California ROCKS! Same Sex Marriage Legal!

[HATEFACE]

Thanks PW! I will send you an invite if/when we have a big wedding of our own.

And Val, I see you have trotted out the polygamy/marry-your-dog arguments, which are all very nice, but have nothing to do with the issue at hand - and perhaps nothing shows the weakness of the anti-same-sex marriage group than their need to fall back on "but someone will want to marry their dog!" Thats sad. Oh, and I am glad you brought up the State legislature - California's state legislature has PASSED a bill legalizing same-sex marriage TWICE. Only the Governor's veto stopped it from being law both times. And now, our Governor has come out in support of the Supreme Court's decision - so - like it or not Val, all three branches of California's government support same-sex marriage now (and two of those branches are dominated by Republicans - you all are aware that the Chief Justice, who authored the opinion in this case, is a Republican, and that the Cal. Supreme Court is made of 5 Republican justices and 2 Democrats, yes?)

A republican in california is like a democrat in texas.

[HATEFACE]

It will be over turned. Enjoy it while you can. Not saying anything else. It just shows how idiotic California is.

PD's got a friend!

I have 1 friend which makes it at least 200 more friend than you.

[JaydeMoon]

Oh really?! Jayde, bathroom sexual activity is quite prevalent among homosexuals.

There is a difference between 'sex in the bathroom' and being turned on by someone sh tting or pissing. Which, incidentally, is something that is just as easily a hetero fetish as it is a homosexual one. Burt's not gay. He's into it.

I mean, really, when's the last time you heard the story about the homosexual man who suddenly couldn't control his sexual urges in a public restroom and ended up raping another man?

Read news stories about hetero men raping women in bathrooms.

I've even read stories about hetero men sodomizing homosexuals (not in bathrooms, though).

Perhaps we shouldn't be allowing hetero males to use the bathroom together, seems to be a bit more danger to that.

I have not always agreed that homosexuals should be granted the free reins to do as they wish in all cases like they want. I don't think homosexuals should be allowed to openly serve in the military, for example.

My reasoning has never had anything to do with homosexual issues, however. The problem is close-minded heterosexual people who for some reason freak out about something that is effectively harmless ("Oh no, Pvt. Joe might think I'm cute!") and act in wholly inappropriate and often extreme and violent ways. Barry Winchell is an example.

I know that Mikayla doesn't agree with that stance and I sure do respect her reasoning, along with her courage and the courage of every homosexual who has come out in a potentially hostile environment.

But I feel that we make small steps. With each small step we successfully make, we open more minds and lessen the potential negative repercussions which occur because heterosexuals are close-minded, bigoted, and violent, not because homosexuals are 'gay'.

One day, and I don't think it's that far away, we will have as inclusive a society as we can have. There will always be bigots out there, but soon the worry that something extreme will happen to someone because of who they are will be lessened.

Anyway, my point here is less about 'gay rights' and more about the reality that the people with the f cking problem are generally bigoted heterosexuals. Whatever excuse you fall back on for your bigotry, be it your religion, morality, science.... it's still hateful. We don't need hate.

[Mayhem]

If marriage is ONLY recognised by churches, then by all means the churches can decide who can/cannot get married.

When marriage is recognised by the government, and gives the married priviledges not available in any other way, then the government should ensure that no citizen is discriminated against, and thus denied those priviledges.

Constitutionally, you can't agree with the other position and be in the right by the law.

The basic logic is that gays have a right to be treated like everyone else. But just like everyone else, gays do have the right to marry. They have the right to marry adult members of the opposite sex! What gay activists want is something else: the right to marry members of the same sex. This isn't a right currently enjoyed by anyone. What these gay activists seek then isn't equal treatment but rather to change the very definition of marriage.

Wow, that's clever, the way you quoted the first part of my post wihilst totally ignoring the part that addresses the issue you pretended to raise.

What gay people want is the same right heterosexual people want - the right to marry the person they love.

[HATEFACE]

I'm just curious if anyone here understands the concept that people can lobby the government for correcting what they think to be a moral injustices? Now the "silent" majority who think same sex marriage is wrong; they have every right to lobby against it as YOU do to lobby for gay marriage. - You would realize this if you weren't retarded (GF, I'm looking at you.) The majority of people do not need to lay down and accept what government hands them from a minority, especially if they disagree with their values. The main issue is this; Do you want to convince people that what you're doing is morally good or do you want to supersede the individual and force government to change people's minds for them?

Understand that racial prejudices was a different bag of issues than homosexuality and gay marriage in terms of "religious" morality. In fact, "god" didn't have as large of a role in it until the southern bigots became religious fanatics to fuel their ever-shrinking ranks and racial hatred.

[Vaelahr]

I mean, really, when's the last time you heard the story about the homosexual man who suddenly couldn't control his sexual urges in a public restroom and ended up raping another man?

Here's one.

And here's another one.

Those are just from a quick internet search. There's certainly more out there. I've heard some of the sexual assaults from priests were done in bathrooms. Sadly, there are far fewer confessions from male victims than females. The psychology is different. Male victims are more reluctant to reveal the genital components of their assault and are more likely to use denial and emotional suppression in reaction to the rape.

Perhaps we shouldn't be allowing hetero males to use the bathroom together, seems to be a bit more danger to that.

Sounds like hetero-guilt.

...heterosexuals are close-minded, bigoted, and violent...

You're intelligent enough to know that there are close-minded, bigoted, violent men among both sexual orientations.

Wow, that's clever, the way you quoted the first part of my post wihilst totally ignoring the part that addresses the issue you pretended to raise.

What gay people want is the same right heterosexual people want - the right to marry the person they love.

But that's not an enumerated right anyone currently enjoys. That simplification just isn't what marriage is. You seemed to have missed the sum of my posts.

Val, I see you have trotted out the polygamy/marry-your-dog arguments, which are all very nice, but have nothing to do with the issue at hand - and perhaps nothing shows the weakness of the anti-same-sex marriage group than their need to fall back on "but someone will want to marry their dog!" Thats sad.

But a man does want to marry his dog. And there are men who "love" horses. And it is sad. And there's men who "love" boys. And it's very sick, and very wrong.

As for the issue at hand; any definition of marriage includes some people and excludes others. And it’s unreasonable to say that gays have a constitutional right to over-ride the definition but other groups do not.

[Mikayla]

Yes Val, there are people who love dogs, and horses and children in inappropriate ways. But that is not this issue, despite your rantings. Legally, marriage is a contract, and the fundamental basis of contract law is a meeting of the minds. A pre-condition to that meeting of the minds is that both people need to be capable of contracting; that means no animals, and no children. Same-sex marriage is not about bestiality or pedophilia or bathroom rape no matter how much you might wish it was. Its about people like me getting to marry the people we love (in my case, my girlfriend); and its about equal treatment under the law - in short, that the secular government recognizes and validates my relationship in the same way it recognizes and validates a heterosexual relationship. While no church needs to recognize or validate my relationship, so long as our government is in the business of "marriage" then it needs to recognize and validate relationships fairly, and not in a way limited by certain religious prejudices. Our government is not (or at least, should not be) the enforcement arm for conservative Christian ideology (note I say conservative because there are many christians who support same-sex marriage).

[Kest]

But a man does want to marry his dog. And there are men who "love" horses. And it is sad. And there's men who "love" boys. And it's very sick, and very wrong.

As for the issue at hand; any definition of marriage includes some people and excludes others. And it’s unreasonable to say that gays have a constitutional right to over-ride the definition but other groups do not.

Do you consider animals and minors to be consenting adults?

[JaydeMoon]

I'll start by pointing out that the second one you posted occurred in a 'steam room' which is wholly different than a bathroom. It is also a case of man and child, which is also different than what was being discussed.

The first one you pointed out happened in 2003. So... when was the last time you heard of something like this? 2003. Actually, the last time you HEARD about something like this was 'never'. You had to google it.

As for 'hetero-guilt', I'm not sure where you're going with that, as you are intelligent enough to know that was a tongue-in-cheek statement.

And I am intelligent enough to know that there are close-minded people in all demographic groups, but I also know that there are a disproportionately larger number of violent crimes where heteros target homosexuals than there are of homosexuals targeting heteros, based on this close-mindedness and bigotry. Regardless, the fact that there are these sorts of people in all demographic groups does nothing to debate or debunk my statement, which was: the attacks (on homosexual people by heterosexual people because the homosexual people are homosexual) are a result of close-mindedness, bigotry, and violent behavior, not a result of the victim's homosexuality.

As for this:

As for the issue at hand; any definition of marriage includes some people and excludes others. And it’s unreasonable to say that gays have a constitutional right to over-ride the definition but other groups do not.

I'll start with laws. It is UNLAWFUL for an adult to engage in sexual acts with a child. It is UNLAWFUL for an adult to marry a member of the opposite sex if they are what constitutes a minor. Therefore, a homosexual individual's desire to marry another consenting adult of the same sex and a lawbreaker's desire to marry a minor are incomparable.

It is, in most any place I can think of, maybe someplace doesn't have it on the books, UNLAWFUL to engage in sexual acts with an animal. Therefore, a homosexual individual's desire to marry another consenting adult of the same sex and a lawbreaker's desire to marry the object of the lawbreaking are incomparable.

Can you think of any law-abiding groups to whom marriage is disallowed other than the homosexual community?

and just in case you want to say that it's not unlawful to perform sex acts with inanimate objects which you own, part of marriage includes a communicable desire to enter into the marriage. How's your dildo gonna say "I do"?

(that last was just case you wanted to keep going on with your ridiculousness).

[PensivesWetness]

Anthrax's Keep it in the Family (Persistance of Time)

Mankind,
The public enemy's not the man who speaks his mind
The public enemy's the man that goes and acts blind
Searching for an answer that he'll never find
An action from reaction and you can't make a retraction
Once you've put your head out
And then you're blue in the face,
As you try to state your case
You can think with your d*ck but it can't shout
Yo.
I try to understand what the hell is going on
I can't imagine how things ever got so far gone
You separatists, say you want your own state
I'll give them a state, a state of unconsciousness
Retribution, no solution, constitution
Discrimination, through the nation, raining hatred
I yell, when there's schism you must rebel
I yell, so you'll hear
I yell, i refuse to live in your hell
I am what you fear
I'm the truth, i don't keep it in the family
Live your life, take someone else
Keep it in the family
The real world's outside your door
You can't keep it in the family
You've got the longest way to fall
Keep it in the, keep it in the, keep it in the
Family
Don't even try to tell me what you think is right
When to you blacks are n*****s, and jews are k****
And you expect to be taken seriously
But your actions, they're more than curiously.
Juvenile, you emulate what you hate
And you don't even know why you feel this way
'Cause daddy hated this, and mommy hated that
And your own ability to reason's like a tire gone flat
Yo.
I try to understand what the hell is going on
I can't imagine how things ever got so far gone
You separatists, say you want your own state
I'll give them a state, a state of unconsciousness
Retribution, no solution, constitution
Discrimination, through the nation, raining hatred
I yell, when there's schism you must rebel
I yell, so you'll hear
I yell, i refuse to live in your hell
I am what you fear
I'm the truth, i don't keep it in the family
Live your life, take someone else
Keep it in the family
The real world's outside your door
You can't keep it in the family
You've got the longest way to fall
When you keep it in the, when you keep it in the
When you keep it in the family
When you keep it in the, when you keep it in the
When you keep it in the family
Acting out of pure cold hatred
'Cause of what another's race is
Color of another's face is
Different, and your own frustrations
Taking on a violent nature
Full of hate, so full of hate
You'd kill a man is that your fate
Your street becomes a police state
Why the hell do you hate?!
Hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate, hate
Hate, hate!!!
I'm not gonna stand for it
Someone's gonna pay for it
I yell, we rebel
We're the truth and we won't keep it in the family
Live your life, take someone else
Keep it in the family
The real world's outside your door
You can't keep it in the family
You've got the longest way to fall
Keep it in the family
I'm the thing that you most fear
I don't keep it in the family
I am the truth you won't hear
Keep it in the family
The real world's outside your door
You can't keep it in the family
You've got the longest way to fall
Keep it in the family, Keep it in the family!

Keep is in the family! Keep it! In The! Family!

O's VF-25 Full Armor Gun slinging Jinx say's LOCK IT!

[JaydeMoon]

We should lock threads when PW doesn't like them anymore.

[danielmn]

The issue has no relevence in my life whatsoever, so I am of no opinion. I doubt it has very little relevence to most who object to it as well, though I may be wrong.

[Vaelahr]

I'll start by pointing out that the second one you posted occurred in a 'steam room' which is wholly different than a bathroom.

Why does it need to be a bathroom again?

It is also a case of man and child, which is also different than what was being discussed.

How so? Men and boys share the same public restrooms.

The first one you pointed out happened in 2003. So... when was the last time you heard of something like this? 2003. Actually, the last time you HEARD about something like this was 'never'. You had to google it.

I wanted to give you a tangible account, rather than just say, "I heard about...". I've HEARD lots of horror stories. I'm not going to do your research homework for you. Sorry.

And I am intelligent enough to know that there are close-minded people in all demographic groups

I know, I reminded you of that.

I also know that there are a disproportionately larger number of violent crimes where heteros target homosexuals than there are of homosexuals targeting heteros

That's because homosexuals are far fewer in numbers, silly.

Regardless, the fact that there are these sorts of people in all demographic groups does nothing to debate or debunk my statement, which was: the attacks (on homosexual people by heterosexual people because the homosexual people are homosexual) are a result of close-mindedness, bigotry, and violent behavior, not a result of the victim's homosexuality.

Not always. People can be violent and hateful for a great many reasons; A guy who kills a prostitute because he found out the "woman" he paid to recieve oral treats from was actually an asian gentleman in a Cyndi Lauper wig. As wrong and awful as that crime is, it shouldn't be called a "hate-crime" against a homosexual. If a guy grab's a chick's ass in a club and she turns around and slaps him in the face, it's cool. Likewise, If a gay gentleman gives my mule a tug in said nightclub, I too better be able to give him a slappity-slappity and not be called a homophobe.

It is UNLAWFUL for an adult to engage in sexual acts with a child. It is UNLAWFUL for an adult to marry a member of the opposite sex if they are what constitutes a minor. Therefore, a homosexual individual's desire to marry another consenting adult of the same sex and a lawbreaker's desire to marry a minor are incomparable.

What if ah....if ah....if if ah...in New Hampshire, two gay gentlemen with a 14 year old adopted son is given parental consent to marry his boyfriend who's 47 years old. Is that LAWFUL? Should it be? Answer. Please. Thirty seconds. Go.

It is, in most any place I can think of, maybe someplace doesn't have it on the books, UNLAWFUL to engage in sexual acts with an animal. Therefore, a homosexual individual's desire to marry another consenting adult of the same sex and a lawbreaker's desire to marry the object of the lawbreaking are incomparable.

There are several states where bestiality is legal. As for the contract of marriage; Gay "marriage" redefines marriage. So any minority group should be able to also redefine marriage and redefine the contractual particulars the way gays have. Right? Why should boy lovers and horse lovers and men with dogs that have oven mitts taped to their paws not be able to enjoy the same rights that heterosexuals enjoy??? Oh right, they do! Because heterosexuals don't enjoy the right to marry another of the same gender. That's not what marriage is, let's not forget. So anyone, as long as they're law-abiding, should be able to redefine marriage right?

and just in case you want to say that it's not unlawful to perform sex acts with inanimate objects which you own, part of marriage includes a communicable desire to enter into the marriage.

And part of marriage includes that the communicable desire is between one man and one woman - oh, but we can just snip that part out whenever it's convenient for whatever minority group that comes along.

How's your dildo gonna say "I do"?

Oh Jayde, stop with the fresh talk!

[Akivaria]

You all do realize that this decision was made by a Republican court, right?

It was only done to mobilize the right-wing vote, because Dubya's political capital is damn near spent. Now, yes, it seems like a step forward, but if that vote comes out like they mean for it to, it may not be so good in the end.

And... go queers!

[AcadiusLost]

You all do realize that this decision was made by a Republican court, right?

If I'm not mistaken, the court decision in question was made by the supreme court of California, so I'm not sure where the "republican court" line is coming from. California has a republican governor, but that has very little to do with the individual political sentiments of the justices of the state supreme court. I'm not exactly an expert on these things, but supreme court justices (even at the state level) are expected to evaluate cases on the basis of their legal merit, and not on the basis of any political affiliations, past or present.

Anyhow, I think it's an encouraging development in the ongoing saga of marriage rights in the United States, and one that I'd hope would be allowed to stand. The back and forth we've seen on the issue, even just in California, has taken a heavy toll on those who have a personal stake in the matter, and who have braved the legal uncertainty in an attempt to receive legal recognition of their unions.

Only time will tell, unfortunately.

[edit: fixed the quote]