowing gay marriage in the first place. It's not like they're going to track you down, throw you to the ground, and proceed to beat you with a baseball bat once they have get married.

My personal opinion is that as long as it doesn't harm you, then you shouldn't care what others do.

They're going to trick you into a gay marriage; church will will never be safe again. If gays get married, the institution of marriage will be destroyed! Societies will crumble, rivers will run with blood. Nazis will once again ride dinosaurs!