California ROCKS! Same Sex Marriage Legal!

[HATEFACE]

I don't even know what you said, because you really didn't say much of anything.

I shall break down what you said without a lot of the extra fluff (just the necessary fluff):

To understand marriage, we need to understand humanity.

This need to understand humanity is why marriage should be respected as an institution of humanity.

How does that statement make or break (or even poke softly) at either argument?

Don't get all moonbatty on me Jayde. Statistically homosexuals couples don't remain together as often as heterosexual couples. That's not saying they're incapable of doing it, they're just less likely to do so. Marriage is about remaining together to form a family and raise children in a stable enviroment. When I said that; "That is why it should be a respected institution of humanity, not to be tossed aside to a minority of people who serve no natural utilitarian purpose of child rearing." It was refering to Mulu who said; "Marriage is far older and more universal than Christianity, Dorn." I have a slight disagreement with the universal part of the comment because I believe its refering to homosexuals wanting marriage when equal law isn't enough. Marriage has been around since the begining of the species. It even can be applied to creatures outside of the human race in some instances. Infidality is often a moral issue, unless you're a chipmonk.

This isn't about equal rights because homosexuality isn't a matter of genetics.

There is a reason you're born that way...

Your second statement directly negates that first one...

How does it directly negate the first?
Is homosexuality a product of genetics? Now I'm asking you. If you care enough research it and get back to me, maybe ask AL. He knows a thing or two about that junk. There is a reason homosexuality exists in nature in all species or else it wouldn't exist. After homosexuality doesn't pass genetic information from one generation to another. Maybe it doesn't have to be genetic to exist. Who knows, maybe its a chemical process at child birth in most species. I'm not talking about gender identification as a matter of genetics in this case.

And cloaking the truth under altruism and freedom isn't a bad thing...

"Look, we're altruistic and freedom loving..."

"OH SNAP! We GOT YOU! Really what we were doing all along was presenting the TRUTH!"

Wait, we got a hefty dose of the truth in an altruistic and freedom loving way? OH NOES!!!

Perhaps you meant that they are cloaking their 'personal agenda' or their 'deviant plots' or what have you under a cloak of altruism and freedom?

Jayde, I'm sure you believe what your supporting. I can't help but be skeptical in some instances. I gotta say, you got me there. So, like, a president who lies to protect our freedom isn't a bad thing even when its fueled by altruism. - Oh, wait. . . Uhm, maybe the last one. I'll go with the last one. The very last thing you said. "Perhaps you meant that they are cloaking their 'personal agenda' or their 'deviant [BELETED!] nature' or what have you under a cloak of altruism and freedom?" Sure, they could very well be doing that unintentionally.

One at a time! One at a time. I can only handle so much batshit insane behavior.

[HATEFACE]

Marriage is far older and more universal than Christianity, Dorn.

To understand marriage you need to understand humanity as a species. Why these unions take place. Why we have the ability to choose whether or not we remain faithful to those we love.

That is why it should be a respected institution of humanity, not to be tossed aside to a minority of people who serve no natural utilitarian purpose of child rearing.

Make you mind up - is marriage about "the ability to choose whether or not we remain faithful to those we love"or about "the utilitarian purpose of child rearing."?

If the former, then why should it be a hetero reserve? Can gay folks not love each other and be loyal to each other too?

If the latter, surely we need to go the mormon route, many wives each to maximise the ladies as mere machines for utilitarian purpose of child rearing.

***

This is great news, Mik. At the simplest level, it simply means that 2 folks who love each other can do so in exactly the same legalised way, enjoying exactly the same status under the law as any other such couple.

Sure, why don't we take it to some inane extremes like you suggest because marriage can never be about both companionship and procreation.

[Mikayla]

What ever marriage was pre-Christianity, or at the birth of our species, does not matter as much as what it is now - which is a bundle of civil, legal, secular rights granted by the government to two people. Yes, religions have their own view of marriage and their own privileges and responsibilities, and if the Catholic church chooses not to recognize my marriage, so be it. But the government should recognize my marriage - and now the government of California will.

As for the child-rearing part - yes, once that was a part of it - but no more. We do not deny marriage licenses to the infertile or to the old or to those heteros who don't want children. So, the secular, legal benefits of marriage are not dependent upon procreation.

Anyway, in further happy news - I am engaged!

[Mayhem]

Anyway, in further happy news - I am engaged!

Congratulations!

[mr duncan]

To understand marriage you need to understand humanity as a species. Why these unions take place. Why we have the ability to choose whether or not we remain faithful to those we love.

It is you that seems to be missing the point you made. Marriage does indeed belong to humanity as a species, not just to its heterosexual members.

Marriage, predating the whole silly notion of monotheism, is not the property of christianity nor the people opposing gay marriage on some lame "moral grounds".

There was gay marriage before there was christian marriage. Plenty of our planets older cultures didnt have these backwards ignorant stigmas attached to peoples choices in mates like we do now.

That is why it should be a respected institution of humanity,

If you respected it as an institution of humanity... it would be open to all humans. By refusing them (or anyone) the same legal rights in our nation, YOU and all like you are attempting to exclude a human from their place in "humanity" as you put it.

not to be tossed aside to a minority of people who serve no natural utilitarian purpose of child rearing.

So a hetero couple involving a woman with ovarian cancer shouldnt be allowed to marry either. They wont have kids... so screw em.

This isn't about equal rights because as far as I comprehend it homosexuality isn't a matter of genetics.

You need a bit more study.

The purpose of the constitution is to defend the liberties of everyone; the individual.

Right. Thats why gay folks should be given the same rights as the rest of us, rather than saving marriage as some special treat for us hetero's.

. . .I'll be on the side of the constitution defending it from radical ideologues who cloak the simple truth under the guise of altruism and freedom, as always.

I agree! The declaration of independence guarantees life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The bill of rights was designed to protect those three essential rights.

Interfering with, or even attempting to slow down, the assumption of those rights by our gay (or any other) citizens is downright un-american.




Id like to end this post with a quote from our founding father.....





"As Mankind becomes more liberal, they will be more apt to allow that all those who conduct themselves as worthy members of the community are equally entitled to the protections of civil government. I hope ever to see America among the foremost nations of justice and liberality."

-- George Washington





J

[Grand Fromage]

Quit replying to PD, you're doing it wrong. :O

[ç i p h é r]

The majority's opinion (all 121 pages of it ):

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/opinions/do ... 147999.PDF

A nice summary that includes the dissenting opinions (for those of us with better things to do):

http://www.courtinfo.ca.gov/presscenter ... R26-08.PDF

I agree with Justice Corrigan's conclusions, but it's not my state so I shall leave you Californians to celebrate or commiserate, whatever the case may be.

p.s. Judicial activism can also be a form of tyranny so I suppose it's all a matter of one's perspective. For better or worse, the system is built around majority opinion (is there really any other way to decide fairly?), whatever the forum may be. Case in point, if there are enough votes for it, a constitutional amendment may follow this ruling.

[mishmash]

Helios what does this mean:

"You argue that you need to be protected from the majority. Total bullshit in this particular case. We're (Republicans and those opposed to same sex marriage.) not nazis or muslims that Ƥøا hang homosexuals or stone them to death for being "different. . ." "

Do you think its appropriate to include Muslims alongside nazis in that statement? Aside from the obvious connotations of that, you speak as if Muslims have a monopoly of mistreating gay people? I seriously think that even if you do hold such views you should think very carefully before posting them on a public forum.

[HATEFACE]

To understand marriage you need to understand humanity as a species. Why these unions take place. Why we have the ability to choose whether or not we remain faithful to those we love.

It is you that seems to be missing the point you made. Marriage does indeed belong to humanity as a species, not just to its heterosexual members.

Marriage, predating the whole silly notion of monotheism, is not the property of christianity nor the people opposing gay marriage on some lame "moral grounds".

There was gay marriage before there was christian marriage. Plenty of our planets older cultures didnt have these backwards ignorant stigmas attached to peoples choices in mates like we do now.

It belongs solely to heterosexual members as a way of encuraging procreation of the species and the general welfare of the "nuclear" family unit. The more you keep injecting christianity into this the more incorrect your perception of my argument becomes.

"Marriage, predating the whole silly notion of monotheism, is not the property of christianity nor the people opposing gay marriage on some lame "moral grounds"." What the fuck are you even talking about? Are you saying morality has nothing to do with marriage, birthing, or raising children? Since you put "Moral grounds" in quotes and used the word "lame" I'm sure you think in terms of moral relativity when life is far more complex and does indeed include absolute morality in the bundle. Sometimes people are complex and sometimes a snake is just a snake.

It is you who has it backward. The older cultures were ignorant. It was they who attached stigmas to groups of people. They were barely grasping at the concept of democracy, even two hundred years after they still couldn't hold a candle to what be began with and progressed toward. America shouldn't abandon social darwinism revert to some primative social climate. Don't confuse our democracy with a vague notion of state freedom and despotism.

Lastly, you're a moonbat. Do you think homosexuals will go from state to state in order to make their case among those who refuse this social agenda? Nah, You know full well they'll go straight to the top and change the constitution. After all, as a moral relativist you should know that the plight black people and gay people are the same. Deny it if you want, You're still full of it.

That is why it should be a respected institution of humanity,

If you respected it as an institution of humanity... it would be open to all humans. By refusing them (or anyone) the same legal rights in our nation, YOU and all like you are attempting to exclude a human from their place in "humanity" as you put it.

not to be tossed aside to a minority of people who serve no natural utilitarian purpose of child rearing.

So a hetero couple involving a woman with ovarian cancer shouldnt be allowed to marry either. They wont have kids... so screw em.

This isn't about equal rights because as far as I comprehend it homosexuality isn't a matter of genetics.

You need a bit more study.

The purpose of the constitution is to defend the liberties of everyone; the individual.

Right. Thats why gay folks should be given the same rights as the rest of us, rather than saving marriage as some special treat for us hetero's.

. . .I'll be on the side of the constitution defending it from radical ideologues who cloak the simple truth under the guise of altruism and freedom, as always.

I agree! The declaration of independence guarantees life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The bill of rights was designed to protect those three essential rights.

Interfering with, or even attempting to slow down, the assumption of those rights by our gay (or any other) citizens is downright un-american.




Id like to end this post with a quote from our founding father.....

Nah, they have their place and I'm not excluding anyone.

Ovarian cancer? Why, sir moonbat, that is a disease! Why, you apply your moral relativistic thought in such uncanny ways! So what you're attempting to say is that homosexuals are a disease, hmm. I think about it and get back to you.

You're right. I need more study. Do you?

"Right. Thats why gay folks should be given the same rights as the rest of us, rather than saving marriage as some special treat for us hetero's."
Uh uh, my friend, if you didn't notice, there is a small debate about this as a granted constiutional right.

I agree! The declaration of independence guarantees life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. The bill of rights was designed to protect those three essential rights.

I agree! I'm not happy with same sex marriage so I have full obligation to stop it from becoming universal. I can uphold the liberties that are already in place in this wonderful country. Please don't threaten to kill me, I rather enjoy my gaurantee of life.

"Interfering with, or even attempting to slow down, the assumption of those rights by our gay (or any other) citizens is downright un-american."
But. . . I. . .I thought you are the one who is un-american. Nice, I would have never of thought of including "(OR ANY OTHER)" in there. It's a good way of including gays into the mix of other more legitimate minorities, like say, the KKK. Fiddlesticks! Maybe you're full of shit.

Sir, I would never attempt to slow down the rights of legal immigrants, black people, inbred hics, aliens, pirates, ninjas, the japanese, the chinese, yoda, or unicorns. (Those blasted unicorns are pushing it, imho.)

Finally, What makes you believe that your modern liberalism has anything to do with the founding principles of this country? Sure we should change the constitution to better this country. That's what it is all about. You've abandoned it long ago for a more socialist version. So you quoting anything our founding fathers said is both quirky and alien when being applied to the current principles of which you adhere.

[HATEFACE]

Helios what does this mean:

"You argue that you need to be protected from the majority. Total bullshit in this particular case. We're (Republicans and those opposed to same sex marriage.) not nazis or muslims that Ƥøا hang homosexuals or stone them to death for being "different. . ." "

Do you think its appropriate to include Muslims alongside nazis in that statement? Aside from the obvious connotations of that, you speak as if Muslims have a monopoly of mistreating gay people? I seriously think that even if you do hold such views you should think very carefully before posting them on a public forum.

I think you should think very carefully how much of a moonbat you really are. I mean, you're INSANE! Get your politically correct ass out of here, Mr. I-Love-to-grasp-at-straws.
Incase you're really that stupid: NO, I DO NOT MEAN ALL MUSLIMS. JUST THE ROTTEN PIGLETS THAT STONE GAY PEOPLE TO DEATH, BEAT WOMEN, & KILL ANYONE WHO DISAGREES WITH THEIR IDEA OF A PERFECT ISLAMIC THEOCRACY. I hope that clarifies it, thanks.

But now that I think about it, I think you're right. it's totally inappropriate to include Muslims in that. Nazis are so much more nicer.

[HATEFACE]

Quit replying to PD, you're doing it wrong. :O

[mishmash]

Firstly, I don't know what a moonbat is.

Secondly, if somebody makes a sweeping generalisation in which they compare a religion which roughly a sixth of the world's population adhere to, a religion which they clearly have very little idea about and a religion which is a part of my own heritage, with Nazism, I don't consider it overly politically correct to take them to task about it. In fact I think I'd be insane, (as you so delicately put it), to ignore it.

Your responses, in fact your whole attitude on this subject seems typical of somebody steeped in orientalism. Have you ever taken the trouble to, say, crack open a book and look in to the religion yourself, or are your ideas about it an amalgam of all the horror stories about these "rotten pgilets that stone gay people to death, beat women & kill anyone who disagrees with their idea of a perfect islamic theocracy" which the media are so fond of showing?
I would assume the latter, considering as you are so liberal with grouping a good billion people along with nazis, and so vehement in bringing up the highly publicised "rotten piglets" as a justification.

Maybe you're not "really that stupid", maybe you're being ironic, and I just haven't picked up on it. In any case, I doubt whether you would have written

"You argue that you need to be protected from the majority. Total bullshit in this particular case. We're (Republicans and those opposed to same sex marriage.) not nazis or christians that Ƥøا hang homosexuals or stone them to death for being "different. . ." "

which is equally true in that christians like muslims are human beings and are thus capable of the most inhuman cruelty. Anyway, I'm sure this is a waste in time as I'm sure you will take nothing from it, but at least I tried...

[mishmash]

Firstly, I don't know what a moonbat is.

Secondly, if somebody makes a sweeping generalisation in which they compare a religion which roughly a sixth of the world's population adhere to, a religion which they clearly have very little idea about and a religion which is a part of my own heritage, with Nazism, I don't consider it overly politically correct to take them to task about it. In fact I think I'd be insane, (as you so delicately put it), to ignore it.

Your responses, in fact your whole attitude on this subject seems typical of somebody steeped in orientalism. Have you ever taken the trouble to, say, crack open a book and look in to the religion yourself, or are your ideas about it an amalgam of all the horror stories about these "rotten pgilets that stone gay people to death, beat women & kill anyone who disagrees with their idea of a perfect islamic theocracy" which the media are so fond of showing?
I would assume the latter, considering as you are so liberal with grouping a good billion people along with nazis, and so vehement in bringing up the highly publicised "rotten piglets" as a justification.

Maybe you're not "really that stupid", maybe you're being ironic, and I just haven't picked up on it. In any case, I doubt whether you would have written

"You argue that you need to be protected from the majority. Total bullshit in this particular case. We're (Republicans and those opposed to same sex marriage.) not nazis or christians that Ƥøا hang homosexuals or stone them to death for being "different. . ." "

which is equally true in that christians like muslims are human beings and are thus capable of the most inhuman cruelty. Anyway, I'm sure this is a waste in time as I'm sure you will take nothing from it, but at least I tried...

[mr duncan]

Lastly, you're a moonbat.

Maybe you're full of sh*t.

When someone loses control and has to pepper their posts with these remarks it shows they deep down understand how wrong they are... yet still want to feel right by yelling their wrong statements louder.

If you were a better behaved, rational speaker... id reply to your specifics. However amusing it might be to counter your prejudiced arguments, it would only bring me down to your level. You reveal you arent worth countering with intelligent argument, so ill back out and let you shout at someone else.


J

[Avaz]