City of San Francisco sues State of California

[Jobber of the Week 0]

rhetoric

Rherorical.

 

What Bush says is rhetoric. What you're asking is rhetorical.

 

On the other hand, mother nature dictates the 65 and older crowd isn't voting in THAT many more elections. Which is why I think this amendment would be the alcohol ban for the 21st century.

[Vern Gagne 0]

rhetoric

Rherorical.

 

What Bush says is rhetoric. What you're asking is rhetorical.

 

On the other hand, mother nature dictates the 65 and older crowd isn't voting in THAT many more elections. Which is why I think this amendment would be the alcohol ban for the 21st century.

I really don't know about that. Alot can change when a generation grows older, and starts having kids. The open minded liberal attitude alot of youth have today, can change. It happened with the youth of the 60's and 70's.

[Guest Cerebus]

OMGWALLSTREETJOURNALCONSERVATIVEOPINIONLOL2004~!!!!!!

[C Dubya 04 0]

OMGWALLSTREETJOURNALCONSERVATIVEOPINIONLOL2004~!!!!!!

Eh, it asked me to subscribe before I could see this. What's the gist of it?

[Guest Cerebus]

OMGWALLSTREETJOURNALCONSERVATIVEOPINIONLOL2004~!!!!!!

Eh, it asked me to subscribe before I could see this. What's the gist of it?

You should subscribe anyway, its a good paper.

 

Anyway I'll stick up some juicy quotes (if they don't like it they can bite my shiny metal ass):

 

"I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages." So said Bill Clinton in 1996 when he signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act defining marriage as the "legal union between one man and one woman."

 

But for endorsing a constitutional amendment this week founded on the same definition, President Bush has been vilified. "Shameful," thunders Teddy Kennedy. "The most vile and hateful words ever spoken" by a President, says constitutional scholar Rosie O'Donnell. What passes for a page-one "analysis" (that's opinion in disguise) in the Washington Post asserts that Mr. Bush is eager to "rekindle the culture wars."

 

About this time last year, Pennsylvania Republican Rick Santorum provoked outrage when he suggested that if the Supreme Court threw out a Texas sodomy law on the basis of a right to consensual sex, prohibitions on gay marriage would go out the window. In its Lawrence decision soon after, the Supreme Court proved his point. Notwithstanding declarations that in so ruling the Court was making no statement about gay marriage, it wasn't long before the Massachusetts Supreme Court--invoking Lawrence in a 4-3 decision--ruled that the state could not deny civil marriage to same-sex couples. None of this was by accident: The state litigation had been carefully targeted.

That was where the matter stood when Mr. Bush weighed in during the State of the Union, warning "activist judges" to cease legislating their own social views from the bench. The response? The Massachusetts court declared that nothing short of gay marriage, not even civil unions, would be acceptable. The Mayor of San Francisco started issuing gay marriage permits in clear violation of California state law. And the courts declined to stop them.

 

Only then did the President endorse a Federal Marriage Amendment. Introduced by Colorado Congresswoman Marilyn Musgrave, the model amendment has two sentences: The first restricts marriage to the union between a man and a woman; the second enjoins the courts from imposing a solution.

 

Our social and cultural mores are changing rapidly, and accommodations for gay partners are already common in business and other American institutions. When it comes to the legitimate rights that gay Americans say their exclusion from marriage denies them--hospital visitation, inheritance, etc.--we can think of few that most Americans would not be willing to redress.

 

The question is whether this must also take the form of imposing an unprecedented redefinition of marriage on the majority of Americans who oppose it. Even John Kerry and John Edwards claim they don't want gay marriage. So why are they not derided as bigots, especially now that Mr. Kerry has just endorsed a state constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage for Massachusetts? Plainly it's because their own supporters thinkg these men don't believe what they feel they must say--and can be counted on not to back their words up with action when the crunch comes.

[Ripper 0]

"About this time last year, Pennsylvania Republican Rick Santorum provoked outrage when he suggested that if the Supreme Court threw out a Texas sodomy law on the basis of a right to consensual sex, prohibitions on gay marriage would go out the window. In its Lawrence decision soon after, the Supreme Court proved his point"

 

And the outrage had NOTHING to do with him comparing homosexuality to beastiality and pedophillia. It was because he said it would lead to gay marrige. Riiiiiiiight. What a bunch of revisionist crap.

 

This is just another opinon that once again hasn't raised ONE good reason why gay marrige shouldn't be allowed, or giving a reason this should be a Amendment to the constitution. You would think some one could raise ONE fucking point besides thier religious beliefs.

[Guest Cerebus]

Fair enough, I'll add another quote from the editorial:

 

But a political debate over gay marriage is precisely what its supporters do not want. They are the ones who want to impose a national solution via the courts. What the President endorses is not a federal solution but a federalist solution. In contrast to an executive order or federal law or regulation, a constitutional amendment requires not only the endorsement of two thirds of the House and Senate but the assent of the legislatures of three-quarters of the states. Amendments are historically difficult to pass, and the odds favor skepticism about its chances. But merely by being offered it will serve as a brushback pitch to the courts that this issue should be settled by democratic means.

[Ripper 0]

Fair enough, I'll add another quote from the editorial:

 

But a political debate over gay marriage is precisely what its supporters do not want. They are the ones who want to impose a national solution via the courts. What the President endorses is not a federal solution but a federalist solution. In contrast to an executive order or federal law or regulation, a constitutional amendment requires not only the endorsement of two thirds of the House and Senate but the assent of the legislatures of three-quarters of the states. Amendments are historically difficult to pass, and the odds favor skepticism about its chances. But merely by being offered it will serve as a brushback pitch to the courts that this issue should be settled by democratic means.

But since when does the will of the people have anything to do with blatant discrimination.

 

Lets imagine that a majority of the nation was against the tenants of the Civil Rights movement. Using this logic, if an amendment was passed that said minorities should be treated as second class citizens, then it would have been "right" and that is simply not the case.

 

Are you(or the author...i don't know if you agree with him or not) trying to say that the majority is always right and they should be able to impose their will on the rest of the nation? This entire thing is taking away the rights of certain citizens, and is a clear violation of church and state. In what world is this "right".

[Guest MikeSC]

Fair enough, I'll add another quote from the editorial:

 

But a political debate over gay marriage is precisely what its supporters do not want. They are the ones who want to impose a national solution via the courts. What the President endorses is not a federal solution but a federalist solution. In contrast to an executive order or federal law or regulation, a constitutional amendment requires not only the endorsement of two thirds of the House and Senate but the assent of the legislatures of three-quarters of the states. Amendments are historically difficult to pass, and the odds favor skepticism about its chances. But merely by being offered it will serve as a brushback pitch to the courts that this issue should be settled by democratic means.

But since when does the will of the people have anything to do with blatant discrimination.

 

Lets imagine that a majority of the nation was against the tenants of the Civil Rights movement. Using this logic, if an amendment was passed that said minorities should be treated as second class citizens, then it would have been "right" and that is simply not the case.

 

Are you(or the author...i don't know if you agree with him or not) trying to say that the majority is always right and they should be able to impose their will on the rest of the nation? This entire thing is taking away the rights of certain citizens, and is a clear violation of church and state. In what world is this "right".

OK, fine, Ripper.

 

Fair enough.

 

I'll ask you a little question, then:

 

Suppose gay marriage is totally legal.

 

Think of a reason that woul stand up in court why polygamy should be illegal?

 

Why incestual marriage should be illegal?

 

Why 15 year olds shouldn't vote?

 

Why 15 year olds shouldn't drink?

 

We MUST be allowed some arbitrary laws. If not, you have a hard time banning or forbidding anything.

 

And, don't even go with the "Who'd argue for this?" line because you and I both know there WILL be people who WOULD argue for it?

 

This is a serious question. And, keep in mind, you must come up with reasons that would stand up in court after this decision --- which means possible birth defects are totally out.

-=Mike

[Ripper 0]

Because you are presenting completely bullshit reasoning. Its like me being alive in the 20's and saying, "Okay, if you let women vote, whats going to stop 6 year olds from voting," Or in the 60's saying "Okay, if they let blacks eat in the same place as whites, what to stop dogs from sitting on the counters spreading fleas?"

 

Are you saying we should keep prejudice and ignorance for fear of what might come in the future? The issue is should homosexual Americans recieve the same rights as straight Americans and nothing else. When the other issues arise let them be handled then.

 

Every single right in the constitution opens the door to different things, but you can't start taking away people rights and being bigoted against some people to protect that. If a white guy too young to legally buy a gun says "As soon as I get old enough I am going to buy me some guns and kill everyone with red hair." you deal with him. You don't take away the right to bear arms to all white people. Right now you are suggesting that we take the rights away from some Americans because of completely separate issues that they have nothing to do with.

[Guest MikeSC]

Because you are presenting completely bullshit reasoning.  Its like me being alive in the 20's and saying, "Okay, if you let women vote, whats going to stop 6 year olds from voting,"  Or in the 60's saying "Okay, if they let blacks eat in the same place as whites, what to stop dogs from sitting on the counters spreading fleas?"

Or, it'd be like saying "Let the blacks vote? What next, let the gays vote?" That actually probably WAS said in mocking back then.

 

You don't justify NOT giving THEM the right to vote --- because you cannot do so. You simply feel it is morally wrong. And I fully agree with you on that. BUT, using the logic of your arguments, you can't defend forbidding it while I easily can.

 

Why can't gays get married? Because it was an arbitrary decision. Simple as that. We decided on a cut-off point and that was it. Does it hurt some people? Yup. All laws do that. As I mentioned, adult family members can't marry, either. 3 people can't get married, either.

Are you saying we should keep prejudice and ignorance for fear of what might come in the future?  The issue is should homosexual Americans recieve the same rights as straight Americans and nothing else.  When the other issues arise let them be handled then. 

I don't see gays attacked by police dogs or imprisoned for years for no reason. They aren't having civil rights repealed.

Every single right in the constitution opens the door to different things, but you can't start taking away people rights and being bigoted against some people to protect that.

What rights are being taken away? They couldn't marry before.

If a white guy too young to legally buy a gun says "As soon as I get old enough I am going to buy me some guns and kill everyone with red hair." you deal with him.  You don't take away the right to bear arms to all white people.

But using the logic of the gay marriage proponents, you can't justify preventing the child from owning the gun.

 

Why?

 

Because the cut-off date is PURELY arbitrary. We simply said "THIS is the age where you can own guns."

 

We can't legally defend not giving, say the right to vote, to 17 year olds. They don't have the right because an arbitrary law is not necessarily bad. We simply made a decision.

 

Can YOU defend giving the right to vote to 18 year olds and not to 17 year olds?

 

No. And you have no problem with it, most likely, in spite of the completely arbitrary nature of the law (and, while I don't have numbers to back it up, I'd imagine that there are more 17 year olds than homosexuals in this country).

Right now you are suggesting that we take the rights away from some Americans because of completely separate issues that they have nothing to do with.

Again, nobody is having rights taken away. Gays can get married all day long --- they don't get any legal protection for it. So be it. They'll be treated like unmarried couples.

 

You're ignoring what can occur AFTER this. With this particular issue, arbitrary laws are nigh impossible if one uses the logic of the supporters.

-=Mike

[Ripper 0]

What's basically being argued over is the line here. Where is it drawn. The issues that you pretend that gay marrige will lead too, what makes you think they aren't there now. But gay marrige and say incestual are like apples and oranges. Gun laws and taxes. They are two completely different issues. People keep trying to merge them together so their point can be stronger, but basically, your point holds not ground.

 

What changes if homosexuals are given the right to marry? Incestual relations ships and multiple partner relationships would have no more to argue than they do now. Their case would not be stronger than it is now. Their issues have absolutly no bearing on this issue whatsoever.

 

As much as I would hate to paraphrase Al Sharpton of all people, he said it best when he raised the point "If you call the right to marry an basic human right, then you cannot deny the right to marry to homosexuals unless you are prepared to say they are not human." I personally think the government has no role in marrige, but it is there, and thanks to this president, it wants to be there even more. If he wants marrige to be such a government institution, then dicriminating against a couple because they don't have mismatched genitalia is wrong.

 

You know the funniest part of all this...pologamy and incest aren't forbade in the bible....they could have a better argument against the religious factions pushing for this. That is just plain funny.

[Edwin MacPhisto 0]

Mike, there's a big difference between all the arbitrary laws you cite and amending the US constitution to say that gays don't deserve the rights associated with marriage. Someone will come up with a bullshit reason as to why the 14th Amendment doesn't apply here, and they will be wrong.

 

No. And you have no problem with it, most likely, in spite of the completely arbitrary nature of the law (and, while I don't have numbers to back it up, I'd imagine that there are more 17 year olds than homosexuals in this country).

 

We have age limits for this sort of things because of what has been decided as the age at which people can responsibly make this sort of decision. There's a difference between saying "We, the US government, don't believe you can properly make this decision until you're 18 years old and have had significant life experience," and "We, the US government don't believe you ever will be deserving of this right because of the qualities with which you were born."

 

A question: when you're looking at gays as not needing these rights, how are you viewing homosexuality? Do you believe it's a deliberate lifestyle choice, or a genetic imperative - something wherein the feelings gays feel are as natural as those felt by heterosexuals towards members of the opposite sex?

[Guest MikeSC]

Mike, there's a big difference between all the arbitrary laws you cite and amending the US constitution to say that gays don't deserve the rights associated with marriage.  Someone will come up with a bullshit reason as to why the 14th Amendment doesn't apply here, and they will be wrong.

The only reason THIS issue has an Amendment up now is because people are attacking the arbitrary law.

 

Nobody is taking away rights. Gays never HAD the right to marry in the first place. You can't take away rights that were never in existence.

 

But now, we're going to have a right given to a group with no real reason WHY it should be. How are their lives harmed by not being allowed to marry?

 

Why can't gays marry? Simply because we SAID so. It was the COUNTRY'S decision, plain and simple.

 

Is it unfair to gays? Arguably.

 

Would it be unfair to the vast majority to have their will defied? Arguably.

No. And you have no problem with it, most likely, in spite of the completely arbitrary nature of the law (and, while I don't have numbers to back it up, I'd imagine that there are more 17 year olds than homosexuals in this country).

 

We have age limits for this sort of things because of what has been decided as the age at which people can responsibly make this sort of decision.

And, if you pick apart at it, you can defeat it. Who says 18 year olds are more responsible than 17 year olds? You can slowly whittle away at everything because this country has lost their ability to handle that arbitrary laws are necessary.

There's a difference between saying "We, the US government, don't believe you can properly make this decision until you're 18 years old and have had significant life experience," and "We, the US government don't believe you ever will be deserving of this right because of the qualities with which you were born."

A more appropriate statement would be: "Not everyone is allowed to marry. You're one of those people."

 

Again, is it possible to refuse allowing adult family members to marry? How about threesomes? There is NO legal justification behind the refusal to permit it, outside of the "It's wrong" argument --- and God knows morals take a beating when a group plays the martyr card.

A question: when you're looking at gays as not needing these rights, how are you viewing homosexuality?  Do you believe it's a deliberate lifestyle choice, or a genetic imperative - something wherein the feelings gays feel are as natural as those felt by heterosexuals towards members of the opposite sex?

When I look at homosexuals, who they nail is the least of my concerns, to be honest. If somebody comes up to me and describes themselves as "gay", I simply pity them for not having more interesting things to describe themselves as.

What's basically being argued over is the line here. Where is it drawn. The issues that you pretend that gay marrige will lead too, what makes you think they aren't there now. But gay marrige and say incestual are like apples and oranges. Gun laws and taxes. They are two completely different issues. People keep trying to merge them together so their point can be stronger, but basically, your point holds not ground.

 

What changes if homosexuals are given the right to marry? Incestual relations ships and multiple partner relationships would have no more to argue than they do now. Their case would not be stronger than it is now. Their issues have absolutly no bearing on this issue whatsoever.

Thing is, their arguments DO get stronger. All of the legal justifications for allowing gays to marry can't be denied to other groups. Every argument I've heard it favor of gay marriage can be used by several other groups.

 

And, yes, the issue is where the line will be drawn. I'm glad that we can actually discuss this intelligently. I recognize that you see the issues as being different --- and in theory, they are. My concern is that the legal justification for this can be used in ways people never deemed possible. Gun laws and gay marriage aren't comparable. But, if you're going to use equal protection to justify gay marriage, you need to look at all of the things that can possibly use the arguments for their own benefit.

 

Just for an example, NOBODY saw Title IX as eventually causing men's sports programs in colleges to get shut down en masse --- but that is what happened. Nobody saw any of the Civil Rights Acts ever leading to any quota systems, but that was the unseen consequence.

 

Consequences for actions are seldom appreciated until it's too late to really do much about it.

You know the funniest part of all this...pologamy and incest aren't forbade in the bible....they could have a better argument against the religious factions pushing for this. That is just plain funny.

Heck, without incest, the Bible would have stopped after Adam and Eve.

-=Mike

[C Dubya 04 0]

I know several very intelligent homosexuals. They do not want to push issues on other people. They fully understand that for their entire life they will most likely face some forms of hatred from a lot of different people. One of my best friends no longer speaks to his father who he was close with because he came out of the closet and his father could not accept it.

 

I ask you if you think that being gay is a choice, why would these people chose it. It has not made their lives easier.

 

I fully believe that some people are gay and most are straight. I don't think that because you happen to be gay, you should have your rights and protections from the government lessened. That is why I feel the way I do.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

"I have long opposed governmental recognition of same-gender marriages." So said Bill Clinton in 1996 when he signed into law the Defense of Marriage Act defining marriage as the "legal union between one man and one woman."

 

But for endorsing a constitutional amendment this week founded on the same definition, President Bush has been vilified. "Shameful," thunders Teddy Kennedy. "The most vile and hateful words ever spoken" by a President, says constitutional scholar Rosie O'Donnell. What passes for a page-one "analysis" (that's opinion in disguise) in the Washington Post asserts that Mr. Bush is eager to "rekindle the culture wars."

Simple opposition to something is not the same as proposing the friggin' constitution be changed to fit your whims.

 

That was where the matter stood when Mr. Bush weighed in during the State of the Union, warning "activist judges" to cease legislating their own social views from the bench.

 

And here's where the vital disagreement is.

 

Activist judges my ass. Look, there's a reason why you don't elect your judges. They're not supposed to be beholden to what the majority wants. They shouldn't have a constituency to be playing to. Their job is to uphold the tenets of the constitution regardless of how it flows with public opinion.

 

Even John Kerry and John Edwards claim they don't want gay marriage. So why are they not derided as bigots, especially now that Mr. Kerry has just endorsed a state constitutional amendment prohibiting gay marriage for Massachusetts? Plainly it's because their own supporters thinkg these men don't believe what they feel they must say--and can be counted on not to back their words up with action when the crunch comes.

 

I'm not going to defend John Kerry at this time, I've learned better than to do that. But again, should we make constitutional amendments for everything someone doesn't agree with?

[Guest thebigjig]

can we make an ammendmant outlawing Justin Timberlake from making another album to defend the sanctity of music?? Or better yet... can we please outlaw trucker caps??

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Suppose gay marriage is totally legal.

 

Think of a reason that woul stand up in court why polygamy should be illegal?

No, but while I think it's disgusting, I don't really believe it should be illegal either. If you want polygamy, fine.

 

Why incestual marriage should be illegal?

 

Ditto.

 

Why 15 year olds shouldn't vote?

 

Voting is for adults. Legally, 15 year olds are not adults.

 

Why 15 year olds shouldn't drink?

 

I have no knowledge of drinking laws so I won't touch this one.

 

We MUST be allowed some arbitrary laws. If not, you have a hard time banning or forbidding anything.

 

Adding gays to marriage law would not make anything less arbitrary than it already is. Again, I don't know how marriage ever first got federal recognition without idiots of your mindset running around screaming about how now people are going to marry wolves in the forest because now that we've instituted for bride/groom couples we have to give marriage rights to every single person, creature, or thing.

 

Stop it with this pointless, empty rebuttal.

[C Dubya 04 0]

But now, we're going to have a right given to a group with no real reason WHY it should be. How are their lives harmed by not being allowed to marry?

 

Why can't gays marry? Simply because we SAID so. It was the COUNTRY'S decision, plain and simple.

How are their lives harmed? They do not have the same protection of the law that is given to heterosexual married couples. There are also tax implications.

 

And on top of this, you're telling them that because they are gay, they are not as important to this country as if they were straight.

[C Dubya 04 0]

Oh, and another thing, you can't argue the slippery slope argument and also say that it's an arbitrary law. If you're willing to basically say tough shit on this, why could you not let gay people get married and then arbitrarily cut it off there?

[Firestarter 0]

Voting is for adults. Legally, 15 year olds are not adults.

Brilliant. Using the same reasoning:

 

A marriage is between a man and a woman. Legally, a woman is not a man, and a man is not a woman. Therefore, homosexuals cannot marry.

 

Or can they?

 

Where a full gender recognition certificate is issued to a person, the person's gender becomes for all purposes the acquired gender (so that, if the acquired gender is the male gender, the person's sex becomes that of a man and, if it is the female gender, the person's sex becomes that of a woman).

- section 9 subsection 1 of the Gender Recognition Bill, and law of the land in the UK

 

Perfect, so let's redefine reality according to our "whims" until no one can possibly be offended by anything anymore. Why can't we all just get along? We can learn a lot from our friends across the Atlantic. If we could just get a "registered medical practitioner" to testify that all of these gays have some form of "gender dysphoria" there wouldn't be any problems...

[Guest MikeSC]

But now, we're going to have a right given to a group with no real reason WHY it should be. How are their lives harmed by not being allowed to marry?

 

Why can't gays marry? Simply because we SAID so. It was the COUNTRY'S decision, plain and simple.

How are their lives harmed? They do not have the same protection of the law that is given to heterosexual married couples. There are also tax implications.

As Marney pointed out, they can simply get power of attorney and draw up a living will. It's not exactly difficult.

 

And what tax implications? Heck, I've always heard that it's cheaper to file as a single than jointly.

And on top of this, you're telling them that because they are gay, they are not as important to this country as if they were straight.

If they take it as such, so be it. It is a ridiculous train of thought, but the government and the public shouldn't spend much time or money worrying about ridiculous trains of thought.

Adding gays to marriage law would not make anything less arbitrary than it already is. Again, I don't know how marriage ever first got federal recognition without idiots of your mindset running around screaming about how now people are going to marry wolves in the forest because now that we've instituted for bride/groom couples we have to give marriage rights to every single person, creature, or thing.

"Idiots of your mindset"? Gee, and conservatives think that the liberals refuse to debate issues without resorting to personal insults. Gee, where would we get that idea?

 

Would you, kindly, bite my ass?

 

Thanks.

Stop it with this pointless, empty rebuttal.

Don't you have inane point to make elsewhere about something irrelevant?

And here's where the vital disagreement is.

 

Activist judges my ass. Look, there's a reason why you don't elect your judges. They're not supposed to be beholden to what the majority wants. They shouldn't have a constituency to be playing to. Their job is to uphold the tenets of the constitution regardless of how it flows with public opinion.

I love the logic that unelected, unaccountable judges are more vital to the protection of rights than, you know, voters.

 

Man, you would have LOVED Communism.

-=Mike

..."The ONLY people you can trust are people with lifetime tenure and nobody to answer to. Oh yeah, tyranny is bad, by the way"

[NoCalMike 0]

meanwhile after the past month of gays getting married, I can honestly say my life hasn't been affected whatsoever. I still work in the morning, go to school at night, and try to fit in some fun stuff on friday nights. This gay marriage topic would hopefully die out when people just keep living their lives and realize that nothing in their own lives will change or more importantly get worse. Now for the folks protesting out in SF in the name of Jesus, they are not willing to let this not affect their life, so I suppose they will never move on until Bush pushes his amendment, but for everyone else, life goes on....

[Firestarter 0]

Incidentally, this deceitful bullshit about "you're a homophobe if you think homosexuals are less important to the country than heterosexuals" should stop right about now.

 

Homosexuals as homosexuals are indeed less important to the country. By and large they don't start families. They don't reproduce. And they don't raise children.

 

That doesn't mean we should send them all to the gas chambers. No one's saying that. No conservative has ever said that. We're simply saying that WHILE gay people can be of value to the country, indeed one gay individual can have more ABSOLUTE value than one straight individual (eg Michael Guest, appointed by President Bush to be United States Ambassador to Roumania), the fact is that AS homosexuals they have do not have A PARTICULAR VALUE which is considered laudable and indeed INDISPENSIBLE by the vast majority of Americans (and that includes all rational homosexuals as well, although these days it seems there aren't very many left). Therefore it is ABSURD to demand that society REWARD them for a value they DO NOT POSSESS, and indeed REPUDIATE and REJECT.

 

Do you cretins get it yet or must I retype this again a few posts down the line?

 

Oh, and go ahead and accuse me of being a homophobe if you like - that should be good for a laugh.

[Guest MikeSC]

meanwhile after the past month of gays getting married, I can honestly say my life hasn't been affected whatsoever. I still work in the morning, go to school at night, and try to fit in some fun stuff on friday nights. This gay marriage topic would hopefully die out when people just keep living their lives and realize that nothing in their own lives will change or more importantly get worse. Now for the folks protesting out in SF in the name of Jesus, they are not willing to let this not affect their life, so I suppose they will never move on until Bush pushes his amendment, but for everyone else, life goes on....

I'd kill for a conservative mayor to simply thumb his nose at state gun laws.

-=Mike

...Well, not kill literally. Unless I had to.

[Guest thebigjig]

My aunt cant have children because of a strange disease she has... she isn't able to reproduce... should she not be given basic rights, including marriage??

[Guest MikeSC]

My aunt cant have children because of a strange disease she has... she isn't able to reproduce... should she not be given basic rights, including marriage??

As Marney pointed out, marriage is a bond between a man and a woman. If she wants to marry a man, she should have a blast.

-=Mike

[Firestarter 0]

My aunt cant have children because of a strange disease she has... she isn't able to reproduce... should she not be given basic rights, including marriage??

Or should we require that any woman past childbearing age dissolve her marriage forthwith?

 

No. Because it's not about bearing children alone. It's about an institution which was founded on the notion of alliance, shared responsibility, and raising a family between a man and a woman. Marriages were originally economic and political in nature. They had anything to do with mutual love in the usual way of things until quite recently.

 

And you really, really don't want to base it on that. If you do, there's absolutely nothing, nothing at all, standing between the courts deciding that polygamy and incest are also natural human rights. Bestiality you could still keep off the books, but that's about all.

 

What are you going to do, tell three women who say that they sincerely love each other that they don't?

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Brilliant. Using the same reasoning:

 

A marriage is between a man and a woman. Legally, a woman is not a man, and a man is not a woman. Therefore, homosexuals cannot marry.

Uh, no. Marriage is between 2 consenting adults. Anything beyond that (gender) has been state territory until now. Which is the reason why 15 year olds aren't getting married. They aren't consenting adults.

 

Or can they?

 

What the hell?

 

Perfect, so let's redefine reality according to our "whims" until no one can possibly be offended by anything anymore. Why can't we all just get along? We can learn a lot from our friends across the Atlantic. If we could just get a "registered medical practitioner" to testify that all of these gays have some form of "gender dysphoria" there wouldn't be any problems...

 

CBS' documentary program 48 Hours this week had the adventures of a man having gender-changing surgery. Then s/he excited showed off a new driver's license with a big F in the gender box and a letter about how his gender is now officially recognized as female by the DMV.

 

This was in Florida.

 

So hey, it doesn't bother Jeb Bush, I guess.

[Spaceman Spiff 0]

My aunt cant have children because of a strange disease she has... she isn't able to reproduce... should she not be given basic rights, including marriage??

As Marney pointed out, marriage is a bond between a man and a woman. If she wants to marry a man, she should have a blast.

-=Mike

But she can't reproduce or start a family. Unless they decide to adopt, "she does not have A PARTICULAR VALUE which is considered laudable and indeed INDISPENSIBLE by the vast majority of Americans. Therefore it is ABSURD to demand that society REWARD them for a value they DO NOT POSSESS..."

 

Therefore, she shouldn't be allowed to marry, as Marney pointed out.