City of San Francisco sues State of California

[Skywarp! 0]

...

 

Funny, I don't feel as if I'm under a "profound attack." Sullivan's just going into hysterics, which, honestly, isn't all that uncommon for him.

That's because you aren't gay.

*BUZZ* Try again...

Sorry, for some reason I thought Cancer was in a traditional male/female union.

 

Still, the point remains the same.

[C Dubya 04 0]

I really don't see how a gay couple getting married is any different than a straight couple getting married. All that they want is equal rights and protection under the law. I've yet to hear any valid reasons against it.

 

I accept that Mike's reasons for why he opposes judges ruling in favor of gay marriages are valid, but I disagree with them. What I am saying though is that no one has ever presented to me an even semi-logical reason as to why a gay couple should be denied the right to marry.

[Skywarp! 0]

I really don't see how a gay couple getting married is any different than a straight couple getting married. All that they want is equal rights and protection under the law. I've yet to hear any valid reasons against it.

 

I accept that Mike's reasons for why he opposes judges ruling in favor of gay marriages are valid, but I disagree with them. What I am saying though is that no one has ever presented to me an even semi-logical reason as to why a gay couple should be denied the right to marry.

Exactly. Not allowing them to have the same recognition is just saying that somehow they are sub-human.

[Guest MikeSC]

...

 

Funny, I don't feel as if I'm under a "profound attack." Sullivan's just going into hysterics, which, honestly, isn't all that uncommon for him.

That's because you aren't gay. For gay people, it is an extremist attack, because it's placing limits on the whole "pursuit of happiness" thing that this country is supposed to be about.

I laugh at this. Heartily so.

The same thing was said when prohibition was lifted. It would lead to the legalization of all types of illegal drugs, yet here we are over a quarter of a century later, and that hasn't happened yet.

Marijuana legalization is gaining steam, for what it's worth.

And I have said it once and will again, putting homosexuality and incest in the same catagory is just plain ignorant and irresponsible, although I do see the point you are attempting to raise, it still seems like it parallels them.

I didn't put them in the same category. I've said that the reasoning to legalize gay marriage would also, necessarily, legalize incestual marriage. Again, as I pointed out, you cannot name an actual, legal reason to oppose it that would pass legal muster. As you said, you don't see any reason why gay marriage isn't legal --- don't think, for a moment, that a group gung-ho for incestual marriage won't come out. Don't think some "couples" won't test the system.

 

And don't think, for a moment, that you can actually legally disallow it.

And man...its been a while since I've seen a good Feminist Conspiricy Theory....thanks!

Laugh if you wish.

-=Mike

[Ripper 0]

Lets not get this confused, this has nothing to do saving marrige and making it pure or what the fuck ever people are arguing.  Bush and others thing being gay is wrong and doing anything that recognizes that there MAY be an alternative way of thinking about it would be seen as supporting homosexuality.  Civil Unions with the same benifits still would never be allowed just as gay marrige.  

So, because you say it, it is so? Why is it hard to believe that he genuinely thinks like I and over 60% of Americans think? I have nothing against making a benefit for gay people to form a union (and allow it up to the states to recognize it). It would be up to the gay people to live in a state that recognized them as a union. "Marriage" truly will open up a whole new can of worms if it is tinkered with, it's a very slippery slope and I'm not prepared to completely abandon the idea of the traditional American family just yet...

K..kinda why I added that little part about how in Georgia(and most states in the bible belt) would never be able to get the civil unions passed.

 

Your 60% number is cute and all but to many, there is no grey area here. To many, they want homosexuality to stay taboo, and will fight for it to stay that way...and one of them happens to be the President.

[Guest MikeSC]

I really don't see how a gay couple getting married is any different than a straight couple getting married.  All that they want is equal rights and protection under the law.  I've yet to hear any valid reasons against it.

 

I accept that Mike's reasons for why he opposes judges ruling in favor of gay marriages are valid, but I disagree with them.  What I am saying though is that no one has ever presented to me an even semi-logical reason as to why a gay couple should be denied the right to marry.

Exactly. Not allowing them to have the same recognition is just saying that somehow they are sub-human.

And, again, you fail to look at the bigger picture.

 

Your logic can be used in ways you never dreamed possible.

-=Mike

[Dr. Tyler; Captain America 0]

I ALSO have no doubt that there is an undercurrent of people who are USING the gay community to try and bring about the end of the entire institution of marriage. They view marriage as wrong and an evil against women and want to see it completely abolished and this is simply step one in the plan.

 

Three words.

 

Tin. Foil. Hat.

 

THEY'RE OUT THERE.

[Styles 0]

K..kinda why I added that little part about how in Georgia(and most states in the bible belt) would never be able to get the civil unions passed.

Good. It should be left to the popullation of the states. If gays in Georgia want a government recognized union, they'll move to Vermont. That's the price of the game.

[C Dubya 04 0]

And I have said it once and will again, putting homosexuality and incest in the same catagory is just plain ignorant and irresponsible, although I do see the point you are attempting to raise, it still seems like it parallels them.

I didn't put them in the same category. I've said that the reasoning to legalize gay marriage would also, necessarily, legalize incestual marriage. Again, as I pointed out, you cannot name an actual, legal reason to oppose it that would pass legal muster. As you said, you don't see any reason why gay marriage isn't legal --- don't think, for a moment, that a group gung-ho for incestual marriage won't come out. Don't think some "couples" won't test the system.

I don't think that you can argue this point. Incest is an illegal act, homosexuality is not, so an incestuous couple could not argue the same as a homosexual couple.

[Styles 0]

And I have said it once and will again, putting homosexuality and incest in the same catagory is just plain ignorant and irresponsible, although I do see the point you are attempting to raise, it still seems like it parallels them.

I didn't put them in the same category. I've said that the reasoning to legalize gay marriage would also, necessarily, legalize incestual marriage. Again, as I pointed out, you cannot name an actual, legal reason to oppose it that would pass legal muster. As you said, you don't see any reason why gay marriage isn't legal --- don't think, for a moment, that a group gung-ho for incestual marriage won't come out. Don't think some "couples" won't test the system.

I don't think that you can argue this point. Incest is an illegal act, homosexuality is not, so an incestuous couple could not argue the same as a homosexual couple.

What about 3 way relationships? Having a 3 way isn't illegal either. Why can't 3 loving people get married? Wouldn't THEIR rights be violated too?

[Guest MikeSC]

I ALSO have no doubt that there is an undercurrent of people who are USING the gay community to try and bring about the end of the entire institution of marriage. They view marriage as wrong and an evil against women and want to see it completely abolished and this is simply step one in the plan.

 

Three words.

 

Tin. Foil. Hat.

 

THEY'RE OUT THERE.

Wow, a Dean fellater calling anybody "out there". Delicioius irony.

What about 3 way relationships? Having a 3 way isn't illegal either. Why can't 3 loving people get married? Wouldn't THEIR rights be violated too?

Sodomy was illegal until a few years ago. It was "officially" illegal in many states until last year.

 

Things change.

 

Again, the ONLY problem people have with incestual marriage is a moral one. It is one I happen to fully agree with.

 

It also COMPLETELY flies in the face of support of homosexual marriage.

-=Mike

[Guest The Satanic Angel]

If gays in Georgia want a government recognized union, they'll move to Vermont. That's the price of the game.

We should just make one person of every gay couple get a sex change. That way, there will be one man and one woman.

 

That's the price of the game (called love), after all.

[C Dubya 04 0]

"It also COMPLETELY flies in the face of support of homosexual marriage."

 

I disagree. You are only looking at the moral objection to incest and no others. The birth defect rate is significantly higher for incestuous relationships. Also, research shows that a significant amount of incestuous relationships are forced upon one member and often begin with a rape or other sexual assault.

 

I have not heard of homosexuality causing harm to anyone.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

The best part is that there's no way this passes. Sure, the Defense of Marriage Act passed, but even the Republican gentleman who co-sponsored that isn't keen on this:

 

Committee Chairman F. James Sensenbrenner, R-Wisconsin, who co-sponsored the 1996 Defense of Marriage Act, considers that law "sufficient" to address the issue and thinks a constitutional amendment is "awfully strong medicine," the aide said

 

All sorts of stuff at CNN sort of declaring the obvious - I'll be astonished if any proposed constitutional amendment restricting the rights of gays passes the Senate, much less the states. It seems like unless there's a sea change in the way people view amending the constitution, there's no way any sort of amendment gets through.

 

So, this is essentially a waste of time and a political decision, throwing a bone to the religious right and people who don't care that it won't pass, while simultaneously demonizing homosexuals and determining that, yes, they are second-class citizens. Exactly what I want the leader of the free world to be saying to stay in office: some people are, in fact, more equal than others.

 

For anyone dismissing gays as a small, meaningless minority, consider that it's a widely held statistic that between 5 and 10% of Americans are gay. There's a big swing because a lot of people haven't come out yet and the polling is always odd (questions about homosexual activity occasionally obscuring whether or not a person is actually gay or just made out with another guy/girl at a party), but to dismiss homosexuals as insignificant because you personally don't know many is simply wrong.

[Guest MikeSC]

"It also COMPLETELY flies in the face of support of homosexual marriage."

 

I disagree. You are only looking at the moral objection to incest and no others. The birth defect rate is significantly higher for incestuous relationships. Also, research shows that a significant amount of incestuous relationships are forced upon one member and often begin with a rape or other sexual assault.

 

I have not heard of homosexuality causing harm to anyone.

"It also COMPLETELY flies in the face of support of homosexual marriage."

 

I disagree.  You are only looking at the moral objection to incest and no others.

This actually has been discussed in considerable depth on another board and I dealt with most of the other objections.

The birth defect rate is significantly higher for incestuous relationships.

And that would never stand up in a court of law. Not for even one moment.

1) All marriages don't result in the partners even having children (see homosexual marriage)

2) The gov't has no right power over procreation. What you're advocating is a weak version of eugenics. It would be illegal for somebody with, say, sickle-cell anemia, to be forbidden from having children, in spite of the problems it might cause the child.

3) The child isn't GUARANTEED to have birth defects.

Also, research shows that a significant amount of incestuous relationships are forced upon one member and often begin with a rape or other sexual assault. 

In this hypothetical, they are brother and sister of roughly identical age.

 

If both are adults and both claim to be in love --- you can't argue that they can't be married because rape "might" have been involved or because a child "might" have birth defects. It would get destroyed in a legal battle.

I have not heard of homosexuality causing harm to anyone.

I do not doubt that it doesn't harm people any more than heterosexuality causes harm (both cause emotional harm, let's be honest --- relationship problems aren't fun to deal with). But, I could probably find articles from assorted nutjob publications that argue that homosexuality IS harmful.

-=Mike

[Firestarter 0]

I recently read a column that cited "statistics showing 300% greater incidents of child abuse in homosexual households versus traditional marriage homes." Anyone know where that number comes from, who derived it and from what sample, and whether that percentage was adjusted for absolute numbers of heterosexual and homosexual households with children? Haven't found anything myself so far.

[Ripper 0]

K..kinda why I added that little part about how in Georgia(and most states in the bible belt) would never be able to get the civil unions passed. 

Good. It should be left to the popullation of the states. If gays in Georgia want a government recognized union, they'll move to Vermont. That's the price of the game.

Do you not see how ignorant that comment is. Maybe blacks shouldn't have been upset aboout the segregation in the south and just moved to where there wasn't segregation and let it stay law in the southern states. MAYBE women in some states should be able to vote but if that woman happened to be born in a state where it wasn't allowed, she never should have been allowed to decide on the issues in the country. Hey, may discrimination against immigrants should have been cool too, and if they didn't like being treated like slaves, they should leave.

 

That is the dumbest crock of shit I have heard in a while. If "the game" is making the United States a place where everyone can recieve equality....as long as you agree with our religious beliefs...then yeah...that is the cost of it.

[Ripper 0]

I recently read a column that cited "statistics showing 300% greater incidents of child abuse in homosexual households versus traditional marriage homes." Anyone know where that number comes from, who derived it and from what sample, and whether that percentage was adjusted for absolute numbers of heterosexual and homosexual households with children? Haven't found anything myself so far.

I'm pretty sure no one could.

[Guest Cerebus]

I recently read a column that cited "statistics showing 300% greater incidents of child abuse in homosexual households versus traditional marriage homes." Anyone know where that number comes from, who derived it and from what sample, and whether that percentage was adjusted for absolute numbers of heterosexual and homosexual households with children? Haven't found anything myself so far.

Come on Marney, Townhall? I know you're an arch-conservative but still...

 

As to the question, I've found almsot no reliable websites but a cursory search of mine turned up this WorldNetDaily article...I'm still working to dig up that study it mentions.

[NoCalMike 0]

This basically comes down to religious beliefs, whether Bush wants to admit it or not. Without his little holy book, telling him how to think, I seriously doubt he would care who got married. There are more important issues to worry about at the present time, and it doesn't really strike me as "troubling" as the president has said, that gays are wanting to get married, or that someone is allowing them too be married. If this recent speech by Bush has shown anything, it is that this country has not changed a bit since 9/11, so I hope this leads me to never having to hear "remember 9/11" in a country song(not that I listen to country music anyway), or out of a conservatives mouth ever again......

[Highland 0]

Changing the definition of marriage would also open a Pandora's Box and possible lead to something as frightening and disgusting as this.

 

While I generally dismiss the religious parts of the article, I can in no way dismiss or disagree with their position on this issue stated in the article.

[NoCalMike 0]

Changing the definition of marriage would also open a Pandora's Box and possible lead to something as frightening and disgusting as this.

 

While I generally dismiss the religious parts of the article, I can in no way dismiss or disagree with their position on this issue stated in the article.

Sorry I just don't buy it. We are talking two consenting adults vs. Child Abuse here.

[Styles 0]

Blah blah blah homphome, dumb crock of shit, religious nut blah blah blah

I would have no problem making Civil Unions a national policy, heck, the President might too, I haven't heard his opinion on that, it's just that the activists are too busy pushing "marriage" down our throats and passing off any genuine concerns as being bigoted conservative religious nuts, so nothing gets done. Again, I would be in full support of national civil unions. But, at the moment many states have voted not to even allow that. There are some that do. If the couple cares that much about it, they'll go to that state to be unioned. The point is, I don't think most gay people CARE. This is an activist minority backed by powerful liberal machine trying to turn this into Civil Right Version 2.0.

[Styles 0]

Changing the definition of marriage would also open a Pandora's Box and possible lead to something as frightening and disgusting as this.

 

While I generally dismiss the religious parts of the article, I can in no way dismiss or disagree with their position on this issue stated in the article.

Sorry I just don't buy it. We are talking two consenting adults vs. Child Abuse here.

Ok, what about 3 consenting adults? No one has answered me yet. If 3 loving consenting adults wanting to form a 3 way marriage recognized by the government, would you let them? I can apply the same standard to diadic gay couples...

[Highland 0]

Changing the definition of marriage would also open a Pandora's Box and possible lead to something as frightening and disgusting as this.

 

While I generally dismiss the religious parts of the article, I can in no way dismiss or disagree with their position on this issue stated in the article.

Sorry I just don't buy it. We are talking two consenting adults vs. Child Abuse here.

And at the moment it is just that: a decision between consenting adults. My point, though, is that allowing for a broader interpretation of marriage will lead to just more than marriage between consensual adults. It will open the way for polygamistic and even pedophilic marriages. If there is no legal definition of marriage, then an adult could marry their offspring (even if an adult) and legally sue for the right to have that marriage recognized.

Edited February 24, 2004 by Naibus

[NoCalMike 0]

Changing the definition of marriage would also open a Pandora's Box and possible lead to something as frightening and disgusting as this.

 

While I generally dismiss the religious parts of the article, I can in no way dismiss or disagree with their position on this issue stated in the article.

Sorry I just don't buy it. We are talking two consenting adults vs. Child Abuse here.

And at the moment it is just that: a decision between consenting adults. My point, though, is that allowing for a broader interpretation of marriage will lead to just more than marriage between consensual adults. It will open the way for polygamistic and even pedophilic marriages. If there is no legal definition of marriage, then an adult could marry their offspring (even if an adult) and legally sue for the right to have that marriage recognized.

Ok so then change the legal definition of marriage to include gay couples.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

OMG! Men marrying dogs! Women marrying toaster ovens! Men marrying 7-year old boys! OMG! OMG! Simple solution - "marriage = union between 2 legally consenting adults." Throw in some language to nullify incestuous relationships.

I'm suprised we ever got to government-sponsored marriage in the first place. If these "What happens next?" people were around, marriage law would have had to be revised 600 times to get rid of the "What If" people.

[NoCalMike 0]

OMG!  Men marrying dogs!  Women marrying toaster ovens!  Men marrying 7-year old boys!  OMG!  OMG!  Simple solution - "marriage = union between 2 legally consenting adults."  Throw in some language to nullify incestuous relationships.

I'm suprised we ever got to government-sponsored marriage in the first place. If these "What happens next?" people were around, marriage law would have had to be revised 600 times to get rid of the "What If" people.

So True.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Let's say gay marriage becomes legal.

Nationwide? State-wide? What are we talking here?

 

How could you then justify forbidding adult family members from marrying? Is there any legal justification for banning incest, outside of the obvious moral problems?

 

This is the same "slippery slope" arguement I just complained about above. How is this being prevented now that it can't be prevented if gays were marrying? What's the difference?

 

Birth defects wouldn't hold up in court (we won't legalize eugenics and that is what that basically arguing --- and not all marriages even result in children, so the point is necessarily moot) --- so how could you justify forbidding it, outside of the obvious "wrong" nature of it?

 

How is gay marriage the last vestige preventing this from happening? How would civil unions not endanger it in the same way? Everytime I try and figure this out, it winds up being that there's no arguement, only scare tactics.

 

When smoking became basically illegal, many argued that other "vices" will be targeted --- and we've seen the first fast food lawsuits being filed in the last year or two.

 

And yet casinos are appearing all over California, where anti-smoking legislation is typically founded.

 

I ALSO have no doubt that there is an undercurrent of people who are USING the gay community to try and bring about the end of the entire institution of marriage.

 

So why not do TRUE marriage reform? Why not make marriage a religious act that has no bearing on government-recognized unions? That would give the church control of what they consider so sacred, let them argue it out if gays should get married, and gay and straight people have equal rights and protections.

 

There's no reason why the President couldn't ask for THAT kind of reform.

 

It's a good political agenda. Sometimes, things have been done for THOUSANDS OF YEARS for a reason.

 

Here's a wake-up call: Nobody outside of a few politicians and priests really cares about "family values." Or if they do they're very hypocritical in how they view it. Appearantly, Rush Limbaugh and Newt Gingrich getting married again and again and again has no damaging effect on family values. A gay man getting married once does.

 

Unelected judges passing rules by fiat IS conductive to free society? Strange definition of freedom you got there.

 

If you're talking about Massachusetts, the judges base their decision on their intepretation of the state constitution. See California. Without the zero-tolerance discrimination stuff, prop twenty-something would be unopposed.

 

Do you know how absolutely silly you sound, Jobber? Heck, even the right at their worst didn't act as flaky about Clinton as the left acts about Bush.

 

Nah, I'd say it's pretty close. Hannity's comment about Clinton "loathed the military" has to be up there. But I'm making money saying these things like he is.

 

So, anybody who sees things differently than you is a traitor and opposed to the Constitution?

 

I didn't say that. There's a lot ways to interpret the situation, but Bush's is one of the most extreme.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

For those of you that say "I can't see how allowing gays to get married hurts society", what about 3 people? Why not? Two men or two women have a loving relationship and deserve to be married and recognized as so. Well, why not 3 people who love each other and are committed in the same way? Put the language in that says 2 people only you say? Isn't that just as much discrimination?

 

I'm really getting tired of this arguement. How did male/female marriage ever get government recognition in the first place? Was this arguement simply not around?

 

Did people in the 1800s try and get married to dogs and pigs?