|
California's top court legalizes gay marriage (pg. 5)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Jake Benson |
| quote: | Originally posted by naeblis
I think it's also a sham that anyone who would like to keep a traditional view of marriage, is looked at as discriminative, heartless, blind, and close minded. It sucks. |
That's fine if you think marriage is between a man and a women. But you are discriminative, hearless, blind, and close minded when you take your views and make everyone else adhere to them. There's a difference between prejudice attitude, i.e. holding your "marriage = 1 man + 1 woman" belief, and discriminatory behavior, i.e. passing a measure to ensure that your prejudice attitude is followed by everyone else whether or not they agree with you. I think you are perfectly entitled to your prejudice views. But you are not entitled to make laws that tell people what sex they are allowed to marry. |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| quote: | Originally posted by mobius9
The issue of discrimination I'm presenting is that it alters the current definition of marriage, based on child birth and reproduction, and changes it to be focused on satisfaction in a relationship (among any sex combination). |
Allowing gay marriage still focuses on child birth and reproduction thanks to civilization creating technological ways such as articifial insemination or the old school method (adoption). We don't live in an archaic time period where wide-spread homosexual activity is leading to the decline of the human race. So there's no need to limit marriage based on reproduction as those laws were created to ensure the human race propagated, and now that the world is overpopulated by humans, those laws are now pointless (and maybe in fact harmful).
Also, based on your argument, two heterosexuals that somehow cannot reproduce should also not get married. I mean after all, if two heterosexuals that are in love cannot reproduce, then whose to say that they won't start looking for a 3rd "donor" and then want to both get married to that "donor." Oh no! Apocalypse!
| quote: | | My point is that, if you are going to classify marriage based on happiness, and throw out the requirement of gender, how can you keep the limitation on the number of people involved in a marriage without that being classified as discrimination. |
These are two different topics. Do not compare gays getting married to 3 people getting married.
Your argument is EQUALLY valid if you said this:
"My point is that, if you are going ot classify marriage based on happiness, and throw out the requirement of same race, how can you keep the limitation on the number of people involved ina marriage without that being classified as discrimination"
I think your fallacious argument "if gays, then why not 3-ways" is just a cover-up of your bias against homosexuals. Legalizing homosexual marriage has nothing to do with legalizing polygamous marriages. After all, legalizing inter-racial marriages never lead to legalizing polygamous marriages. So what makes you think the legalizing gay marriages will lead to legalizing polygamous marriages? Oh I bet I know. You think that gay marriages are just as invalid as polygamous marriages and thus erroneously classify gay people under "3-ways" instead of properly classifying them under "2-ways." This is sad. Go see a psychiatrist.
| quote: | | Don't overlook the population of swingers and group sex oriented people. This article estimates that there are over 3 million in the United States: |
And when or if they want to marry more than one person down the road, then that will be a DIFFERENT topic of conversation.
If you keep comparing homosexuals to swingers and group sex oriented people, then I will start comparing black people to monkeys, white people to poodles, and you to the bacteria lining inside my toilet after I take a .
| quote: | | Back in relation to the swingers - whats to say they they won't sound the battle cry if the gay legislation passes? This could later turn into a nightmare for US customs and immigration having to deal with birthright or existing citizens marrying obscene amounts of foreigners. I don't have any sort of problem with gay people, and I don't think I need to defend myself in relation to that. The fact that the supreme court is letting this happen is going to lead to a legal nightmare. |
To reiterate, the topic of the conversation is gay marriage, not polygamy marriage. They are not the same subject. Learn to differentiate. |
|
|
| DizkokidD |
| now all they need to do now is legalize MJ and we are set... |
|
|
| naeblis |
| quote: | Originally posted by Jake Benson
That's fine if you think marriage is between a man and a women. But you are discriminative, hearless, blind, and close minded when you take your views and make everyone else adhere to them. There's a difference between prejudice attitude, i.e. holding your "marriage = 1 man + 1 woman" belief, and discriminatory behavior, i.e. passing a measure to ensure that your prejudice attitude is followed by everyone else whether or not they agree with you. I think you are perfectly entitled to your prejudice views. But you are not entitled to make laws that tell people what sex they are allowed to marry. |
no, I agree... But maybe you could drop the whole heterosexuals are out to get you attitude. Pls. I have had homosexual friends, acquaintances, and have not had a prejudice attitude. There are many outstanding people who are homosexual etc... I am not going to go on, but I really try to be respectful!
Besides, the domestic partnership laws here in CA were a real step forward and gave homosexuals equal footing (as I understood) w/ married couples from a legal standpoint.
I guess, I am torn. I really think that the family is an integral part of any society. But on a more personal scale, I think that the job of raising kids should be performed by a father and mother. That being said, I don't think that homosexuals are any less capable of raising a great kid and furthermore, there are some pretty crappy parents out there, who do a piss poor job of raising their kids regardless. But, marriage has always been based on MORE than the relationship between the couple. It is more than legal rights, commitment, and sexual fidelity. If that is all you see, than you are being quite selfish. It's about having, raising, and providing for your offspring. There really is something special about having your own kids, seeing the essence of you and your spouse in your children. It really is a miracle. I think marriage is more about your offspring than it is about your relationship w/ your spouse.
Does that make a heterosexual couple better than a homosexual couple? Not necessarily, but I would venture to guess that there is different type of relationship that could only be made by sharing the experience of childbirth. It's all about our future, which is our posterity. Any way you slice it, homosexual couples will never be able to have the same experience. Adoption, etc... is just not the same.
To me, that is what makes 'marriage' special. If homosexuals want the same legal rights as married couples, then give by all means go out and fight for them! I wouldn't like to discriminate in such a way! But, a homosexual union and heterosexual marriage just aren't the same, and never will be.
Ok, again, before you flame me, let me just say that I really do respect and hope for the equal rights between the two, but they really are quite different! |
|
|
| mobius9 |
Jake, I haven't said a single negative thing about any orientation of people and now you're labeling me as a gay basher? I simply have called YOU out on this thread because your attitude is flamboyant. I have lived with parents in the legal field, and currently work in a law firm handling all sorts of trial material. If you don't think what I have to say is valid at all then simply don't pay attention to me, I'll still post up my opinion for the other readers here.
First off, I don't see any reason to look down on anyone for their preferences much as your argument for racial discrimination in marriage pointed out.
The fact I brought up with marriage being about child birth isn't based on the ability to have functioning reproductive organs, that's ridiculous. It is about being generally classified as having the genitalia to do so. Your argument states that same sex couples count as natural families because they have the ability to adopt or circumvent the natural insemination process. Adoption and artificial insemination are wonderful options for same sex couples, however, they are the only option for 2 people of the same sex to start a family.
I'm simply pointing out legal facts about the issue that haven't been taken into consideration in the thread yet. Another example: What about male soldiers taking advantage of the gay marriage law in order to shorten their brother's tour of duty? From knowledge off the top of my head, being married shortens the post-active reserve period by 2 years for a US soldier (in our current situation, many ARE re-called into duty during this normally 4 year long period). Every single soldier I know would pull a Chuck-and-Larry in two seconds, simply because they're not paid enough for the danger oriented job they do.
What seems clear to me is that your arguments are based on opinion oriented statements. You've fought back by taking obscure viewpoints on my statements that could be considered connotations at best.
_________________________________________________
Anyways, back to nerdgrl416 - please don't take anything I'm saying as a personal attack, I'm just offering another perspective.
"I really don't think that gay marriage will lead to swingers/polygamist demanding the right to marry. Marriage has always been between two people."
Considering it has always been between a man and a women, I don't know how long this argument would stand? 10 years ago, this could have been reworded for the belief that gays would never ask for the right to marriage. In relation to the comment that you're born gay - it's still considered by psychology that it's a personal choice. Just as being heterosexual is a personal choice. Being black, a man, or woman, are physical aspects that define people. I'll dig through my notes and see if I can pull anything up that has to deal with research of identical twins separated at birth and their similarities and differences. I know I have them somewhere!
In general, I'm a very team oriented type of person and I don't believe in anybody being left behind. Especially in a situation like this. I don't support this legal effort because it is so biased in favor of one classification, and lacks of any real gender or sexual reform that should happen BEFORE this takes place. On top of that, there are too many legal ramifications caused by jumping the gun on the situation like they are in the superior court. I wish there was a way to do this that would benefit only the people necessary, but the way things are constructed now... it is far too complicated to go through with something like this. Abolishing all marital benefits across the board and just handing out a title or certificate is a much better option at this point. Everyone could be happily labeled as a pair, and no one could abuse the benefits. Too bad this would never fly. |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| quote: | Originally posted by naeblis
no, I agree... But maybe you could drop the whole heterosexuals are out to get you attitude. |
Anyone who votes against gay marriage is discriminating against gays. Plain and simple. You don't have to THINK you are oppressing gays, but the act of denying them marriage physically prevents them from their civil rights: that's called discrimination. I'm not overreacting. I'm pointing out discrimination.
| quote: | | Besides, the domestic partnership laws here in CA were a real step forward and gave homosexuals equal footing (as I understood) w/ married couples from a legal standpoint. |
Maybe we should create really cool drinking fountains for gays to drink from. It won't have ALL the nutrients that straight water fountains have but it's the step in the right direction right? Separate but slightly less equal. :rolleyes:
| quote: | | I guess, I am torn. I really think that the family is an integral part of any society. But on a more personal scale, I think that the job of raising kids should be performed by a father and mother. |
Your perfectly entitled to that belief. And thank you for voicing it. But don't go passing measures to reinforce that belief because a law restricting homosexual marriage doesn't protect anything but your personal biased view, and it harms other people who want to get married to the same sex. I think Madonna's new CD is and wouldn't recommend it. But I wouldn't support a measure to ban people from buying it.
| quote: | | That being said, I don't think that homosexuals are any less capable of raising a great kid and furthermore, there are some pretty crappy parents out there, who do a piss poor job of raising their kids regardless. But, marriage has always been based on MORE than the relationship between the couple. It is more than legal rights, commitment, and sexual fidelity. If that is all you see, than you are being quite selfish. It's about having, raising, and providing for your offspring. |
Are you saying gay people never have offspring and that heterosexuals always have offspring, but never get married just for legal rights, commitment, and sexual fidelity? If stereotyping homosexual vs heterosexual marriages is all you see, then you are being quite stupid. Yes it is about having, raising, and providing for your offspring and homosexuals can do that too.
| quote: | | There really is something special about having your own kids, seeing the essence of you and your spouse in your children. It really is a miracle. |
So have your babies and let homosexuals have their children through adoption, artificial insemination, or whatever means they chose to raise offspring. Children are miracles to them too.
| quote: | | I think marriage is more about your offspring than it is about your relationship w/ your spouse. |
Then ban all marriages that don't produce children. Oh and ban divorce while your at it. Apparently half of the heterosexuals out there can't even keep their marriage. Some tradition.
| quote: | | Does that make a heterosexual couple better than a homosexual couple? Not necessarily, but I would venture to guess that there is different type of relationship that could only be made by sharing the experience of childbirth. It's all about our future, which is our posterity. Any way you slice it, homosexual couples will never be able to have the same experience. Adoption, etc... is just not the same. |
Two homosexuals can share the experience of childbirth. Do you think Lesbians are incapable of getting pregnant? Do you know realize that you can take the DNA out of an egg and insert DNA from a sperm in it and create a baby from two males? Anyway you slice it, homosexual couples can have similar or the exact experience you have. They can even have a "donor" where the guy gets his fag-hag pregnant.
It's all about our future...? What future? How many more billions of people? Maybe our future needs more homosexual marriages in order to curb the human population from consuming all the Earth's resources. China already has the "only one child per family" rule thanks to so much promotion of the se hetereosexual relationships that have over populated the country. :haha:
| quote: | | To me, that is what makes 'marriage' special. If homosexuals want the same legal rights as married couples, then give by all means go out and fight for them! I wouldn't like to discriminate in such a way! But, a homosexual union and heterosexual marriage just aren't the same, and never will be. |
Of course they are not the same. One is gay the other is straight....so what's your point?
| quote: | | Ok, again, before you flame me, let me just say that I really do respect and hope for the equal rights between the two, but they really are quite different! |
*in an apologetic racist voice* I mean I do respect black people and hope for them to drink in the same water fountain as whites, but they really are quite different. lol...
Consider yourself flamed. ;) |
|
|
| Jake Benson |
| quote: | Originally posted by mobius9
Jake, I haven't said a single negative thing about any orientation of people and now you're labeling me as a gay basher? |
No, I'm just labeling you as a discriminator. You haven't hit anyone yet. ;)
| quote: | | I simply have called YOU out on this thread because your attitude is flamboyant. |
Uhhhhhhh I'm more masculine than you (trust me). So I would not label anything I say as flamboyant. Anyway, calling my "attitude" "flamboyant" has no relevance to the actual argument itself so whatevs moving on...
| quote: | | I have lived with parents in the legal field, and currently work in a law firm handling all sorts of trial material. If you don't think what I have to say is valid at all then simply don't pay attention to me, I'll still post up my opinion for the other readers here. |
You have every right to post your opinion. I'm not stopping you. I'm just arguing against you. Got a problem with that?
| quote: | | The fact I brought up with marriage being about child birth isn't based on the ability to have functioning reproductive organs, that's ridiculous. It is about being generally classified as having the genitalia to do so. Your argument states that same sex couples count as natural families because they have the ability to adopt or circumvent the natural insemination process. Adoption and artificial insemination are wonderful options for same sex couples, however, they are the only option for 2 people of the same sex to start a family. |
Ok so homosexuals may not get preggors the natural way. Is that the reason why they shouldn't get married? Because it's not the way YOU want them to make babies? Answer please.
| quote: | | I'm simply pointing out legal facts about the issue that haven't been taken into consideration in the thread yet. Another example: What about male soldiers taking advantage of the gay marriage law in order to shorten their brother's tour of duty? From knowledge off the top of my head, being married shortens the post-active reserve period by 2 years for a US soldier (in our current situation, many ARE re-called into duty during this normally 4 year long period). |
That's another slippery-slope argument. There's plenty of heterosexual people that "marry" just for benefits. Likewise a soldier could very well marry some random chick that he doesn't love and want to make babies with just so he could leave early. Maybe we should ban straight marriages then? After all, this is the scenario you used to justify against gay marriages so why not use it to justify against straight marriages? Please explain the flaw in your argument.
From knowledge off the top of my head, being gay shortens the post-active reserve period by infinity for a US soldier so you don't have to worry about dudes marrying each other in order to leave.
| quote: | | Every single soldier I know would pull a Chuck-and-Larry in two seconds, simply because they're not paid enough for the danger oriented job they do. |
They can do that now. All they have to do is say they're gay and they get kicked out. Duh.
| quote: | | What seems clear to me is that your arguments are based on opinion oriented statements. |
No, I think your arguments are based on fallacies, all of which I've pointed out now.
| quote: | | You've fought back by taking obscure viewpoints on my statements that could be considered connotations at best. |
Don't use a generalization in a poor attempt to devalue all of my arguments in one sweeping sentence. Be a man, grow a dick, and address my points and rebuttles. I've addressed all yours clearly. |
|
|
| |Thrax| |
Jebus in waffles, you turned this thread from a civil debate into beating the PreviousPoster with a stick.
Enough, no matter what you think the fact is half or more of this country is not ready to accept the fact that religion has brainwashed/not to mention has been this countries foundation since inception...
I think all of our arguements are nein at this point. We'll have to wait and see. California is a pretty liberal/ballsy state. |
|
|
| nchs09 |
| quote: | Originally posted by mobius9
The issue of discrimination I'm presenting is that it alters the current definition of marriage, based on child birth and reproduction, and changes it to be focused on satisfaction in a relationship (among any sex combination). My point is that, if you are going to classify marriage based on happiness, and throw out the requirement of gender, how can you keep the limitation on the number of people involved in a marriage without that being classified as discrimination.
Don't overlook the population of swingers and group sex oriented people. This article estimates that there are over 3 million in the United States: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...ow/1797746.cms. (simply the quickest reference I could find. There are a LOT of people in the category. Possibly even more than the gay community.) This is in relation to the current representation of about 1-2% of average national population that represents themself as gay, from multiple print sources I've read who repost their data around the internet.
Here is something out of the Seattle Times that can show why this issue is so prevalent in California, and why it is so highly supported in California. California is VERY gay friendly.
Back in relation to the swingers - whats to say they they won't sound the battle cry if the gay legislation passes? This could later turn into a nightmare for US customs and immigration having to deal with birthright or existing citizens marrying obscene amounts of foreigners. I don't have any sort of problem with gay people, and I don't think I need to defend myself in relation to that. The fact that the supreme court is letting this happen is going to lead to a legal nightmare. |
Just read this post...........
 Are you serious? Please off. |
|
|
| nchs09 |
| quote: | Originally posted by |Thrax|
Jebus in waffles, you turned this thread from a civil debate into beating the PreviousPoster with a stick.
Enough, no matter what you think the fact is half or more of this country is not ready to accept the fact that religion has brainwashed/not to mention has been this countries foundation since inception...
I think all of our arguements are nein at this point. We'll have to wait and see. California is a pretty liberal/ballsy state. |
Why has religion "brainwashed"
Its their belief and as valid as yours. (Now i thinkt hey are a bunch of idiots but valid in their mind non-the less. |
|
|
| |Thrax| |
what i mean by that is; America was founded by Liberal puritan Christian fundamentalists.
Therefor; marriage is still viewed as somewhat sacred, people hate when you step on their shoes. |
|
|
| Yookeroo |
| quote: | Originally posted by mobius9
The fact I brought up with marriage being about child birth isn't based on the ability to have functioning reproductive organs, that's ridiculous. It is about being generally classified as having the genitalia to do so. |
You're nuts. Marriage isn't about childbirth. Unmarried people have children all the time. Plenty of married people don't have kids.
| quote: | | Originally posted by mobius9 Your argument states that same sex couples count as natural families because they have the ability to adopt or circumvent the natural insemination process. Adoption and artificial insemination are wonderful options for same sex couples, however, they are the only option for 2 people of the same sex to start a family. |
So ing what.
| quote: | | Originally posted by mobius9 I'm simply pointing out legal facts |
Legal facts? Bull.
| quote: | | Originally posted by mobius9 about the issue that haven't been taken into consideration in the thread yet. Another example: What about male soldiers taking advantage of the gay marriage law in order to shorten their brother's tour of duty? From knowledge off the top of my head, being married shortens the post-active reserve period by 2 years for a US soldier (in our current situation, many ARE re-called into duty during this normally 4 year long period). Every single soldier I know would pull a Chuck-and-Larry in two seconds, simply because they're not paid enough for the danger oriented job they do. |
They can do this now by marrying a women.
But it's really retarded to deny someone rights just because a few might take advantage.
| quote: | | Originally posted by mobius9 Considering it has always been between a man and a women, I don't know how long this argument would stand? 10 years ago, this could have been reworded for the belief that gays would never ask for the right to marriage. In relation to the comment that you're born gay |
Do you know any gay people? Ask them if they made a choice.
| quote: | | Originally posted by mobius9 - it's still considered by psychology that it's a personal choice. |
Cite?
| quote: | | Originally posted by mobius9 Just as being heterosexual is a personal choice. |
Bull. Did you make the choice?
As far as the slippery slope arguments go, the same arguments could've been made regarding interracial marriage fifty years ago. |
|
|
|
|
