California high court set to rule on gay marriage

[LouDAgreat]

Another Gay Marriage Thread brought to you by LouDAgreat :gar

Fuck YEA!!!!

Marches planned for Tuesday when justices weigh in on Prop 8

SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court will rule Tuesday on the validity of a voter-approved ban on same-sex marriage, a decision that will end months of speculation over whether gay couples can resume marrying in the state.

The high court announced the pending opinion on its Web site Friday morning.

Justices are considering a series of lawsuits seeking to overturn a constitutional amendment approved by voters in November that overruled a 4-3 court decision that briefly legalized same-sex unions. The suits claim Proposition 8 was put on the ballot improperly.

The court also will decide whether to uphold the marriages of an estimated 18,000 gay couples who wed before Proposition 8 passed. The election came after a contentious $83 million campaign that made it the most expensive ballot measure on a social issue in the nation's history.

Gay-rights advocates have scheduled marches throughout California and in several other states for Tuesday evening. Organizers say the gatherings will be celebratory if the court rules in their favor and angry if Proposition 8 is upheld.

Waiting for the decision "has been an absolutely gut-wrenching experience," said Molly McKay, spokeswoman for Marriage Equality USA.

"As Californians, we are all under tremendous strain worrying about the economy, our jobs and our families," McKay said. "On top of that, gay families have been living for months with the fear that the court will allow a bare majority of voters to strip gay and lesbian families of their constitutional protections and eliminate our marriages — or just as bad, eliminate new couples' ability to get married."

Preparing for a fight
Same-sex couples, local governments and civil-rights organizations have asked the court to throw out Proposition 8 on procedural grounds. They argued that the initiative revised the state constitution's equal protection clause to such a dramatic degree that its sponsors needed the Legislature's approval to submit it to voters.

Several justices gave that argument a skeptical reception during a March hearing, and court observers have doubted the Supreme Court would abrogate California's vigorous citizen initiative process by invalidating the ban.

Since then, three other states — Iowa, Maine and Vermont — have joined Massachusetts and Connecticut in making same-sex marriage legal, and efforts are under way to pass gay-marriage bills in New Hampshire and New York.

If the justices uphold Proposition 8, gay-rights supporters plan to return to the ballot box in an effort to repeal it next year or in 2012. The state's largest gay-rights groups already have started raising money, airing television advertisements and recruiting volunteers.

If the justices strike down Proposition 8 as an illegal revision, its backers could try asking state lawmakers to place another initiative limiting marriage to a man and a woman on next year's ballot. The prospects for such a bill are uncertain. The Democratic-controlled California Legislature has twice passed measures to legalize same-sex marriage, but they were vetoed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

MSNBC (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/30890938/)

This is going to be huge. Hopefully the court strikes down Prop 8. If not, then gay rights activist will have to make their voices heard.

[Xyloxi]

Well, this should be interesting, but how is prop 8 illegal?

[Tsukiyomi]

Well, this should be interesting, but how is prop 8 illegal?

The question is whether or not prop 8 is an addition or an alteration to the state constitution. Alterations cannot be added by voter initiatives, they can only be added by a 2/3 vote of the legislature.

So if its ruled an alteration then it is illegal and will be struck down.

[mystictrunks]

I guess I'll put my marching boots on.

[Jagon Fox]

crosses fingers down with prop 8! and let it be the last time we have to do deal with such bullshit!

[The Cheat]

Its america accepts gays, death to prop 8.

[Peak]

Doesn't really matter to me.

If gay people want to be married and have the same things regular married couples have then fine.

[The Pink Ninja]

Strike that shit down you Supremes :pek

[The Space Cowboy]

This is a weak angle of attack on prop 8 IMO. Not saying anything one way or another on the rightness or wrongness of it, but this challenge seems to be really stretching it.

Anyhow, I don't think this challenge is going to hold water based on the full text of prop 8.


This initiative measure is submitted to the people in accordance with the provisions of Article II, Section 8, of the California Constitution.

This initiative measure expressly amends the California Constitution by adding a section thereto; therefore, new provisions proposed to be added are printed in italic type to indicate that they are new.

SECTION 1. Title This measure shall be known and may be cited as the "California Marriage Protection Act."

SECTION 2. Section 7.5 is added to Article I of the California Constitution, to read:

SEC. 7.5. Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.



The act states that it adds a new provision to the constitution. Which seems pretty clear cut. However--since it effects a previous ruling of the CA Supreme Court, there is a very very remote chance it could be considered an alteration.

Rather, if the previous ruling contravenes the new amendment, the previous ruling is held in error I believe.

[Camille]

Fuck yes! :high

[I]

The Prop 8 have been passed almost a year ago, but then issues of same sex marriage is still a hot topic here in CA.

[Daddy☆Naru]

It's about flippin time these guys started discussing this again! They're way over their 90 day limit to announce their verdict from the court session in FEBRUARY.

Honestly, I can't stand this whole thing... I'm not gonna get too in depth but all I can say is this is totally unfair and I'll smack you if you throw that "life isn't fair" bullshit at me.

I may live in Canada where gay marriage is legal, but crap like this is gonna be the death of us... Literally.

Reasons being i shall keep to myself. :hurr

[Nic]

I really don't see them overturning this. After all the constitutinal ban was created through democratic and constitutional means so i hardly seem them overturning this as it would send it bad message and a conflicting role as to what judge are appointed for.
anyways, this is idiotic in a few years the majority that voted for the ban will be overturned as more people will favor the right for gay marriage than against it in CA.

[Tsukiyomi]

I really don't see them overturning this. After all the constitutinal ban was created through democratic and constitutional means so i hardly seem them overturning this as it would send it bad message and a conflicting role as to what judge are appointed for.
anyways, this is idiotic in a few years the majority that voted for the ban will be overturned as more people will favor the right for gay marriage than against it in CA.

They're ruling on the validity of adding it to the constitution. There are rules to amend the constitution, if the rules weren't followed then it doesn't matter how many people voted for it.

[Xyloxi]

They're ruling on the validity of adding it to the constitution. There are rules to amend the constitution, if the rules weren't followed then it doesn't matter how many people voted for it.

So I'm guessing that's one way to attack it then?

[Tsukiyomi]

So I'm guessing that's one way to attack it then?

It really is the only way to attack it. You can't challenge something on the constitution as being unconstitutional.

The only other thing you could do would be to amend the federal constitution to allow for gay marriage, which I don't see that happening anytime soon.

[Xyloxi]

It really is the only way to attack it. You can't challenge something on the constitution as being unconstitutional.

The only other thing you could do would be to amend the federal constitution to allow for gay marriage, which I don't see that happening anytime soon.

Hasn't the state government voted on it, but Arnie vetoed it?

[Daddy☆Naru]

They almost have no choice but to over turn it. The whole proposition was funded by the Mormon church, ne? That's a big no no. The government system down there was built on a separation of church and state, was it not? Shouldn't that have nullified it or is that what they're ruling on now?

[Xyloxi]

They almost have no choice but to over turn it. The whole proposition was funded by the Mormon church, ne? That's a big no no. The government system down there was built on a separation of church and state, was it not? Shouldn't that have nullified it or is that what they're ruling on now?

I suppose it acts like a charity, as it didn't start it.

[Daddy☆Naru]

I suppose it acts like a charity, as it didn't start it.

So they bullshit the state to pass this?

[Xyloxi]

So they bullshit the state to pass this?

I suppose that's how it happened.

[Banhammer]

So they bullshit the state to pass this?

they didn't write a check for thirty six million dollars, they told their parishers in utah that it was their God sent apocalipse level urgency and duty to send this money.

They did however, blackmail claifornian business into giving them money for this proposition.

[Daddy☆Naru]

they didn't write a check for thirty six million dollars, they told their parishers in utah that it was their God sent apocalipse level urgency and duty to send this money.

They did however, blackmail claifornian business into giving them money for this proposition.

I cannot express the irony of that statement...

Couldn't they just have a bake sale like normal churches?

[Xyloxi]

I cannot express the irony of that statement...

Couldn't they just have a bake sale like normal churches?

That's a lot of cakes. :argh

[Banhammer]

I cannot express the irony of that statement...

Couldn't they just have a bake sale like normal churches?
Because the Caek is a lie!


You know mormons.
They invented Twilight.
Do you need any more explanation on their inate ability to spread evil?

[Daddy☆Naru]

Because the Caek is a lie!


You know mormons.
They invented Twilight.
Do you need any more explanation on their inate ability to spread evil?

I liked Twilight before it became a mass of fan tards...

I actually have a gay friend who came from a family of mormons. Any religion that bans caffeine has something wrong with them.

[Xyloxi]

I liked Twilight before it became a mass of fan tards...

I actually have a gay friend who came from a family of mormons. Any religion that bans caffeine has something wrong with them.

South Park explains Mormonism perfectly.

[Banhammer]

Everytime someone says they like Twilight, a muse dies.
That is all I'm gonna say on the subject

[Supreme Alchemist Fan]

So Arnold is a homophobe?

[Daddy☆Naru]

Everytime someone says they like Twilight, a muse dies.
That is all I'm gonna say on the subject

:uwah

Not the Muses... ;-;

And yes, South Park is the answer to all. :gar

[Xyloxi]

:uwah

Not the Muses... ;-;

And yes, South Park is the answer to all. :gar

It is indeed.

If CA gets another governor, preferably a Democrat is gay marriage likely to be legalised as they're unlikely to veto it?

[Daddy☆Naru]

It is indeed.

If CA gets another governor, preferably a Democrat is gay marriage likely to be legalised as they're unlikely to veto it?

That all depends on what the new governor's personal beliefs are. If they believe in gay marriage and such that's a possibility but that's still a while away. Meanwhile the world will continue to fall into chaos and gay marriage will the the LAST thing people will wanna worry about.

[Tsukiyomi]

Hasn't the state government voted on it, but Arnie vetoed it?

I don't think the governors veto power can apply here.

They almost have no choice but to over turn it. The whole proposition was funded by the Mormon church, ne? That's a big no no. The government system down there was built on a separation of church and state, was it not? Shouldn't that have nullified it or is that what they're ruling on now?

The separation of church and state isn't actually in the constitution. All the constitution says is that congress can't pass any laws with respect to religion, they also aren't supposed to endorse any religion over any other.

I think the only place its actually stated directly that church has to stay out of politics is in the IRS code that a church can only be tax exempt when they don't play a role in politics. I think all that could really be done (and what really should be done) is that the mormon church loses all tax exemption.

[Daddy☆Naru]

The separation of church and state isn't actually in the constitution. All the constitution says is that congress can't pass any laws with respect to religion, they also aren't supposed to endorse any religion over any other.

I think the only place its actually stated directly that church has to stay out of politics is in the IRS code that a church can only be tax exempt when they don't play a role in politics. I think all that could really be done (and what really should be done) is that the mormon church loses all tax exemption.

Shouldn't that be enough to null the vote?

[Tsukiyomi]

Shouldn't that be enough to null the vote?

No, there is nothing in the voting laws pertaining to religion, its in the tax laws though. So like I said all you could really do is take away the mormons tax exempt status, it has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the vote itself.

Think about it, if a church donating money to a campaign or a law was enough to nullify the law then they could just donate money to anything they wanted to have fail like any prochoice laws.

[Daddy☆Naru]

No, there is nothing in the voting laws pertaining to religion, its in the tax laws though. So like I said all you could really do is take away the mormons tax exempt status, it has absolutely no bearing on the validity of the vote itself.

Think about it, if a church donating money to a campaign or a law was enough to nullify the law then they could just donate money to anything they wanted to have fail like any prochoice laws.

Are you serious!?

Aw crap, now we're hooped...

So I'm guessing all we can do is pray the court has a heart?

[Tsukiyomi]

Are you serious!?

Aw crap, now we're hooped...

So I'm guessing all we can do is pray the court has a heart?

Like I said challenging it on the grounds that its an alteration and not an addition is a perfectly valid argument to make. Basically we just have to hope that the court sees it that way.

[Daddy☆Naru]

Like I said challenging it on the grounds that its an alteration and not an addition is a perfectly valid argument to make. Basically we just have to hope that the court sees it that way.

Exactly, you can't just instate it then four years later take it away for no valid reason.

"It's for the children" my ass!

[hammer]

that's good for cali.... wait everyone approves of this in the thread.... wheres the mindless flaming where i get my lulz from.

[Daddy☆Naru]

that's good for cali.... wait everyone approves of this in the thread.... wheres the mindless flaming where i get my lulz from.

Bring it and see what happens.

But save it for the debate corner.

[Tsukiyomi]

Exactly, you can't just instate it then four years later take it away for no valid reason.

"It's for the children" my ass!

The people voting in a law banning something is normally a very valid reason to take something away, but in this case it goes against the equal protection clause. Like I said we just have to hope the court sees it that way.

[hammer]

Bring it and see what happens.

But save it for the debate corner.

im actually glad to see an intelligent convo for once.

[Tokoyami]

Cut down this obvious discriminatory law towards gays!

I really hope they'll do the right thing and end this nonsense.

[LouDAgreat]

Cut down this obvious discriminatory law towards gays!

I really hope they'll do the right thing and end this nonsense.

It's weird seeing you serious. :oh

I can't remember the last time I saw you serious, after all the furry jokes, the "I will destroy you sarcasm" etc....It's good to see this again. :del

[hammer]

It's weird seeing you serious. :oh

I can't remember the last time I saw you serious, after all the furry jokes, the "I will destroy you sarcasm" etc....It's good to see this again. :del

lol I dont think i seen him serius but i can change that.



I lost the game

[Tokoyami]

It's weird seeing you serious. :oh

I can't remember the last time I saw you serious, after all the furry jokes, the "I will destroy you sarcasm" etc....It's good to see this again. :delI thank you however this is a serious discussion. I'm not always weird ya know.

_____________________
*twitches* BOW TO ME!!!
_____________________
Anyway what were we discussing here?

[LouDAgreat]

I thank you however this is a serious discussion.
Indeed.

I'm not always weird ya know.

It's shocking!!!! :uwah
But again, most of the cafe is wierd...especially in the convo thread.
:hurr


I lost the game

Forgive my ignorance hammer...what game do you speak of? :hmm

[hammer]

[QUOTE=LouDAgreat;23391957
Forgive my ignorance hammer...what game do you speak of? :hmm[/QUOTE]

its hard to explain but he knows the game very well:hurr


but on topic its surprising the sudden uprising of this sort of thing im happy for the gays in cali and it seems that its happening in the strangest of areas then I would expect

[Cirus]

The only thing this is all going to do in that state is make some group angry over what will happen. If gay people want to get married by government standards then so be it. If they want to get married in a church then the people need to take that up with the church and not the government. (Seperation of church and state. One can not influence the other.)

[Xyloxi]

lol I dont think i seen him serius but i can change that.



I lost the game

I thought he was a she. :uwah

The only thing this is all going to do in that state is make some group angry over what will happen. If gay people want to get married by government standards then so be it. If they want to get married in a church then the people need to take that up with the church and not the government. (Seperation of church and state. One can not influence the other.)

If same sex marriage is legalised, then how can the church be above the law then?

[Tsukiyomi]

If same sex marriage is legalised, then how can the church be above the law then?

The church can't be forced to marry anyone gay or straight, you always have to ask them to be married in the church by a priest.

If gay marriage becomes legal they can ask the church to marry them, and if the church refuses then they can be married by a justice of the peace.

[LouDAgreat]

Breaking News:
California Supreme Court Votes to Uphold Ban on Gay Marriage.

HOWEVER: Existing Marriages allowed to stand. According to CNN.

Mutherfuckers.

[Xyloxi]

Breaking News:
California Supreme Court Votes to Uphold Ban on Gay Marriage.

HOWEVER: Existing Marriages allowed to stand. According to CNN.

Mutherfuckers.

Wow, that sucks although I'm not surprised.

[LouDAgreat]

Wow, that sucks although I'm not surprised.

Yes it does...hopefully, the attitudes towards gay marriage goes more to it's support in the future. Gay activists will most likely propose a ballot initiative legalizing gay marriage in 2010 or 2012. I just hope they adopt the right campaign strategies getting more and more people to support.

[Tsukiyomi]

Yes it does...hopefully, the attitudes towards gay marriage goes more to it's support in the future. Gay activists will most likely propose a ballot initiative legalizing gay marriage in 2010 or 2012. I just hope they adopt the right campaign strategies getting more and more people to support.

Since its now a part of the state constitution it should fall under the same point that was the main opposition to prop 8 now, which is alterations to the constitution require a 2/3 vote of the legislature. You can't alter the constitution with a popular vote, just amend it.

So they won't be able to have a ballot initiate legalizing gay marriage.

[The Pink Ninja]

If existing marriages stand, does that also apply to ones registered in other states?

[First Tsurugi]

I had a feeling this would happen.

Oh well, the streak could only continue for so long, I suppose. :/

[Xyloxi]

If existing marriages stand, does that also apply to ones registered in other states?

I suppose they'd be seen as civil unions.

[LouDAgreat]

If existing marriages stand, does that also apply to ones registered in other states?

That's a good question. I have no clue. That'll be a contentious issue if it hasn't been resolved with this Court ruling.

[The Space Cowboy]

Huh. So they upheld it. Thought I was right about it being a weak challenge to a constitutional amendment. In case you were wondering about the score, it was a 6-1 split in favor of upholding the ban. (http://www.breitbart.com/article.php?id=D98E32U80&show_article=1)

The court said the Californians have a right, through the ballot box, to change their constitution.

"In a sense, petitioners' and the attorney general's complaint is that it is just too easy to amend the California Constitution through the initiative process. But it is not a proper function of this court to curtail that process; we are constitutionally bound to uphold it," the ruling said.

The justices said the 136-page majority ruling does not speak to whether they agree with Proposition 8 or "believe it should be a part of the California Constitution."

They said they were "limited to interpreting and applying the principles and rules embodied in the California Constitution, setting aside our own personal beliefs and values."

From the article, it appears that the split seems to occur in that Justice Moreno thinks that Prop 8 constitutes a change to the spirit of the California constitution, rather than an addition.

[Willaien]

Since its now a part of the state constitution it should fall under the same point that was the main opposition to prop 8 now, which is alterations to the constitution require a 2/3 vote of the legislature. You can't alter the constitution with a popular vote, just amend it.

So they won't be able to have a ballot initiate legalizing gay marriage.

Since this stood, amending it again to repeal that amendment shouldn't be a big deal. Keep in mind that amendments overwrite any applicable parts. The 2/3 thing is for a 'fundamental rewrite', that is, the majority of the constitution changing.

I do wonder, though, what they would have said if an amendment passed stating that blacks, or jews, or any other minority group couldn't marry.

[Jagon Fox]

well fuck! :nerve never underestimate mindless hateful bigots in large numbers. i'd like to see how well they took it if someone did the exact thing to them. this is sucky news.

[Zabuzalives]

Ah I remember all the gay marriage supporters screaming ""unconstitutional"" for every incentive against fully acknowledging gay-union as legal marriage.

Laws are manmade, and open to interpretation. As such, your views on how laws should be/be interpretated shouldnt be treated as fact.


In case of a pure definition issue with no rights restricted, normal democratic processes should take their due.

And in this case it more or less did.

equal civil union ftw.

[Xyloxi]

Ah I remember all the gay marriage supporters screaming ""unconstitutional"" for every incentive against fully acknowledging gay-union as legal marriage.

Laws are manmade, and open to interpretation. As such, your views on how laws should be/be interpretated shouldnt be treated as fact.


In case of a pure definition issue with no rights restricted, normal democratic processes should take their due.

And in this case it more or less did.

equal civil union ftw.

Civil union is equal, right? :zaru

[The Space Cowboy]

From the actual court decision



The natural-law jurisprudence reflected in passages from the few early judicial opinions relied upon by the Attorney General has been discredited for many years, and, in any event, no decision suggests that when a constitution has been explicitly amended to modify a constitutional right (including a right identified in the Constitution as “inalienable”), the amendment may be found unconstitutional on the ground that it conflicts with some implicit or extraconstitutional limitation that is to be framed and enforced by the judiciary.



The majority opinion of the Court notes that the only thing Proposition 8 effectively did in California was change a legal definition.

[Nic]

I knew it, there was no way the supreme court would overrule something that was implemented through a vote by the people. Overruling it, would have been undemocratic. Anyways, people shouldn't bitch about it, in 10 years a new proposition allowing it will be put on the ballot and this time it will pass itself. It's just the way things evolve in society.

[Camille]

Ah :oh

I knew they would uphold it.


Goddamit :nerve

[Banhammer]

I knew it, there was no way the supreme court would overrule something that was implemented through a vote by the people. Overruling it, would have been undemocratic. Anyways, people shouldn't bitch about it, in 10 years a new proposition allowing it will be put on the ballot and this time it will pass itself. It's just the way things evolve in society.

maybe ten years is allready a little too fucking long for some of us:notrust

[Xyloxi]

maybe ten years is allready a little too fucking long for some of us:notrust

It may seem long, but its better than nothing.

[Tsukiyomi]

Ah I remember all the gay marriage supporters screaming ""unconstitutional"" for every incentive against fully acknowledging gay-union as legal marriage.

Laws are manmade, and open to interpretation. As such, your views on how laws should be/be interpretated shouldnt be treated as fact.


In case of a pure definition issue with no rights restricted, normal democratic processes should take their due.

And in this case it more or less did.

equal civil union ftw.

So people aren't allowed to say when they think something is unconstitutional?

[Nic]

maybe ten years is allready a little too fucking long for some of us:notrust

well with a little luck, in five. :hurr

[iander]

I'd give it at most till the 2012 election. I mean in the last 2-3 years the public became 10% more favorable to gay marriage so in another 3 or so years, it would tip the balance in favor.

[The Space Cowboy]

So people aren't allowed to say when they think something is unconstitutional?

Oh they're allowed to say it. But codified constitutional law trumps interpreted constitutional law.

[FreshBaked]

God FUCKING DAMMIT

Time to cut off California. Literally. Separate the landmasses and send them out to sea.

[VastoLorDae]

They will overrule prop 8 for sure



or not


and do not lump everyone together freshbaked...thats just as ignorant

[Tokoyami]

Maybe I can cross the border to nevada and not have to be associated with these retards any longer.......

[mystictrunks]

California LAWST :mad

But California is still the Best.

[Xyloxi]

It could be worse, California could be Mississippi.

[Zabuzalives]

So people aren't allowed to say when they think something is unconstitutional?

Oh they can voice their opinion. I just want them to realize its an opinion and that laws are manmade and open for interpretation.

In to many debate threads, current laws or legal interpretations are used like they are the end-all argumentation.
While in fact these laws are pretty flimsy, its the logic behind it that matters.


Anyway I was also gloating a bit. I remember people attacking me on ""not possibly understanding American law"" in this subject. Guess there are courts who share my views though.




@Xyloxi
They sure can be. Any existing inequality from the equal civil union to legal marriage should then result from well argumented governmental interests/reasons. (I expect very few or none will hold in court)

The name mariage..the legal definition of marriage has nothing to do with rights or inequality. You call something different...different.

[Lord of Fire]

yeahhh California you didn't fail me

[Xyloxi]

yeahhh California you didn't fail me

People getting maried on the other side of North America really affected you didn't it? It also made children be an hero apparently.

@Xyloxi
They sure can be. Any existing inequality from the equal civil union to legal marriage should then result from well argumented governmental interests/reasons. (I expect very few or none will hold in court)

The name mariage..the legal definition of marriage has nothing to do with rights or inequality. You call something different...different.

Its all in the name which makes it unequal, its like saying that you can sit down, but not with anybody else.

[Lord of Fire]

[QUOTE=Xyloxi;23430340]People getting maried on the other side of North America really affected you didn't it? It also made children be an hero apparently.

You already know how i feel on the issue so why even brother man Im totally against gay marriage you know that so id be totally in favor of this ruling

[Xyloxi]

[QUOTE=Xyloxi;23430340]People getting maried on the other side of North America really affected you didn't it? It also made children be an hero apparently.

You already know how i feel on the issue so why even brother man Im totally against gay marriage you know that so id be totally in favor of this ruling

Are you totally against gay marriage that has no religious affiliation?

[Lord of Fire]

[QUOTE=Lord of Fire;23430622]

Are you totally against gay marriage that has no religious affiliation?

seeing as real marriage is done in a religious setting anyways yes

[Xyloxi]

[QUOTE=Xyloxi;23430882]

seeing as real marriage is done in a religious setting anyways yes

I guess anybody who wasn't married in a religious setting isn't properly married then? :uwah

[Camille]

I guess anybody who wasn't married in a religious setting isn't properly married then? :uwah

Leave it alone, Xyloxi...

[Pilaf]

No..DON'T leave it alone. Keep nailing his bigoted ass to the mother fucking wall! FIGHT!! FIGHT FOR PILAF!! *makes popcorn*

[Xyloxi]

No..DON'T leave it alone. Keep nailing his bigoted ass to the mother fucking wall! FIGHT!! FIGHT FOR PILAF!! *makes popcorn*

I wouldn't have worded it quite like that, but I have a right to defend myself. :quite

[Tsukiyomi]

Oh they can voice their opinion. I just want them to realize its an opinion and that laws are manmade and open for interpretation.

In to many debate threads, current laws or legal interpretations are used like they are the end-all argumentation.
While in fact these laws are pretty flimsy, its the logic behind it that matters.

Anyway I was also gloating a bit. I remember people attacking me on ""not possibly understanding American law"" in this subject. Guess there are courts who share my views though.

Flimsy? I would say it depends entirely on which laws you're talking about

@Xyloxi
They sure can be. Any existing inequality from the equal civil union to legal marriage should then result from well argumented governmental interests/reasons. (I expect very few or none will hold in court)

The name mariage..the legal definition of marriage has nothing to do with rights or inequality. You call something different...different.

Separate but equal has been tried and proven to not work, because when you have two separate things (especially when its like it is now when you're having the second thing because you don't want to allow someone access to the first) they tend to wind up very unequal.

seeing as real marriage is done in a religious setting anyways yes

So any marriage not done "in a religious setting" is not a real marriage?

Does that apply to ANY religious setting?

[Diceman]

So any marriage not done "in a religious setting" is not a real marriage?

Does that apply to ANY religious setting?

Pastafarian Weddings ftw:gar

[Tokoyami]

ITT: LOF's religous bigotry rears it's butt ugly head once again.

*grabs ridiculously oversized sword* TIME TO SLAY THE FINAL BOSS!!!!

[Xyloxi]

ITT: LOF's religous bigotry rears it's butt ugly head once again.

*grabs ridiculously oversized sword* TIME TO SLAY THE FINAL BOSS!!!!

One thing I don't understand is why people who supprot equal rights are made to look like people who want to oppress people's rights.

[Lord of Fire]

I guess anybody who wasn't married in a religious setting isn't properly married then? :uwah
yep that what I'm saying
I wouldn't have worded it quite like that, but I have a right to defend myself. :quitethanks for not being a prick about it




Separate but equal has been tried and proven to not work, because when you have two separate things (especially when its like it is now when you're having the second thing because you don't want to allow someone access to the first) they tend to wind up very unequal.



So any marriage not done "in a religious setting" is not a real marriage?

Does that apply to ANY religious setting?

and all major religious setting apply because they have things in common truth honesty family etc but that just what i believe in

[Xyloxi]

and all major religious setting apply because they have things in common truth honesty family etc but that just what i believe in

Every religious sect disapproves of same sex unions, right?

[Willaien]

and all major religious setting apply because they have things in common truth honesty family etc but that just what i believe in

UU would happily marry a same-sex couple. Many Buddhists would happily marry a same-sex couple.

Do you wish to deny them the right to express their religious beliefs the same way you can?

[Lord of Fire]

Every religious sect disapproves of same sex unions, right?

when it gets down to it the major religious don't approve of gay marriage ill ignore whoever said a Buddhist temple would marry a same sex couple hogwash you go to japan in one of there 100s of year old temples and say i want you to marry us see how kindly they talk to you

or a Muslim place of worship see if you make it out alive

[Utopia Realm]

Even though I'm a christian this ruling doesn't sit well with me. Equal rights is great but family values. Damn this topic.:-(

[Xyloxi]

UU would happily marry a same-sex couple. Many Buddhists would happily marry a same-sex couple.

Do you wish to deny them the right to express their religious beliefs the same way you can?

I'm sorry for my ignorance, but what does UU stand for?

Lord of Fire: What about many of the European churches that recognise same sex marriage?

[Willaien]

I'm sorry for my ignorance, but what does UU stand for?

Universal Unitarian (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unitarian_Universalism) < clicky if you want to know more.

Sidenote: Episcopal Churches would probably approve of same-sex marriages. (Though, official dogma is gay-friendly, it stops at same-sex marriages. However, many individual churches agree with them, though.)

[Tsukiyomi]

and all major religious setting apply because they have things in common truth honesty family etc but that just what i believe in

when it gets down to it the major religious don't approve of gay marriage ill ignore whoever said a Buddhist temple would marry a same sex couple hogwash you go to japan in one of there 100s of year old temples and say i want you to marry us see how kindly they talk to you

or a Muslim place of worship see if you make it out alive

So only a marriage in a "major" religious setting is valid? What if eventually Christianity became a small religion of only a few hundred or a few thousand followers, would christian marriages no longer be valid?

[Lord of Fire]

So only a marriage in a "major" religious setting is valid? What if eventually Christianity became a small religion of only a few hundred or a few thousand followers, would christian marriages no longer be valid?

seeing as this isn't going to happen i dont care and also any religion that makes sense not some demon worshiping bull does not count

[Grrblt]

seeing as this isn't going to happen i dont care and also any religion that makes sense not some demon worshiping bull does not count

No religion makes sense.

[Xyloxi]

seeing as this isn't going to happen i dont care and also any religion that makes sense not some demon worshiping bull does not count

What gives you the right to say which religion makes sense?

[Pilaf]

seeing as this isn't going to happen i dont care and also any religion that makes sense not some demon worshiping bull does not count

I'm sure the high priests of Zeus once said similar statements to this. "Oh my religion will never fade into obscurity..it's invulnerable and will stand forever!"

Every three years, the number of non Christians in the U.S increases another percent.

Tick.

Tick.

Tick.

Tick.

Tick.

Till BOOM you're in the minority..then YOU'LL eat dirt..know how we feel...

[Willaien]

when it gets down to it the major religious don't approve of gay marriage ill ignore whoever said a Buddhist temple would marry a same sex couple hogwash you go to japan in one of there 100s of year old temples and say i want you to marry us see how kindly they talk to you

or a Muslim place of worship see if you make it out alive

I said many. I did not say all. Many would indeed be happy to.

seeing as this isn't going to happen i dont care and also any religion that makes sense not some demon worshiping bull does not count

Rome will never fall, Greece will never fall, Egypt will never fall, Atilla's Huns will never fall, Mongols will never fall, etc. etc.

Big doesn't mean invincible, nor does it mean you'll always be big. How many religions have come and gone, or faded into irrelevance? Before the bloody rise of Christianity, there were quite a few pagan religions that were as large.

[Pilaf]

Tick...tick...tick...tick...tick...tick

[Xyloxi]

Tick...tick...tick...tick...tick...tick

You revealed the atheist-communist conspiracy. :uwah

[Willaien]

You revealed the atheist-communist conspiracy. :uwah

EXCOMMUNICATION FOR HIM!

[Xyloxi]

EXCOMMUNICATION FOR HIM!

Excommunication from the lack of belief?

[Willaien]

Excommunication from the lack of belief?

It was a joke, to stress our lack of organization. :p

[Kira U. Masaki]

im fine with this ruling, look fact is this is not an issue of equal rights, a gay couple can enter a civil union which has a legal benefit of a regular marriage

the only issue her is they want to everyone that they are married and not in union, look im sorry but you have to compromise marriage has been defined as it is several thousand years, so there is no reason to change the world when it will change nothing from a rights standpoint

this is just a case where as usual gay people need to force their behavior on other people so thats why they are trying to shove this down our throats, no matter what they say they are the odd group out, i think they should have to compromise a little bit as well and not get everything their way

i still have yet to here any reasonable excuse to bend the definition of marriage

[Xyloxi]

im fine with this ruling, look fact is this is not an issue of equal rights, a gay couple can enter a civil union which has a legal benefit of a regular marriage

the only issue her is they want to everyone that they are married and not in union, look im sorry but you have to compromise marriage has been defined as it is several thousand years, so there is no reason to change the world when it will change nothing from a rights standpoint

this is just a case where as usual gay people need to force their behavior on other people so thats why they are trying to shove this down our throats, no matter what they say they are the odd group out, i think they should have to compromise a little bit as well and not get everything their way

i still have yet to here any reasonable excuse to bend the definition of marriage

Its unequal and gay people have been second class citizens for over 9000 years. Separate, but equal works seriously well.

[Tsukiyomi]

seeing as this isn't going to happen i dont care

Way to dodge the question.

Rome will never fall, Greece will never fall, Egypt will never fall, Atilla's Huns will never fall, Mongols will never fall, etc. etc.

Big doesn't mean invincible, nor does it mean you'll always be big. How many religions have come and gone, or faded into irrelevance? Before the bloody rise of Christianity, there were quite a few pagan religions that were as large.

That sums it up nicely. Nothing lasts forever.

and also any religion that makes sense not some demon worshiping bull does not count

Everyone thinks their religion makes sense, otherwise they wouldn't follow it. Or are you saying only the ones that makes sense to YOU?

[Lord of Fire]

Way to dodge the question.



That sums it up nicely. Nothing lasts forever.



Everyone thinks their religion makes sense, otherwise they wouldn't follow it. Or are you saying only the ones that makes sense to YOU?

so demon worshiping makes sense to you ?

[Banhammer]

HEY IT'S LORDY :iria


LORDY, LORDY, OVER HERE!!

THE PROM WUZ SOOO SPECH0L. I LOVE YOU FIRE LORDY LORD. LET'S HAVE GAY BABIES TOGETHER AND PUNCH PELOSY IN THE FACE.
PLEASE MARRY ME. U CAN BE MY EDWARD!!!
So only a marriage in a "major" religious setting is valid? What if eventually Christianity became a small religion of only a few hundred or a few thousand followers, would christian marriages no longer be valid?

No because then there would be rapture:zaru
See, it all works out.

[abcd]

so demon worshiping makes sense to you ?

See .... A demon in one religion maybe god in another one .....

Satan of christianity has a trisul -- The same object is used by Poseidon and a hindu god Shiva ....... And when many such stuff are taken into account -- U can actually say that God in one religion are made to may look like demon in another one ......

[Banhammer]

Satan? You mean Lucifer the Lightbringer? The most beautifull of all angels who was sent to hell to be imprisioned there, not by his evil doings but by his choice to defend his brother angel's rights?
A fate that is considered to be exactly what God made him for?

Yeah, respecting him makes no sense at all...
I'M SO GLAD MR GENIUS LORDY LORD IS HERE FOR OOUR PROTEXCIUN:iria
TAEK ME TEH PROOOOM LORD!

[Tsukiyomi]

so demon worshiping makes sense to you ?

None of the relgions make sense to me. When you get down to it worshiping a "demon" makes about as much sense as worshipping a "god". Both are just invisible men you decide to pray to or not pray to. What makes religions like Christianity any better than the myriad or religions that have come before it?

[Random Nobody]

so demon worshiping makes sense to you ?

Way to completely miss the point.:awesome

[Zabuzalives]

Its all in the name which makes it unequal, its like saying that you can sit down, but not with anybody else.

Nonsense. Different naming does not make something inherentely unequal...and a terrible analogy.


Flimsy? I would say it depends entirely on which laws you're talking about


its the morality, effect, and logic behind the law that i respect. But i was talking about laws that are very open to interpretation yeah.

Separate but equal has been tried and proven to not work,

but is it really a case of seperate but equal...akin to segregation laws...no it isnt.

And we are already playing with words now. I state its different but equal, you use the emotionally weighted term seperate.

because when you have two separate things (especially when its like it is now when you're having the second thing because you don't want to allow someone access to the first)

Bullshit. They have access to marriage as defined by law just as much as I have.

And they can personally marry eachother. It just isnt acknowledged by law.

People try to make it seem like a restriction of rights or personal freedom, but what it really is about...is having a personal view on definition adopted and acknowledged by law.

they tend to wind up very unequal.

Then deal with the inequality....instead of asking for special rights.

[Tsukiyomi]

but is it really a case of seperate but equal...akin to segregation laws...no it isnt.

And we are already playing with words now. I state its different but equal, you use the emotionally weighted term seperate.

Bullshit. They have access to marriage as defined by law just as much as I have.

And they can personally marry eachother. It just isnt acknowledged by law.

People try to make it seem like a restriction of rights or personal freedom, but what it really is about...is having a personal view on definition adopted and acknowledged by law.

If it isn't acknowledged by law then it isn't equal. How exactly are you not seeing that? There are numerous legal rights and priviledges granted to married couples.

[Seto Kaiba]

im fine with this ruling, look fact is this is not an issue of equal rights, a gay couple can enter a civil union which has a legal benefit of a regular marriage

A civil union does not have all the benefits and its recognition depends on the state you live in. For example, if a gay couple moved here in Georgia, their union would not be recognized because Georgia does not recognize gay civil unions nor does it allow gays to be married or have civil unions.

the only issue her is they want to everyone that they are married and not in union, look im sorry but you have to compromise marriage has been defined as it is several thousand years, so there is no reason to change the world when it will change nothing from a rights standpoint

A gay couple should have every right to have a federally recognized marriage. Also, marriage's definition as well as its purpose has changed over the years, in modern western society at least. I mean, interracial marriage was illegal just a few decades ago and was unthinkable to have it legally recognized back then. Even further back, marriages between blacks were not recognized. The tradition argument is so stupid, because if everyone just went by it nothing would change.

this is just a case where as usual gay people need to force their behavior on other people so thats why they are trying to shove this down our throats, no matter what they say they are the odd group out, i think they should have to compromise a little bit as well and not get everything their way


This is in no way shoving behavior down people's throats. This is having the law recognize a homosexual's right to marry.

You know, anyone who wasn't white used to be the odd group out too in the states. You don't compromise on fighting for full rights that you should have had to begin with.

i still have yet to here any reasonable excuse to bend the definition of marriage

Because it denies the rights of homosexual as human beings to marry. I've never heard a reason to keep marriage as it is, ever.

[FreshBaked]

Nonsense. Different naming does not make something is inherentely unequal...and a terrible analogy.




its the morality effect and logic behind the law that i respect. But i was talking about laws that are very open to interpretation yeah.



but is it really a case of seperate but equal...akin to segregation laws...no it isnt.

And we are already playing with words now. I state its different but equal, you use the emotionally weighted term seperate.



Bullshit. They have access to marriage as defined by law just as much as I have.

And they can personally marry eachother. It just isnt acknowledged by law.

People try to make it seem like a restriction of rights or personal freedom, but what it really is about...is having a personal view on definition adopted and acknowledged by law.



Then deal with the inequality....instead of asking for special rights.


I like how people crow so much about civil unions.

Take a look at this web page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_homosexuality_laws.svg

Look at the map key below. Notice how many of the states are gray? notice how most of the few blue states have lawfully instated same sex marriage at one point or another?

Again, notice how many of the states are gray?

[Banhammer]

what's this bullshit I hear about being just difrent names?

There are vital rights after rights exclusive to marriage spouses. How can someone be so behind facts that will actually argue it?

[Lord of Fire]

Well all i have to say to all this you guys are just anti religious i have no problem with that but dont prosecute me for my beliefs

[FreshBaked]

Well all i have to say to all this you guys are just anti religious i have no problem with that but dont prosecute me for my beliefs

As soon as you stop persecuting people for being gay

[Tsukiyomi]

Well all i have to say to all this you guys are just anti religious i have no problem with that but dont prosecute me for my beliefs

I think the word you're looking for is persecute, and I'm not persecuting you. All I'm doing is asking you to actually justify your statements with some kind of logic.

You say things like "and all major religious setting apply because they have things in common truth honesty family" which logically doesn't make any sense because thats not exclusive to major religions. ANY belief system can advocate these things so by your logic marriage in these systems would be valid. In fact the legal system is supposed to stand for these things so by your logic any legal marriage should be perfectly valid.

[Lord of Fire]

As soon as you stop persecuting people for being gay

as if i was but whteva

[FreshBaked]

as if i was but whteva

You believe special legislation should be drawn up to deny equal rights to gay people. That is persecution and you are a bigot.

[Tsukiyomi]

as if i was but whteva

How about answering my post that was aimed directly at you?

[Jim]

ITT: heterosexuals pretending they care about gay rights in a sad attempt to appear politically correct on the internet!:zaru

[Seto Kaiba]

Well all i have to say to all this you guys are just anti religious i have no problem with that but dont prosecute me for my beliefs

How does supporting the idea of gay marriage equate to being anti-religious?

[FreshBaked]

ITT: heterosexuals pretending they care about gay rights in a sad attempt to appear politically correct on the internet!:zaru

Sorry, plenty of people in here have the gay. :hurr

[Xyloxi]

Well all i have to say to all this you guys are just anti religious i have no problem with that but dont prosecute me for my beliefs

I'm not anti religious, I don't care what someone believes to be honest. I just think you don't have the right to deny people equal rights, as it doesn't harm anyone or make life for you any different so therefore it is illogical to go against asame sex marriage.

[Pilaf]

Well all i have to say to all this you guys are just anti religious i have no problem with that but dont prosecute me for my beliefs

Religion was biased against free people before free people were biased against religion.

[Zabuzalives]

If it isn't acknowledged by law then it isn't equal. How exactly are you not seeing that?



http://www.thefreedictionary.com/equal

1. Having the same privileges, status, or rights

so if Gay unions have the same privileges, status, or rights as legal marriage
they are equal..even if called differentely.

so you might call yourself married, but the law would not acknowledge it AS marriage...cause its not fitting the legal definition.
They would define it as civil union. Which could have the same privilages, status, and rights....

Come one....there is a reason we have two different words.
equal
same

you dont just want it to get treated equally, you want it to get seen as exactly the same as well!
It is not the same...but it can be treated equally...how are you not getting that???


I propose normal democratic process in cases of pure definition.

You want special rights, extra power to your minority group...so they can override those processes and have the law implement their way of thinking....
(cause normally we dont allow every different personal definitions to be implemented into law just because, cause then it would become an incomprehensible unpractical mess)


Now who is treating people equally here???? me...or you??? :huh


There are numerous legal rights and priviledges granted to married couples.

Then focus on the disparity in legal rights and privilages between marriage and gay union?

see? seperate from the naming issue isnt it?



I like how people crow so much about civil unions.

Take a look at this web page:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:World_homosexuality_laws.svg

Look at the map key below. Notice how many of the states are gray? notice how most of the few blue states have lawfully instated same sex marriage at one point or another?

Again, notice how many of the states are gray?

Most? you dont seem to be able to count properly. How much countries are dark blue vs how much are blue?

And how is that even an argument? Views of populations change. And with them definitions.

And why does the large number of gray countries even matter to my argument?

MAYBE adressing equal rights without pissing people off by pushing your gay-union=Marriage ideas into law (and doing so by mixing definition issue with rights issue and crying discrimination and bigotry alot)...would actually get you equal rights sooner??

[Zabuzalives]

A gay couple should have every right to have a federally recognized marriage.

There is no right to have your personal views/definition to be implemented into law.....

Its ridiculous to even view it as such.



Also, marriage's definition as well as its purpose has changed over the years, in modern western society at least.

Change can be done through proper means or shitty ones.


I mean, interracial marriage was illegal just a few decades ago and was unthinkable to have it legally recognized back then.

again mixing it up with rights and playing on sentiments.
Trying to ty it to rascism in the past.

sad thing such BS tactics actually seem to have an effect on many people :notrust

yes it was ILLEGAL. which is a serious rights and freedom restriction.
This is not the case now, so why even bring something completely unrelated up??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

""Almighty God created the races white, black, yellow, malay and red, and he placed them on separate continents. And but for the interference with his arrangement there would be no cause for SUCH MARRIAGES""

see...he defines it as marriage. If anything..the racists wanted to change traditional definition of marriage....:notrust

Even further back, marriages between blacks were not recognized. The tradition argument is so stupid, because if everyone just went by it nothing would change.

And appeal to novelty is not equally stupid???

nothing would change! change is good! :nuts

This is in no way shoving behavior down people's throats. This is having the law recognize a homosexual's right to marry.

It recognizes a homosexuals right to marry the same way as it recognizes my right to marry.

right to marry as marriage is defined.

They can also have their personal ceremony and call themselves marriage.

What you want is the law implementing your VIEWS. :notrust


You know, anyone who wasn't white used to be the odd group out too in the states. You don't compromise on fighting for full rights that you should have had to begin with.


I dont give in to people wanting special rights and power based on BS reasons.


Because it denies the rights of homosexual as human beings to marry.

it does not deny their right to marry. Stop horribly twisting the Loving vs Virginia ruling to suit your agenda.

Do you even hear yourself?? ""If you do not call it like i WANT it to be called...your denying my fundamental rights!""

its hysterical. yet so many of you have yourself convinced its perfectly logical.


I've never heard a reason to keep marriage as it is, ever.

So with appeal to tradition vs appeal to novelty..it should be left to normal democratic processes.
Where populations view change and so do the definitions used.

changing it purely to pander to a small minorities feelings would make the law unpractical and incomprehensible as well as wasting a massive amount of money on constant revisions.

For you would need to add so many different personal definitions into the law. A law made up of many definitions which each would become ridiculously broad.

Enough reasons to name it differentely until the group with the definition ""marriage=regardless of gender"" grows larger.

[Camille]

ITT: heterosexuals pretending they care about gay rights in a sad attempt to appear politically correct on the internet!:zaru

ITT: people making sweeping generalisations to appear smarter than the rest!

So you have to be gay to discuss (and care) gay marriage and gay rights in general? Okay :awesome

Sorry, plenty of people in here have the gay. :hurr

[Banhammer]

Well all i have to say to all this you guys are just anti religious i have no problem with that but dont prosecute me for my beliefs

TAEK ME TO THE PROM LORDY LORD!!!!!!

So I hear they're gonna bring it up to federal

[Casyle]

Wow, I'm pleasantly surprised. For awhile there it seemed like, everywhere I looked, voter approved propositions were getting shot down left and right across the country. I've gotten so pessimistic that I've almost assumed anymore that if a proposition is challenged it will get overturned.

Not over yet, though. If I read right there's yet more lawsuits coming taking it to a Federal Court I think.

[Xyloxi]

Wow, I'm pleasantly surprised. For awhile there it seemed like, everywhere I looked, voter approved propositions were getting shot down left and right across the country. I've gotten so pessimistic that I've almost assumed anymore that if a proposition is challenged it will get overturned.

Not over yet, though. If I read right there's yet more lawsuits coming taking it to a Federal Court I think.

Voter approved propositions are a bad idea, would you want a botanist to perform surgery on you? The answer is probably no, as people do not have enough knowledge to vote on referendums involving such matters and it should be left to professionals.

[Tsukiyomi]

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/equal

1. Having the same privileges, status, or rights

so if Gay unions have the same privileges, status, or rights as legal marriage
they are equal..even if called differentely.

so you might call yourself married, but the law would not acknowledge it AS marriage...cause its not fitting the legal definition.
They would define it as civil union. Which could have the same privilages, status, and rights....

Come one....there is a reason we have two different words.
equal
same

you dont just want it to get treated equally, you want it to get seen as exactly the same as well!
It is not the same...but it can be treated equally...how are you not getting that???

It can be, but ITS NOT. I want gay marriage to be just that, marriage. I don't see why it is that people are willing to "give gay people all the same rights and privileges as marriage" but somehow just the word "marriage" to them is sacred. If its the word that's sacred to you and not what marriage actually IS (the relationship, the rights and privileges) then what about marriage is worth defending and denying? You're denying them a word?

I propose normal democratic process in cases of pure definition.

You want special rights, extra power to your minority group...so they can override those processes and have the law implement their way of thinking....
(cause normally we dont allow every different personal definitions to be implemented into law just because, cause then it would become an incomprehensible unpractical mess)

Now who is treating people equally here???? me...or you??? :huh

Special rights? I don't consider it "special rights" to say "you are gay and you have access to all the same things straight people do", where is the special rights there? Show me.

Then focus on the disparity in legal rights and privilages between marriage and gay union?

see? seperate from the naming issue isnt it?

Which makes more sense to you:

Approach a:


fight a prolonged legal battle to get inferior civil unions enstated state by state
fight a prolonged legal battle to get inferior civil unions recognized on a federal level
fight a prolonged legal battle to ensure all the hundreds upon hundreds of rights given by marriage are given in each state and on a federal level
fight a legal battle each time the rights of marriage change to ensure they remain equal


Approach b:


fight a prolonged legal battle have gay marriage enstated state by state
fight a prolonged legal battle have gay marriage recognized on a federal level

See now to me the second option seems much better. Why fight a long battle to get something inferior then fight a long battle to make that inferior thing better?

If you have two "separate but equal things" and by some miracle actually manage to make them equal you are going to have to spend an eternity making sure every change to one is applied to the other.

It seems easier and more just to simply say "you each have marriage".

[Adonis]

Seriously, to say, "You can have everything marriage entails but you just can't call it marriage!" is idiotically petty.

[Seto Kaiba]

There is no right to have your personal views/definition to be implemented into law.....

This is about giving gays getting their rights implemented into law, regardless of my personal views.

Its ridiculous to even view it as such.

No, not really.

Change can be done through proper means or shitty ones.

And using the courts is a proper means.

again mixing it up with rights and playing on sentiments.
Trying to ty it to rascism in the past.

It has some core similarities, anyone would have to be thickheaded not to see them. I already know the differences, so don't bother pointing them out to me.

sad thing such BS tactics actually seem to have an effect on many people :notrust

That's excellent.

see...he defines it as marriage. If anything..the racists wanted to change traditional definition of marriage....:notrust

Even those people against it call it "gay marriage" correct? In such, it's a form of marriage, just one that they don't like. Even interracial marriage before becoming legal was called marriage, but was personally defined as such before being legally recognized as such.

And appeal to novelty is not equally stupid???

I'm not arguing because something is new it's better. Use the term right. Also regarding marriages among blacks and other races, there are similar situations at hand, and similar attitudes and arguments regarding it. That's why people are bringing it up. It's not exactly the same situation, but no one is arguing that it is.

nothing would change! change is good! :nuts

You oversimplify the argument, and even manage to miss the entire point. Congratulations. The point is legal marriage is a right that should be afforded to all people regardless of race, religion or sexuality.

It recognizes a homosexuals right to marry the same way as it recognizes my right to marry.

right to marry as marriage is defined.

They can also have their personal ceremony and call themselves marriage.

What you want is the law implementing your VIEWS. :notrust

Stop dodging the main issue. The fight is to have federally recognized marriage and the rights and benefits that come with it. What this about is RIGHTS.

I dont give in to people wanting special rights and power based on BS reasons.

A marriage isn't a special right, it's one that should be available to all citizens.

it does not deny their right to marry. Stop horribly twisting the Loving vs Virginia ruling to suit your agenda.

Legally, yes it does. Stop bringing up "they can still have ceremonies" BS. I've seen you bring it up so many times before, but legally it all means nothing.

Do you even hear yourself?? ""If you do not call it like i WANT it to be called...your denying my fundamental rights!""

its hysterical. yet so many of you have yourself convinced its perfectly logical.

A civil union is not a marriage. It does not hold the same benefits nor the recognition.

So with appeal to tradition vs appeal to novelty..it should be left to normal democratic processes.
Where populations view change and so do the definitions used.


Bullshit. The rights of citizens, and especially the rights of the minority should in no way be left up to popular vote. We aren't a direct democracy, and there shouldn't be a wait for society's view to change on it. That's exactly where the black and interracial marriage issue sets in, it was legalized at a time when the majority of society did not approve of such a measure but it was because it infringed on a couple's right to marry.

changing it purely to pander to a small minorities feelings would make the law unpractical and incomprehensible as well as wasting a massive amount of money on constant revisions.

For you would need to add so many different personal definitions into the law. A law made up of many definitions which each would become ridiculously broad.

Enough reasons to name it differentely until the group with the definition ""marriage=regardless of gender"" grows larger.

That's totally ridiculous. It's not pandering at all, it's giving the minority their rights as citizens, which would not be unpractical and worth the cost in pursuing. The movements all across the northeast just throw your argument of impracticality out the window. This is not an argument at all to keep marriage as it is.

[Casyle]

Voter approved propositions are a bad idea, would you want a botanist to perform surgery on you? The answer is probably no, as people do not have enough knowledge to vote on referendums involving such matters and it should be left to professionals.

Either I worded my post in such a way that I gave you the wrong idea, or you're seriously saying that voters shouldn't be able to vote on propositions. If you're saying we shouldn't be able to vote on propositions, then I'm speechless.

[Xyloxi]

Either I worded my post in such a way that I gave you the wrong idea, or you're seriously saying that voters shouldn't be able to vote on propositions. If you're saying we shouldn't be able to vote on propositions, then I'm speechless.

Why? Its not like the US is a direct democracy.

[Casyle]

Why? Its not like the US is a direct democracy.

*Shakes his head* I don't want to derail this thread, so I'll just say this.

Whatever you want to call it, we DO live in a Democracy, thus we do have the right to have a say in what happens in our local area and the nation. I do not want to imagine a nation where the people have no say in what happens in their states or nation beyond voting for someone to make all of their decisions for them.

Your example doesn't even make sense to me. It's called educating yourself on the issues. You don't have to be a scientist to educate yourself and vote on marijuana, or a hunter to vote on trap bans.

To seemingly insinuate that politicians are better "educated" to make such decisions for us? *Shakes his head again* Wow.

[Xyloxi]

*Shakes his head* I don't want to derail this thread, so I'll just say this.

Whatever you want to call it, we DO live in a Democracy, thus we do have the right to have a say in what happens in our local area and the nation. I do not want to imagine a nation where the people have no say in what happens in their states or nation beyond voting for someone to make all of their decisions for them.

Your example doesn't even make sense to me. It's called educating yourself on the issues. You don't have to be a scientist to educate yourself and vote on marijuana, or a hunter to vote on trap bans.

To seemingly insinuate that politicians are better "educated" to make such decisions for us? *Shakes his head again* Wow.

The US is a representative democracy, so you have someone to represent your area who was voted in. In the UK we have hardly any referendums, and I'm fine with that as the last national one we had was in the 70's. Direct democracy is impractical as the general population aren't educated enough to vote on economic issues etc and should be left to politicians with economic backgrounds in select committees.

Marijuana, thats different as many people are ignorant about it as it is demonised by the media.

Politicans are better educated than the public, I wonder what percentage of the general public has a degree compared to the elected politicians.

[LouDAgreat]

The US is a representative democracy, so you have someone to represent your area who was voted in. In the UK we have hardly any referendums, and I'm fine with that as the last national one we had was in the 70's. Direct democracy is impractical as the general population aren't educated enough to vote on economic issues etc and should be left to politicians with economic backgrounds in select committees.

Marijuana, thats different as many people are ignorant about it as it is demonised by the media.

Politicans are better educated than the public, I wonder what percentage of the general public has a degree compared to the elected politicians.

Politicians may be more educated than the average voter, but Career politicians don't always do things in the best interest of the people they represent. If they depend on politics to make a living, then they'll do things to make their constituents happy to keep winning future elections. Even if doing those things aren't exactly beneficial in the long run.

There are many examples of politicians enacting new economic policies that seem great in the short term, but often become destructive in the long-term.

[Tsukiyomi]

*Shakes his head* I don't want to derail this thread, so I'll just say this.

Whatever you want to call it, we DO live in a Democracy, thus we do have the right to have a say in what happens in our local area and the nation. I do not want to imagine a nation where the people have no say in what happens in their states or nation beyond voting for someone to make all of their decisions for them.

Your example doesn't even make sense to me. It's called educating yourself on the issues. You don't have to be a scientist to educate yourself and vote on marijuana, or a hunter to vote on trap bans.

To seemingly insinuate that politicians are better "educated" to make such decisions for us? *Shakes his head again* Wow.

The US is a representative democracy, so you have someone to represent your area who was voted in. In the UK we have hardly any referendums, and I'm fine with that as the last national one we had was in the 70's. Direct democracy is impractical as the general population aren't educated enough to vote on economic issues etc and should be left to politicians with economic backgrounds in select committees.

Marijuana, thats different as many people are ignorant about it as it is demonised by the media.

Politicans are better educated than the public, I wonder what percentage of the general public has a degree compared to the elected politicians.

Actually no, we're a constitutional republic. Which means we elect people to govern, but their power is restricted to those in the constitution. The constitution is meant to protect the rights of the minorities from the tyranny of the majority. Its what stops people from suddenly voting that black people no longer have any rights. It doesn't matter how much of the popular vote you get, stuff like that is forbidden in the constitution.

You get to have a say in what happens in your local area and the nation, but within limits.

[Grrblt]

Actually no, we're a constitutional republic.
Constitutional republic and representative democracy aren't mutually exclusive.

[Tsukiyomi]

Constitutional republic and representative democracy aren't mutually exclusive.

Fair enough, but they were talking about it in the context of people not being able to vote in laws they want. A constitutional republic is a bit different in this regard since the constitution is always the supreme law of the land and can override any lesser law enacted by popular vote.

[FreshBaked]

Most? you dont seem to be able to count properly. How much countries are dark blue vs how much are blue?

And how is that even an argument? Views of populations change. And with them definitions.

And why does the large number of gray countries even matter to my argument?

MAYBE adressing equal rights without pissing people off by pushing your gay-union=Marriage ideas into law (and doing so by mixing definition issue with rights issue and crying discrimination and bigotry alot)...would actually get you equal rights sooner??

Way to completely misread my argument.

see the word I bolded up there? It should be STATES. My argument pertained to the STATES. Therefore, I am right in saying that many of the blue states had instated gay marriage AT ONE POINT.

But hey, why don't we talk about the large number of gray countries. Why DOES this matter to your argument?

GRAY on that map represents AREAS in which SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE NOT RECOGNIZED. Your argument is that gay people have all the rights of straight people, and are trying to gain special rights, when clearly this is not the case.

[Banhammer]

http://www.thepostgameshow.com/?p=658

My friends, I would like to speak to you today about singing, and the radical threat that could destroy the divine gift of song for all of us.

I refer, of course, to homosexuals.



It is time that laws were introduced to outlaw homosexuals from writing or performing songs. We must also formally enshrine the definition of song as “a lyrical and musical composition originated and performed by heterosexuals”.

The soundness of my reasoning is self-evident, but if you will indulge me, I will explain my position.

In brief, homosexual songs undermine the value and sanctity of singing. They harm our songs.

Singing is a gift given to us by God so that we can praise Him. Song is used as a means of expressing faith and worship. Any songs that deviate from this standard will inevitably sully the importance of songs as a means of expressing ourselves to God. For this reason, it is important that all songs be messages of faith, reverence, and sanctified love, either between man and God, or between a man and a woman.



Homosexual songs are by their nature heathen and spiritually bankrupt. They are often used to praise unnatural or harmful behaviour. One need only look at such songs as ‘Relax’ by Frankie Goes to Hollywood, Marc Almond’s version of ‘Tainted Love’, or ‘Anything Goes’ by Cole Porter, to see the menace they represent.

It is no exaggeration to say that many people do most or all of their singing in church. If we do not take a stand against the growing storm of homosexual singing, it is certain that some day in the near future churches will no longer be free to choose songs for their congregations to sing. Uplifting hymns such as ‘Amazing Grace’ and ‘Nearer My God To Thee’ will be replaced by decadent gay songs like ‘Fastlove’ and ‘Go West’. Can you imagine an evangelical assembly being forced to sing ‘Filthy/Gorgeous’ by the Scissor Sisters? It simply does not bear thinking about.

Of course, it is not just our churches that are under threat, but also our schools. Song is an important part of teaching, especially for the youngest and most impressionable children, who learn about the alphabet, mathematics, wildlife and even foreign languages through the medium of song. If we do not act now, teachers will soon be forced to teach children the lyrics to gay-themed songs such as ‘In The Navy’ and ‘Cowboys Are Frequently Secretly Fond of Each Other’. Do we really want our five-year-old sons and daughters to know that “[Candy] never lost her head even when she was giving head”? No we do not.



Nor is this the end of it. Shops that currently make a living selling religious books and music will soon be made to sell Queen and Ani DiFranco, or else they will be forced out of business all together. Churches will be obliged to rent out their property for rock concerts by The B-52s and Judas Priest. Adoption agencies will be made to give children up for adoption to people who own music by Tracy Chapman, Rufus Wainwright or Stephen Sondheim.

Then there is the fact that gay singers and musicians are frequently intrinsically unnatural. One need only look at Boy George or KD Lang to see that the singing of ‘gay’ music has a corrupting effect on traditional gender roles. The sounds made by the likes of Antony and The Johnsons and Sigur Ros are barely songs at all.

Indeed it is surely not too extreme to suggest that the ultimate aim of those who would seek to promote homosexual songs is to do away with the concept of singing altogether. It is a stealth movement that is fundamentally opposed to our musical values. If we accept homosexual songs, what next? Will we have to define the noise a goat makes as ’singing’?

Homosexuals do not even need singing. There are already plenty of perfectly good words that describe the noises that they make, such as ’screeching’, ‘yelling’ and ‘wailing’; they will still be permitted to use those words.



Some people say that homosexual songs make people happy or joyful, or they argue that homosexuals deserve the same right to sing and compose as everyone else. It has even been argued that the sale of homosexual songs can have some economic benefit.

This very much misses the point; this is not about an individual’s happiness or rights, or even about money; this is about protecting the religious freedoms on which our society was founded. If we challenge those foundations it will be a threat to family, liberty and the right of individual expression. This has nothing to do with equality and everything to do with respect for our sacred traditions. People may say that this proposal is intolerant, but surely the true act of intolerance would be to oppose narrowly defining an activity in a way that excludes people based on their differences?

So I call upon you all now to join me in my campaign. It is time to say no to David Bowie. Say no to Dusty Springfield. Say no to Linda Perry, and Aaron Copland, and REM. This is not about hating homosexuals; this is about protecting our music. Love the singer; hate the song.

Tags: aaron copland, adam lambert, ani difranco, antony and the johnsons, b-52s, beth ditto, boy george, cole porter, david bowie, dusty springfield, elton john, frankie goes to hollywood, freddie mercury, gay singing, judas priest, kd lang, marc almond, protect singing, queen, rem, sigur ros, tracy champman


just saying

[Adonis]

Zabuzalives, think of it this way: if gay marriage was legalized, EVERYONE would have the "special privilege" of marrying people of the same gender. It wouldn't only be those pesky gays having all the fun. :zaru

[Zabuzalives]

It can be, but ITS NOT.

nice argumentation...

I want gay marriage to be just that, marriage. I don't see why it is that people are willing to "give gay people all the same rights and privileges as marriage" but somehow just the word "marriage" to them is sacred. If its the word that's sacred to you and not what marriage actually IS (the relationship, the rights and privileges) then what about marriage is worth defending and denying? You're denying them a word?

I could ask you guys the same...you are so quickly brushing off equal civil unions....guess the title Marriage means alot to you??

and im not denying them words. they can call themselves marriage, i just raise questions about the law immediately having to implement a minorities views and ideas...""just because""


Seeing im from the Netherlands and we have had gay-marriage for many years already. I dont really care about the legal definition. If they feel so strongly legal marriage can be broadened for all i care..or better yet we simply call everything legal unions and bypass this issue.

However I am heavily annoyed by the arguments and tactics used by pro-gay marriage to get this definition changed to implement their views
As such i so heavily debate against what i feel is flawed over-defensive argumentation.

Special rights? I don't consider it "special rights" to say "you are gay and you have access to all the same things straight people do", where is the special rights there? Show me.

the special rights consist of having your personal views on certain definitions acknowledged and implemented into law against (at times) large majority vote.

So if gays can..i gues EVERY group can have their differing definitions be immediately put into law too?? hmmm?? Man cant wait to see how those lawsbooks are gonna look. You probably need a mechanic crane to lift them.

Which makes more sense to you:

Approach a:


fight a prolonged legal battle to get inferior civil unions enstated state by state
fight a prolonged legal battle to get inferior civil unions recognized on a federal level
fight a prolonged legal battle to ensure all the hundreds upon hundreds of rights given by marriage are given in each state and on a federal level
fight a legal battle each time the rights of marriage change to ensure they remain equal


Approach b:


fight a prolonged legal battle have gay marriage enstated state by state
fight a prolonged legal battle have gay marriage recognized on a federal level

See now to me the second option seems much better. Why fight a long battle to get something inferior then fight a long battle to make that inferior thing better?

cant you aim a little higher and have it enforced over the states. When its about equal civil union..you actually have a case there.
and you take away a lot of the resistance..so you can tone down on the ""prolonged"".


But the second option is only ""better"" if you dont mind ""bending"" the true meaning of the laws and its protection of rights to suit your needs.

I am concerned about the precedant you create by unjustly abusing the discrimination and rights cards in a case of pure definition.

If you have two "separate but equal things" and by some miracle actually manage to make them equal you are going to have to spend an eternity making sure every change to one is applied to the other.

if the law states it has the same legal status (different but equal)
I dont see why it would need an eternity.

NOT changing it would be directly breaking the laws and a rights issue in a group that make changes/divisions fall under intermediate or high scrutiny.


And just admit that im right already, on the different but equal thing. you dont have to CALL 2 different groups/things the same to TREAT them equally.

Man-Woman...different..but equal.

oh wait..I dont call them the same! Dont act like they are the same!
I am DISCRIMINATING people on their gender! What a sexist bigot am I.....



It seems easier and more just to simply say "you each have marriage".

But ofcourse thats hardly a convincing argument before the courts...

""its the fastest way to get what I personally want""

And THATS why the pro-gay marriage side wants so desperately to try to brush off or ignore the equal civil union option.

Because pointing at the inequality existing now between inferior civil unions and marriage is easy.
When what remains is seemingly purely a definition issue...it get very hard...

and you might just get STUCK with equal civil union until you actually convince the public of your views...

Ofcourse you dont want that...cause your goal is...and I quote :
""I want gay marriage to be just that, marriage. ""

As i said...the title of marriage does not seem important to just the conservative side. huh :wink

[Zabuzalives]

This is about giving gays getting their rights implemented into law, regardless of my personal views.

so why drag in a definition issue then?

And using the courts is a proper means.

You can try to influence the court with sound arguments...or with manipulation and playing on sentiments.

your words just let me see you think far too simplistic about this issue.

It has some core similarities, anyone would have to be thickheaded not to see them. I already know the differences, so don't bother pointing them out to me.

If you know the differences...then you know you cant simply extrapolate the court ruling from Loving on illegalizing a form of marriage, to my case, where its about legal definition of a WORD.

As such..you bringing it up serves almost no purpose...unless you hope people will feel uneasy and guilty for simply calling something different..different. And out of political correctness give in to your views.

That's excellent.

The end justifies the means right?

Even those people against it call it "gay marriage" correct? In such, it's a form of marriage, just one that they don't like.

Gj for your sides propaganda. In adressing the issue people hardly use gay-union cause then most dont immediately know what it is about.

Major part however..is that they do not want the ""gay-marriage"" defined as ""Marriage"" or a ""form of marriage""

so NO, unlike interracial marriage, gay marriage opponents wont say ""you know this is a form of marriage...but we dont want this form of marriage""


am i right or not?? ofcourse i am

Even interracial marriage before becoming legal was called marriage, but was personally defined as such before being legally recognized as such.

link to marriage definition changing from white woman-white man to man-woman in American law please.

+how do laws changing even matter? They change or get re-interpreted all the time..what matters is the grounds and logic behind it. I already explained this in earlier posts


I'm not arguing because something is new it's better. Use the term right.

I am using it right. What it really boils down to is you have little but appeal to novelty as a basis....

Cause there arent any rights restricted in equal civil union.

Also regarding marriages among blacks and other races, there are similar situations at hand, and similar attitudes and arguments regarding it. That's why people are bringing it up. It's not exactly the same situation, but no one is arguing that it is.

oh dont lie...they sure try to....

Cause it would mean an instant victory for gay-marriage proposers.

You oversimplify the argument, and even manage to miss the entire point. Congratulations. The point is legal marriage is a right that should be afforded to all people regardless of race, religion or sexuality.

the point is you want to EXPAND the legal definition of marriage to include your view.

start wording it right...
ffs this is just an example of how you people annoy me. Playing with words.

Wanting to redefine legal marriage becomes ""BANNING marriage"" or ""DENYING marriage""

what bullshit.

Stop dodging the main issue. The fight is to have federally recognized marriage and the rights and benefits that come with it. What this about is RIGHTS.

Yet the NAME can be SEPERATED from the RIGHTS

You dont want that cause then it will get really complicated to PUSH your VIEW into the law...

All you are left with then is ""ehmm its kinda similar to rascist laws banning marriage...right...??""

My GOD that will impress the supreme court.


A marriage isn't a special right, it's one that should be available to all citizens.


legal marriage IS available to all citizens as it now is...
gay-union does not fit the definition of legal marriage!!!!!

You cannot grasp this simple logic???

an example on why definitions matter:

Everyone gets a free saw (man-woman marriage) from the state. This is a fundamental right for all.

You however are unhappy. You start crying and screaming. ""My rights are restricted!!"" you stutter.
How? i ask...and I hand you the free saw. See? you can have the same free saw as i do.
""I dont want THIS saw!"" you scream, ""i want THAT saw"" and you point to the hammer (same-sex union) on the shopkeep counter.

""??that is a hammer, the law only goes about saws"" the shopkeep states. And you just got your saw.
You do not listen however and go on to say: ""You are denying me my free saw just like when they segregated blacks""

Do your words make sense???

The MAIN issue ofcourse is that your definition of a saw (a broader one including hammers) is not shared by the law.

You are NOT restricted in your legal fundamental rights..cause according to legal definition...you get your free saw and are not treated any less then everyone else.

so get it right...you want to change legal definition to acknowledge same-sex union as marriage.

Legally, yes it does. Stop bringing up "they can still have ceremonies" BS. I've seen you bring it up so many times before, but legally it all means nothing.

Oh I thought you said you knew all the differences between the Loving case and this case of equal civil union?

""to deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes""

those statutes they are talking about are the anti-miscegenation laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Integrity_Act

laws CRIMINALIZING a form of marriage.
In which case you will be PUNISHED if you had an open personal wedding or wedding in different state

legally, thats a HUGE fucking step from CALLING IT DIFFERENTLY.

your making a fool of yourself...
Instead of wordplay to make it sound more serious then it is...how about you use proper points from that ruling??
Like ""Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, (a person of another race) resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.""


""legally it does"" nice OPINION you got there buddy...an opinion hardly shared by anyone. I am talking about court rulings here...not your pro-gay marriage friends all around this board...:mad


A civil union is not a marriage. It does not hold the same benefits nor the recognition.

AND WHAT IF IT DOES?

same benefits and status.....

lost your tongue there?? rather ignore it huh?

Bullshit. The rights of citizens, and especially the rights of the minority should in no way be left up to popular vote. We aren't a direct democracy, and there shouldn't be a wait for society's view to change on it. That's exactly where the black and interracial marriage issue sets in, it was legalized at a time when the majority of society did not approve of such a measure but it was because it infringed on a couple's right to marry.

oh COUPLES now. All forms of COUPLES have a right to marry/be acknowledged as legally married.

where did the individual rights of persons/citizens go? Guess you needed to twist some words else your whole point goes down the drain huh??

Care to show me court rulings and statements about how its a fundamental ""right for couples""???? And how ""marriage can consist out every combination of said Couple?""

And again...what rights are you talking about in a case of equal civil union????


That's totally ridiculous. It's not pandering at all, it's giving the minority their rights as citizens, which would not be unpractical and worth the cost in pursuing. The movements all across the northeast just throw your argument of impracticality out the window. This is not an argument at all to keep marriage as it is.

That argument is based on the premise that in a case of equal civil union....no rights are being restricted/broken....

If i am correct in that premise..argument is PERFECTLY LOGICAL.

You disagree with my view that no rights are broken. This however clouds your view in regard to my follow up argument.
you use YOUR VIEW (cause mine couldnt possibly be correct right?) as the premise for MY follow up argument to keep marriage as it is...


Ofcourse it doesnt make sense then....If rights actually ARE broken i would be the first to call for a change in the legal definition.

but whatever..i guess this just goes over your head like everything else.

[Zabuzalives]

Way to completely misread my argument.

see the word I bolded up there? It should be STATES. My argument pertained to the STATES. Therefore, I am right in saying that many of the blue states had instated gay marriage AT ONE POINT.

""most of the few blue states have lawfully instated same sex marriage at one point or another?""

seeing most are blue and not dark blue..
you must claim they had same-sex and went back to civil union?

Well if they also work on enforcing equal status I dont see why that is bad.


But hey, why don't we talk about the large number of gray countries. Why DOES this matter to your argument?

GRAY on that map represents AREAS in which SAME-SEX COUPLES ARE NOT RECOGNIZED. Your argument is that gay people have all the rights of straight people, and are trying to gain special rights, when clearly this is not the case.

Wow way to misread.

How many times do i have to repeat
""in case of equal civil union"" or something akin to that in my posts?
Hint...take a look at my last post on page 4??

My argument is that gay people should adress the difference in rights and benefits between gay-union and marriage.
But that having gay-union be SEEN as marriage by the law is a seperate issue not directly tied to rights.

So once you got an EQUAL civil union...a.k.a. same status and rights/benefits as legal marriage...you are left with what is PURELY a definition issue.


Thats why i did not understand you. I didnt think someone would ever misinterpret my view for something incredibly misinformed and moronic.

civil union=equal??, while 1 quick link would show difference in benefits to marriage. You really think I would last long in debates with SUCH an idiotic argumentation??


ah well i hope i cleared it up for future references. When i say ""case of equal civil union"" i do NOT mean ""civil union as it is now=equal to marriage""




Seriously, to say, "You can have everything marriage entails but you just can't call it marriage!" is idiotically petty.

1. you can personally call it marriage
2. how it is legally called would change like how normal legal definitions change over time through changing public view. If one group gets large enough and there are no logical reasons not to...it will get added into legal definition.


You are correct in that it may be petty to put your heels in the sand on a naming issue.
But one would get FAR more sympathy asking for empathy of opponents and pointing out the many different forms of marriage throughout history (thus undermining the traditional marriage point)

If this was the case I am inclined to say ""sure why not if it makes you happy, its not such a big deal for me, its only LEGAL definition i can have my own""

But too many start screaming about marriage being BANNED, comparing it to segregation. how their rights are being restricted and how im just a bigot etc. This is where is start to get annoyed

Zabuzalives, think of it this way: if gay marriage was legalized, EVERYONE would have the "special privilege" of marrying people of the same gender. It wouldn't only be those pesky gays having all the fun. :zaru

the reasoning for changing laws should be sound and proper. Thats my concern

[-MBS-]

Yes! Originally I was gonna come on in here, guns a blazing but then that would be considered flamebaiting and I don't want to make the idiots bawwww

yeahhh California you didn't fail me

Fist bump Lord, fist bump! http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v386/DickSteele/Smileys/Fistbump-2.gif

[Seto Kaiba]

so why drag in a definition issue then?

As it stands, gays cannot have a federally recognized marriage, and in most states can't have any form of legal union whatsoever.

It seems you're the only one playing around with definitions. Have all the rights, and benefits of marriage but not call it marriage? Ridiculous.

You can try to influence the court with sound arguments...or with manipulation and playing on sentiments.

your words just let me see you think far too simplistic about this issue.

Or you could use both sound arguments and emotional appeal, which most in support of the movement are doing, and seems to have been meeting with success.

If you know the differences...then you know you cant simply extrapolate the court ruling from Loving on illegalizing a form of marriage, to my case, where its about legal definition of a WORD.

As such..you bringing it up serves almost no purpose...unless you hope people will feel uneasy and guilty for simply calling something different..different. And out of political correctness give in to your views.

The similarity is that a marriage between a gay couple is not federally recognized currently as interracial marriage was back then, and marriage between blacks even further back. The main thing is the issue of being legally recognized.

The end justifies the means right?

In some cases yes.

Gj for your sides propaganda. In adressing the issue people hardly use gay-union cause then most dont immediately know what it is about.

Major part however..is that they do not want the ""gay-marriage"" defined as ""Marriage"" or a ""form of marriage""

Then they are being ridiculously petty then.

so NO, unlike interracial marriage, gay marriage opponents wont say ""you know this is a form of marriage...but we dont want this form of marriage""

They essentially do say that. Not in that exact wording.

am i right or not??

Nope.

link to marriage definition changing from white woman-white man to man-woman in American law please.

It changed from white-man/white-woman to man/woman when the marriages of those of other races were legally recognized.

+how do laws changing even matter? They change or get re-interpreted all the time..what matters is the grounds and logic behind it. I already explained this in earlier posts

You're not offering any stable ground or logic on why it should not be changed. I'm arguing it in the terms that it is a gay couple's right as citizens to have legally recognized marriage. You keep trying to argue on how impractical it'd be because costs and whatnot, but like I said, the movement in the northeast throws that argument out the window.

I am using it right. What it really boils down to is you have little but appeal to novelty as a basis....


You're using it wrong. It's hardly my only argument, even if it is, it's more than you're putting up.

Cause there arent any rights restricted in equal civil union.

There are restrictions. I noticed how when you first responded to me, you conveniently left out my first paragraph explaining why civil unions are not the same as marriage. Civil Unions DO NOT have the same benefits, and they ARE NOT required to be recognized across state lines.

oh dont lie...they sure try to....

Cause it would mean an instant victory for gay-marriage proposers.

No they don't. They note obvious similarities, but anyone knows that it isn't the same exact situation. If they can get society to see the restriction on legally recognized marriage as a form of discrimination, then great.

the point is you want to EXPAND the legal definition of marriage to include your view.

I want it available to gay couples because it's their right.

start wording it right...
ffs this is just an example of how you people annoy me. Playing with words.

Wanting to redefine legal marriage becomes ""BANNING marriage"" or ""DENYING marriage""

Ironic, because that's exactly what you've been doing with this whole thing...playing with words.

what bullshit.

Yours.

Yet the NAME can be SEPERATED from the RIGHTS

You dont want that cause then it will get really complicated to PUSH your VIEW into the law...

Ironic...by arguing this you are bringing the definition issue into this...

To have all the rights, privileges and benefits of a federally recognized marriage yet not call it marriage...ridiculous.

All you are left with then is ""ehmm its kinda similar to rascist laws banning marriage...right...??""

That's because it is. The argument for gay marriage is offering a lot more than that anyways.

My GOD that will impress the supreme court.

Something seems to be working.

legal marriage IS available to all citizens as it now is...
gay-union does not fit the definition of legal marriage!!!!!

Only if you marry one of another gender.

You cannot grasp this simple logic???

an example on why definitions matter:

Everyone gets a free saw (man-woman marriage) from the state. This is a fundamental right for all.

You however are unhappy. You start crying and screaming. ""My rights are restricted!!"" you stutter.
How? i ask...and I hand you the free saw. See? you can have the same free saw as i do.
""I dont want THIS saw!"" you scream, ""i want THAT saw"" and you point to the hammer (same-sex union) on the shopkeep counter.

""??that is a hammer, the law only goes about saws"" the shopkeep states. And you just got your saw.
You do not listen however and go on to say: ""You are denying me my free saw just like when they segregated blacks""

Wow, this is some ridiculous bullshit you're spouting here. You're essentially saying that gays have the right to marry...so long as they marry a woman. I really can't believe you resorted to that.

Do your words make sense???

More than yours...

The MAIN issue ofcourse is that your definition of a saw (a broader one including hammers) is not shared by the law.

You are NOT restricted in your legal fundamental rights..cause according to legal definition...you get your free saw and are not treated any less then everyone else.

I believe a more accurate comparison would be comparing handsaws and buzzsaws. They both are saws, but for some reason one is not recognized as a saw while the other is.

so get it right...you want to change legal definition to acknowledge same-sex union as marriage.

Just look at what you're posting. You're harking on about me playing with definitions and words, yet that's exactly what you're doing. Stating this again, you've essentially just been saying they can have all the rights, benefits and privileges of a marriage but can't call it marriage.

Oh I thought you said you knew all the differences between the Loving case and this case of equal civil union?

""to deny this fundamental freedom on so unsupportable a basis as the racial classifications embodied in these statutes""

those statutes they are talking about are the anti-miscegenation laws.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racial_Integrity_Act

laws CRIMINALIZING a form of marriage.
In which case you will be PUNISHED if you had an open personal wedding or wedding in different state

I already stated that I knew the differences, but also like I stated before, like it, gay marriage is not federally recognized or recognized in most states. A homosexual could hold a ceremony without getting arrested, but they won't get the legal recognition. The discrimination may not be as intense or out there as it was in the past for interracial marriage, but it is there.

[Seto Kaiba]

legally, thats a HUGE fucking step from CALLING IT DIFFERENTLY.

It's a hell of a lot more than just being called differently. They don't have the same rights or recognition as a heterosexual marriage.

your making a fool of yourself...
Instead of wordplay to make it sound more serious then it is...how about you use proper points from that ruling??
Like ""Under our Constitution, the freedom to marry, or not marry, (a person of another race) resides with the individual and cannot be infringed by the State.""


Funny, since you're doing that...you keep accusing me of wordplay and playing with definitions, yet your arguments largely consist of that.

""legally it does"" nice OPINION you got there buddy...an opinion hardly shared by anyone. I am talking about court rulings here...not your pro-gay marriage friends all around this board...:mad

Nope. That's a fact. Legally, gays are denied the right to marry in most of the country, and gay marriage is not federally recognized.

AND WHAT IF IT DOES?

same benefits and status.....

lost your tongue there?? rather ignore it huh?

Not at all. Because you're once again just resorting to playing around with definitions. "Same sex-Unions", "Equal Civil Unions", that would be marriage. To have it in all its forms be marriage yet not call it as such is insanely stupid. It's like calling a heterosexual marriage "Opposite sex or heterosexual unions" as the common terminology.

oh COUPLES now. All forms of COUPLES have a right to marry/be acknowledged as legally married.

where did the individual rights of persons/citizens go? Guess you needed to twist some words else your whole point goes down the drain huh??

Again, just playing with words. Two adult human beings that are able to give consent. That better for you?

Care to show me court rulings and statements about how its a fundamental ""right for couples""???? And how ""marriage can consist out every combination of said Couple?""

Current marriage is a legal right given to a heterosexual couple as citizens of the country.

And again...what rights are you talking about in a case of equal civil union????

Civil Unions aren't marriage, the rights vary from state to state and to don't have to be recognized across state lines. Besides an "equal civil union" would be essentially marriage, just a terminology used by those who want to comfort themselves in a veil of denial of that fact.

That argument is based on the premise that in a case of equal civil union....no rights are being restricted/broken....

Civil Unions do have restrictions on rights.

If i am correct in that premise..argument is PERFECTLY LOGICAL.

But you aren't. How unfortunate.

You disagree with my view that no rights are broken. This however clouds your view in regard to my follow up argument.
you use YOUR VIEW (cause mine couldnt possibly be correct right?) as the premise for MY follow up argument to keep marriage as it is...

We're both using our views to argue for and against it essentially.

Ofcourse it doesnt make sense then....If rights actually ARE broken i would be the first to call for a change in the legal definition.

Rights are denied.

but whatever..i guess this just goes over your head like everything else.

Whatever.

[Zabuzalives]

As it stands, gays cannot have a federally recognized marriage,

word it correctly.
Their marriage is not federally recognized...as legal marriage.

Something they could change by democratic process.


and in most states can't have any form of legal union whatsoever.

Has nothing to do with my point.

That rights are restricted in one situation, does not mean the same is the case in another situation

It seems you're the only one playing around with definitions. Have all the rights, and benefits of marriage but not call it marriage? Ridiculous.

changing law only because a small group wants their different personal definition legally recognized?? :nuts

THATS ridiculous, causes practical problems as it sets a terrible precedent.
And is a waste of tax payers money.

Calling something different, different...until the other definition gets used enough to warrant inclusion
..is something very logical.

The similarity is that a marriage between a gay couple is not federally recognized currently as interracial marriage was back then, and marriage between blacks even further back. The main thing is the issue of being legally recognized.

in that case they wanted to exclude a form of marriage.
Marriage has been man-woman for ages...and the one wanting to change that were the racists...the one wanting to change the definition now are pro-gay supporters.

see i can point to similarities that dont actually mean shit too...:notrust


Then they are being ridiculously petty then.

well, I more or less agree.
But they arent breaking the law by being petty over the word marriage.

it would be nice to see the pro-gay marriage supporters argue along these lines instead of twisting things around so that not calling it the way they want it is discrimination and a restriction of rights.

Cause to sink that low to get what you want is pretty petty as well.

They essentially do say that. Not in that exact wording.

BULLSHIT. they do NOT say that and you just like to PRETEND thats essentialy what they are saying. Cause then your trainwreck of an argument holds a bit of sense....

For a man to lie with a man like he would a woman is an abomination according to the bible. While marriage is the holy union of a man and a woman to them.
So you really think that deep down they ""see it as a form of marriage""?? to them its an insane notion to define the ""abomination"" as something they view sacred....:notrust
Similar to call a hammer a saw like in my example....

To me its awkward as well cause I was raised with traditional marriage. Changing it, the cornerstone of the family..into same-sex..is changing its integral structure.

so yes...i am right. Lose the chip on your shoulder and admit your wrong on this point.


It changed from white-man/white-woman to man/woman when the marriages of those of other races were legally recognized.

link to marriage definition changing from white woman-white man to man-woman in American law please.
To the court rulings during that change when they were legally recognized.

I want proof. Basis for your claim.


You're not offering any stable ground or logic on why it should not be changed.

because its unpractical and idiotic to have law change when there are no rights, laws or voter numbers to justify this.

If i am correct in this. All you have is appeal to novelty. Which would get shot down in court.


I'm arguing it in the terms that it is a gay couple's right as citizens to have legally recognized marriage. You keep trying to argue on how impractical it'd be because costs and whatnot, but like I said, the movement in the northeast throws that argument out the window.

that argument makes perfect sense if what i argue above this is correct.

You're using it wrong. It's hardly my only argument, even if it is, it's more than you're putting up.

If i am correct in the premise that no rights are restricted and no discrimination finds place..that with equal civil union its purely a definition issue....what do you have left as argumentation?

that its ""petty"" to not change it and stuff like that


There are restrictions. I noticed how when you first responded to me, you conveniently left out my first paragraph explaining why civil unions are not the same as marriage. Civil Unions DO NOT have the same benefits, and they ARE NOT required to be recognized across state lines.

that they currently are of inferior quality to legal marriage does not mean you can not equalize gay-union to offer the same benefits and status as legal marriage.

That is my whole point...

You have a rights issue...with civil union being unequal to marriage.
then you have the naming issue. with gay-union not defined as legal marriage.

these are two different things yet the last gets treated like its a restriction of rights as well which is BS in my opinion.

No they don't. They note obvious similarities, but anyone knows that it isn't the same exact situation. If they can get society to see the restriction on legally recognized marriage as a form of discrimination, then great.

not to the same extent, but they want people to see it similarly discriminatory
Or similar in the restriction of freedom and rights.

in case of equal civil union...this is a load of bull. To compare a naming issue to segregation and anti-miscegenation laws is ridiculous. Atleast compare it to a similar ruling/situation.

You do that now (though i want proof) but most of your pro-gay marriage pals do not. I can quote the posts to prove it.

I want it available to gay couples because it's their right.

your opinion..dont treat is as a fucking fact or argument in itself. state WHY it is a right. give court rulings and history.

Ironic, because that's exactly what you've been doing with this whole thing...playing with words.

My ""wordplay"" conveys the exact issue.
Yours is vague and so broad it can mean a phlethora of things, most of them serious restrictions of rights and personal freedom.
Its exaggerating hugely....

if you call it ""BANNING MARRIAGE"" or ""DENYING marriage"" , this could also apply to laws criminalizing marriage or laws restricting freedom to have personal marriages.

this is not what happens...you are not precise and on point AT ALL.
and why?? cause you WANT to make it seam like a big deal. like a huge restriction of rights and freedom akin to the Racist integrity act etc.
Or maybe in your mind you convinced yourself it actually is similar. :laugh

see there buddy?? i have logical basis and arguments for my ""wordplay""

What do you have for using a FAR to exaggerated and broad term instead of wording it more accurately???? hmm???

again, you just got proven wrong. such terms are factually incorrect in the issue at hand. stop using them.


To have all the rights, privileges and benefits of a federally recognized marriage yet not call it marriage...ridiculous.

all is ask is normal democratic process to take place in a case of PURE DEFINITION with no rights restricted.

you cannot change legal definitions for no other reason then to pander to the feelings of a minority. It makes the law impractical, gives certain groups special rights.

with that established, what are your reasons to change it??


That's because it is.

there are vital differences making it a non-argument in this particular situation.

just stating ""there are similarities"" is moronic argumentation if the shared simularities do not matter in the larger discussion.

I am similar to Hitler in that I can talk german too. Does that matter in the larger discussion if i am a bigot here or not??

dont just state ""its similar"" explain how it is similar..and why those shared similarities matter in this discussion.


The argument for gay marriage is offering a lot more than that anyways.


Not under the premise that its purely a definition issue if we attain equal civil union.... :notrust
try to keep up with what i am saying please...

[Saufsoldat]

changing law only because a small group wants their different personal definition legally recognized?? :nuts

THATS ridiculous, causes practical problems as it sets a terrible precedent.
And is a waste of tax payers money.

Awesome argument against prop 8.

[Zabuzalives]

Wow, this is some ridiculous bullshit you're spouting here. You're essentially saying that gays have the right to marry...so long as they marry a woman. I really can't believe you resorted to that.

you mean you dont understand even after I gave an example even toddlers can understand??

The Loving court ruling stated that marriage is a right...but this is under the definition of man-woman.
Basically we have the law saying opposite-sex marriage is a right.
Or to be more precise, the law will recognize opposite sex union as marriage.

you want to EXPAND the definition...EXPAND that which you are then entitled to. You are NOT restricted in your current rights.


I believe a more accurate comparison would be comparing handsaws and buzzsaws. They both are saws, but for some reason one is not recognized as a saw while the other is.

Which is a BS comparison in this aspect...cause opponents and majority dont see it as a form of marriage at all. I arleady explained this earlier in my post.

Just look at what you're posting. You're harking on about me playing with definitions and words, yet that's exactly what you're doing. Stating this again, you've essentially just been saying they can have all the rights, benefits and privileges of a marriage but can't call it marriage.

see? you cant even repeat what i am saying properly....

my definitions and words are well grounded on argumentation and explanation.
Yours are not...and you do not even defend yourself from accusations. you just accuse the other of doing the same.


I already stated that I knew the differences, but also like I stated before, like it, gay marriage is not federally recognized or recognized in most states.

I stated that it does not deny right to marry as how was ruled with Loving..
you then say that ""legally, yes it does""
This BS as Loving was about laws criminalizing marriage.

fact.

moving on....


dont change the subject. A homosexual could hold a ceremony without getting arrested, but they won't get the legal recognition. The discrimination may not be as intense or out there as it was in the past for interracial marriage, but it is there.


discrimination??

If i think something is different...I call it different. I am differentiating...

For me to discriminate...i need to ""make a distinction in favor of or against a person or thing on the basis of the group, class, or category""

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/discriminate

but with equal civil union...they have the same status and benefits...so I do NOT make a distinction in favor or against..

So it CANNOT be discrimination. (the negative kind)



It's a hell of a lot more than just being called differently. They don't have the same rights or recognition as a heterosexual marriage.

We are debating a theoretical situation where equal civil union is in place.

As i argued over and over. you have rights and you have the naming issue.
they are two seperate things.


Funny, since you're doing that...you keep accusing me of wordplay and playing with definitions, yet your arguments largely consist of that.

You either deal with the accusation..or you concede that i am right on that point!!!! simple...

THEN we can focus on your accusation that i do the same.

pfff, i give argument and explanation to my accusation, and you just throw the same accusation back at me as if that somehow makes my argument less valid?! :laugh

whats even more funny, is that you dont even bother to give any argumentation or ground for your accusation.

Im playing with definition you say?? How? and how am I incorrect?



Nope. That's a fact. Legally, gays are denied the right to marry in most of the country, and gay marriage is not federally recognized.

:laugh

its a legal fact? then i guess the courts and judges are all breaking the constitution willingly. We should arrest these PROVEN criminals immediately.


how the hell can it be a legal fact when the court rulings leave room for interpretation and the courts themselves are conflicted about it?!

my god your even denser then i imagined....


Not at all. Because you're once again just resorting to playing around with definitions. "Same sex-Unions", "Equal Civil Unions", that would be marriage. To have it in all its forms be marriage yet not call it as such is insanely stupid. It's like calling a heterosexual marriage "Opposite sex or heterosexual unions" as the common terminology.

sigh..well i explained already why its not ""stupid"". You can disagree on that but that doesnt mean you can just ignore and dodge the question!

If its simply not called marriage..then what arguments do you have that carry enough weight to change the law against democratic process??

""its insanely stupid not to call it marriage your judges!!""

that it??




Again, just playing with words. Two adult human beings that are able to give consent. That better for you?

...to bad your opinion isnt a court ruling huh???

I mean i can imagine court rulings to...Is that how you want to win this debate?? by using imagined court rulings and statements???



Current marriage is a legal right given to a heterosexual couple as citizens of the country.

dont give me your opinion/interpretation, I want court rulings and statements.
THAT would give you legal grounds for change.


Civil Unions aren't marriage, the rights vary from state to state and to don't have to be recognized across state lines. Besides an "equal civil union" would be essentially marriage, just a terminology used by those who want to comfort themselves in a veil of denial of that fact.



Civil Unions do have restrictions on rights.

sigh,...hypothetical situation of equal civil union is what we are discussing.




But you aren't. How unfortunate.

see?? instead of adressing the point at hand.
Namely that my argument IS perfectly logical under the premise that i am correct about no rights being restricted with equal civil union...

something you disagreed with before...meaning that you would have to admit you were wrong and i was correct on this point.

you target another point/argument and completely ignore this. Dodging it.
Even acting like you have rebutted it..WHILE IN FACT YOU ONLY STARTED DISCUSSING SOMETHING ELSE


Rights are denied.

opinion. instead of simply giving your opinion acting like its fact. Try to argument the validity of your opinion.

And stop dodging questions and accusations to try and derail a discussion that you know you cant win...

Im gonna ignore any baseless claims and obvious derailing of discussion.


It boils down to this:

1. in a case of gay-union only being CALLED different, what arguments do you have to force changing the law?

2. you claim there is discrimination, but everyone gets treated equally with equal civil union. I am not ruling in favor of against, i am differentiating.

3. you claim right to marry is restricted. But under a man-woman legal definition...this is not the case. The right was then to have a man-woman union legally recognized. It never intended for gay-unions to be recognized.
You then want to EXPAND the definition, EXPAND on the rights granted.

[Zabuzalives]

Awesome argument against prop 8.

how is this not normal democratic process??
and 52.24% of voters on the proposition isnt really a small minority is it?

[The Cheat]

Zabuza, why are you against gay marriage?

[Seto Kaiba]

1. in a case of gay-union only being CALLED different, what arguments do you have to force changing the law?

Discrimination if a gay-union legally in every way is a marriage yet not referred to as such. In the future, it could open the door for those who wish to exploit the fact that it's not technically called marriage to do so.

2. you claim there is discrimination, but everyone gets treated equally with equal civil union. I am not ruling in favor of against, i am differentiating.

Equal civil union doesn't exist for gays though. If it did, it'd essentially be marriage legally.

3. you claim right to marry is restricted. But under a man-woman legal definition...this is not the case. The right was then to have a man-woman union legally recognized. It never intended for gay-unions to be recognized.
You then want to EXPAND the definition, EXPAND on the rights granted.

It's as of now restricted that two consenting adults regardless of gender cannot get married. It was never intended for other races to have legal marriage in this country either, but that changed. It's simply changing again.

[Zabuzalives]

Zabuza, why are you against gay marriage?

I am not against gay marriage, i just cant stand when people are crying to the high heavens about discrimination and bigotry even when we are only discussing the DEFINITION issue.




Discrimination if a gay-union legally in every way is a marriage yet not referred to as such.

=OPINION, now ARGUMENT your OPINION! :mad

I already clearly showed the difference between discrimination and differentiation....unless you favor it or disadvantage it, it is not discrimination.
you can call something different yet treat it equally. As such it will not be discrimination.

this is the case with equal civil union.

I THEN propose normal democratic process to take place on what is a definition issue.

AGAIN this is as equal as you can get.

I am getting pissed off because you basically accuse me of discrimination only because i call something i view different, differentely.

In the future, it could open the door for those who wish to exploit the fact that it's not technically called marriage to do so..

Like? and i doubt it cause then you need to explain why you are taking away rights and benefits from a minority group that has/is faced/facing discrimination...which falls under intermediate or high scrutiny so you need very good arguments or sound governmental interests

Equal civil union doesn't exist for gays though. If it did, it'd essentially be marriage legally. .

stop dodging the issue....seriously...

also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union

some countries do have equal civil union or come awfully close.

so again...what arguments do you have?? I am not discriminating in this case if im treating them equally am i??


It's as of now restricted that two consenting adults regardless of gender cannot get married. It was never intended for other races to have legal marriage in this country either, but that changed. It's simply changing again.

they CAN get married. different state, different country, personal ceremony..
again..please be precise in your wording....:notrust. You make it seem like the anti-miscegenation laws again ffs. still trying to ty it to rascism huh? very funny.

That change is due to people interpreting the laws differentely. Even changing the laws as their views change.

there is NOTHING in the rulings during Loving etc. that directly states that gays have the fundamental right to have their union recognized by law.

You could argue about the spirit of the ruling. interpreting implications. This ofcourse is always partly subjective.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loving_v._Virginia

But you dont do that...you come here stating its a legal fact making a complete FOOL of yourself seeing court rulings do NOT back you up, you give hardly ANY explanation and argumentation for your words, AND vast majority of judges and courts disagree with you!


your full of hot air man, stop treating your baseless opinion as fact please?


As of now, the right to marry pertains to man-woman. As such gays are not being restricted in their rights...they are treated the same as I am.

Once they get their way...that legal definition is changed to include their view...THEN you have a point.

Cause THEN if states do not recognize gay-marriage they would go against a legally granted right.




And thanks for negging me Pretty Good Satan..if my posts are so full of ""epic phail"" I am sure you have no trouble ending this discussion in your sides favour?

somehow i guess you dont even dare to enter this debate cause you know jack shit about the matter and you know you are absolutely no match for me.

[Hwon]

Sigh...

Argument #1: Its not discrimination because everyone has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Rebuttal: Restrictions equally applied to everyone has nothing to do with whether or not those restrictions violate civil rights.

Argument #2: Marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman.

Rebuttal: The age or length of time a tradition has been upheld is not an argument for constitutionality. Its a logical fallacy to accept that because its always been this way that its correct. Obvious comparisons would be with slavery or women's right to vote. Also, the definition of marriage varies from culture to culture and has changed throughout history.

Argument #3: It should be left up to the majority to decided what the legal definition of marriage is.

Rebuttal: The United States is a constitutional government beyond all else. It operates under a democratic republic by which representatives are elected to uphold the constitution. The constitution is the fundamental law and authority and as such civil rights issues are not decided by the majority.

Argument #4: Civil Unions can be or are equal to marriage.

Rebuttal: Despite the fact there is already a Supreme Court ruling stating seperate is not equal because an equal set of protections and rights given under another title has no purpose or motive other then to make it unequal, but also Civil Unions are far from being equal to marriage.

Summary: The fundamental issue and problem with same-sex marriage bans is the lack of understanding of what marriage is legally. Marriage is a contract plan and simple. It is a contract that outlines shared ownership and responsibilities of a spouse. The government takes interests in such contracts to protect the couple's agreement and the individuals when the contract is not honored. For those who argue against same-sex marriage I dare you to list what legal marriage is for and then come back and argue for why same-sex couples don't deserve the same treatment.

[Talon.]

Personally, im quite sick of society treating gays/lesbians like theyre less than heterosexuals. and the fact that, if im not mistsken, Cali has the highest population of gays/lesbians in the country makes the politicians of the state look like they need to get smacked back into reality.

[Daddy☆Naru]

Mutherfuckers.

Seconded.

This whole mess may not affect good old Canada, but denying the right to marry is just plain fucked up.

I'm just speechless... That's all i have to add to that.

[Seto Kaiba]

=OPINION, now ARGUMENT your OPINION!

I already clearly showed the difference between discrimination and differentiation....unless you favor it or disadvantage it, it is not discrimination.
you can call something different yet treat it equally. As such it will not be discrimination.

this is the case with equal civil union.

I THEN propose normal democratic process to take place on what is a definition issue.

AGAIN this is as equal as you can get.

I am getting pissed off because you basically accuse me of discrimination only because i call something i view different, differentely.

And I explained how it could become discrimination.

It's ridiculous to have popular vote on a person's rights.

It's hardly equal.

You basically saying they could have marriage yet not call it as such.

stop dodging the issue....seriously...

also
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_union

some countries do have equal civil union or come awfully close.

so again...what arguments do you have?? I am not discriminating in this case if im treating them equally am i??

Some countries fortunately have recognized gay marriage, some even less civil unions, but a civil union isn't a marriage. In regards to the U.S., most states gays can't have any form of legal union or recognition of it. You keep asking about a hypothetical scenario of "equal civil union". All I'm going to answer you is it's basically giving them the right to marry, the only one being nitpicky about definitions in that case are the ones who refuse to see it as marriage.

they CAN get married. different state, different country, personal ceremony..
again..please be precise in your wording..... You make it seem like the anti-miscegenation laws again ffs. still trying to ty it to rascism huh? very funny.

They can't have a federally recognized marriage, can't get married in most states or have any legally recognized union in general. I already am aware that holding ceremonies isn't criminal for them, but they can't have their marriage recognized in terms of the law.

That change is due to people interpreting the laws differentely. Even changing the laws as their views change.

there is NOTHING in the rulings during Loving etc. that directly states that gays have the fundamental right to have their union recognized by law.


I didn't state that it was Loving stated gays have a fundamental right to marry, I used interracial marriage as an example of marriage being given given as a right to more than what used to be white-man/white-woman.

As of now, the right to marry pertains to man-woman. As such gays are not being restricted in their rights...they are treated the same as I am.

Marriage pertaining to man-woman is restricting gays to marry.

[Lord of Fire]

How about answering my post that was aimed directly at you?

yeah there too many post hating on me so i dont know what your post is

[Xyloxi]

yeah there too many post hating on me so i dont know what your post is

Its not what you, its waht you're saying. You're on an anime forum, you're not going to find many of what you'd call Conservatives on here, its a different demographic. You're more likely to find more Conservatives (what you'd classify as one) on a religious based or a forum with an older demographic.

[Zabuzalives]

Sigh...

Argument #1: Its not discrimination because everyone has the same right to marry someone of the opposite sex.

Rebuttal: Restrictions equally applied to everyone has nothing to do with whether or not those restrictions violate civil rights.

Argument: it is not a restriction of an established right...you want to expand on the established civil right set by rulings like Loving.

Argument #2: Marriage has always been defined as between a man and a woman.

Rebuttal: The age or length of time a tradition has been upheld is not an argument for constitutionality. Its a logical fallacy to accept that because its always been this way that its correct. Obvious comparisons would be with slavery or women's right to vote. Also, the definition of marriage varies from culture to culture and has changed throughout history.

Argument: yes if you put it like that its purely appeal to tradition..though i stated that myself.

It does matter in that a large part of the voters grew up under a definition that is to them structurally changed if it would include gay-marriage.

To many of them, they call something different, different. How is this discrimination in a hypothetical situation where the law treats both equally?

Argument #3: It should be left up to the majority to decided what the legal definition of marriage is.

Rebuttal: The United States is a constitutional government beyond all else. It operates under a democratic republic by which representatives are elected to uphold the constitution. The constitution is the fundamental law and authority and as such civil rights issues are not decided by the majority.

Argument: I know that if rights are attacked or restricted, popular vote goes out of the window as should be, i am not promoting a full democracy here.

I question if rights are even restricted. One shared by majority of judges so far.

If this is not the case...normal democratic process should take place else you are giving special rights to your group.

there is no fundamental right to have your personal definitions incorporated into law/recognized by law.


Argument #4: Civil Unions can be or are equal to marriage.

Rebuttal: Despite the fact there is already a Supreme Court ruling stating seperate is not equal because an equal set of protections and rights given under another title has no purpose or motive other then to make it unequal, but also Civil Unions are far from being equal to marriage.

link??
I had not seen anything about how calling it different is ruled seperate but equal.
and ""has no other purpose or motive then to make it unequal"" which is BS cause that is not my motive at all.

segregation=/=differentiating lets just get that clear.


Summary: The fundamental issue and problem with same-sex marriage bans is the lack of understanding of what marriage is legally. Marriage is a contract plan and simple. It is a contract that outlines shared ownership and responsibilities of a spouse. The government takes interests in such contracts to protect the couple's agreement and the individuals when the contract is not honored. For those who argue against same-sex marriage I dare you to list what legal marriage is for and then come back and argue for why same-sex couples don't deserve the same treatment.

the homosexual individuals get (i believe atleast) equal treatment. They get the same status, only we leave pure matters of definition over to democratic process due to matters of practicality.

""dont deserve"" has nothing to do with it.

[Jiratic]

Zabuza let me end your silly homophobic tirade as quickly as possible.
You people make me sick, you rarely have the courage to call a spade a spade.
Marriage has never been about religion, it is just a civil institution.
Don't give me this civil union BS, its like giving gold to all hetero's and silver to all homosexuals, but calling the silver gold.
It just doesn't add up.
See 'separate but equal concept'

NOONE is forcing churches to marry homosexuals, all they want is the legal benefits of marriage- especially the fact that it s recognised nationwide.

How the hell can any REASONABLE person deny them the right to be recognised legally, church goers can continue to not recognise them, BUT WHO CARES?

Just come out of the woodwork and say you're homophobes already...

[Zabuzalives]

And I explained how it could become discrimination.

slippery slope fallacy

It's ridiculous to have popular vote on a person's rights.

if they are not discriminated and not restricted in their marriage right set by Loving vs Virginia...and under the hypothetical situation of a gay-union having similar status/benefits....

they are voting on definition...not on a persons rights...

you keep saying their rights are under attack...but then fail to base this with anything substantial....i give definitions and court rulings...you only repeat your opinion.

It's hardly equal.


why not? in the hypothetical situation it has same status, same benefits and rights.

should we call everything the same now because else we are treating it unequal and discriminating? Please.
You can call something different yet treat them equally

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/equal
""a. Having the same privileges, status, or rights""

You basically saying they could have marriage yet not call it as such.

no i am not. there is no restriction of personal freedom. They can call it what they want.

what happens is the law calls it different yet treats it equal.
This is based then on democratic process. How definitions normally change in law if a new definition gets used by enough people.

You cant have every relatively new minority definition change the law. There is no inherent right to have your views recognized by the law


Some countries fortunately have recognized gay marriage, some even less civil unions, but a civil union isn't a marriage. In regards to the U.S., most states gays can't have any form of legal union or recognition of it. You keep asking about a hypothetical scenario of "equal civil union". All I'm going to answer you is it's basically giving them the right to marry, the only one being nitpicky about definitions in that case are the ones who refuse to see it as marriage.

so you agree its nitpicking...instead of a restriction of right and awful discrimination??

I could say the same about you guys. Why not have democratic process take its course? Convince people that its a form of marriage.
Why do you need to twist around laws and rights just so you can get your view into the law??

Its the pot calling the Kettle black. The Title of marriage is pretty important in your group as well.

They can't have a federally recognized marriage,

yes they can...exactly as the right to marry was intended

Again..if i say :everyone gets a free saw"" people crying they do not get what I view as hammers...dont have much of a case.

The correct wording is...they do not get their union recognized as marriage by the law....

well no shit. There is no inherent right to have your eprsonal definition implemented into law when there are no rights at stake.

can't get married in most states or have any legally recognized union in general. I already am aware that holding ceremonies isn't criminal for them, but they can't have their marriage recognized in terms of the law.

their ""marriage"" could get recognized by the law..but as equal civil union.
They would grant it the status of marriage, but call it differentely cause it does not fit definition of marriage.

I didn't state that it was Loving stated gays have a fundamental right to marry, I used interracial marriage as an example of marriage being given given as a right to more than what used to be white-man/white-woman.

Which is the vague overall change...which means little.

What matters are the grounds and court rulings that CAUSED that change...what exactly was said? the exact wording...cause i already know it is NOT how you word it now.

that is just you interpreting and extrapolating rulings to suit your view.


Marriage pertaining to man-woman is restricting gays to marry.

they cant form a union of two homosexuals and have it be seen as marriage by law. Though that is changeable by democratic process.

how is the right to marry restricted?
everybody is entitled to a saw...not also a hammer

you want to expand on formerly given rights.






Zabuza let me end your silly homophobic tirade as quickly as possible.
You people make me sick, you rarely have the courage to call a spade a spade.

I used to see marriage as man-woman, being the cornerstone for a family.

Others are more religious, with the whole Go forth and reproduce under the blessing of God etc.

well...reproducing is kinda hard for two homosexuals...
And do you actually think religious people see gay-union as a form of marriage??
Homosexuality is a sin while marriage is sacred. DO you think their brain is wired to link those together easily?

the differences are of such a magnitude that it does not fit their definition of marriage. Seeing thats the case they call it differentely.

I call a spade a spade and an axe an axe
Now im a bigot and coward for not calling the axe a spade???

please get over yourself..not everyone shares your definition and views.....


Marriage has never been about religion,it is just a civil institution.

history disagrees.

besides. even legal marriage, the civil institution cannot be changed on a whim. You cant change laws based on only appeal to novelty.


Don't give me this civil union BS, its like giving gold to all hetero's and silver to all homosexuals, but calling the silver gold.
It just doesn't add up.

wrong analogy. the silver is of clear inferior quality and lesser status.

and equal civil union would not be.

See 'separate but equal concept'

seperate=/=differentiating

NOONE is forcing churches to marry homosexuals, all they want is the legal benefits of marriage- especially the fact that it s recognised nationwide.

AND they want the title marriage.their views incorporated into law.

Fine with me, but do so properly and do not twist legal argumentation and abuse sentiments to acquire that change.


How the hell can any REASONABLE person deny them the right to be recognised legally, church goers can continue to not recognise them, BUT WHO CARES?

sets a terrible precedent when change is based on flawed reasoning and incorrect interpretation of law.

i am not denying them change, i want change to take place correctly.


Just come out of the woodwork and say you're homophobes already...

If i am a discriminating bigot wanting segregation when I only differentiate between two (different) things....then so be it

these accusations are so quickly and inappropiately used they hardly have any impact or value to me anymore.

Its baseless mud throwing to try and discredit the other party.

""just come out of the woodwork and say you're an unpatriottic, satanist who preys on our children already""

see i can fling around crap as well.

[Xyloxi]

Zabuza let me end your silly homophobic tirade as quickly as possible.
You people make me sick, you rarely have the courage to call a spade a spade.
Marriage has never been about religion, it is just a civil institution.
Don't give me this civil union BS, its like giving gold to all hetero's and silver to all homosexuals, but calling the silver gold.
It just doesn't add up.
See 'separate but equal concept'

NOONE is forcing churches to marry homosexuals, all they want is the legal benefits of marriage- especially the fact that it s recognised nationwide.

How the hell can any REASONABLE person deny them the right to be recognised legally, church goers can continue to not recognise them, BUT WHO CARES?

Just come out of the closet and say you're homophobes already...

Fixed, and about that equal lulz you're spewing Zabuza, if it was equal status, it'd be called marriage.

[FreshBaked]

Zabuza, I agree that marriage should only be between couples who can reproduce. We've gotten the gays under control, but what about all those barren/child-free folks? If they can't give birth, they don't deserve to be married, amirite?

[Zabuzalives]

Fixed, and about that equal lulz you're spewing Zabuza, if it was equal status, it'd be called marriage.

so something is only equal if we define it as the same thing? Thats bullshit.

differentiate, look it up.
you can call something different yet treat it equal in light of benefits and rights.

treating it equal=/=calling it the same!!! its not that hard of a concept to understand.....:notrust
you can treat it equal yet call it differentely, just as you can call it the same but still treat it unequally.


Or maybe to avoid being politically incorrect..we should call everything ""it"". Cause we dont want to differentiate!!...nonono cause that is bigotry and segregation. :cry

I differentiate between genders too. does that make me sexist? You do realize there are factual differences between the genders?
Calling something different because of factual differences stands independant from how you treat it in practice....

This is no different from calling a saw a saw and a hammer a hammer.


Zabuza, I agree that marriage should only be between couples who can reproduce. We've gotten the gays under control, but what about all those barren/child-free folks? If they can't give birth, they don't deserve to be married, amirite?


straw man

[Neco]

I've always kind of had the philosophy that if its not hurting anyone...leave it be. The government is infringing on it's limits of power when they try to say who can and cannot marry. Whats next arranged marriages?

[Lord of Fire]

Its not what you, its waht you're saying. You're on an anime forum, you're not going to find many of what you'd call Conservatives on here, its a different demographic. You're more likely to find more Conservatives (what you'd classify as one) on a religious based or a forum with an older demographic.

nah because you guys chased all the conservatives away so im goin to stay because gotta try and balance it out

[FreshBaked]

straw man

You just said marriage should only be between people who can reproduce.

[ZeroBlack]

I'm starting to lose faith in California....

[Lord of Fire]

this is gotta be one of the smartest decision Kally has made in a while

[ZeroBlack]

this is gotta be one of the smartest decision Kally has made in a while

...........
Not at all.

[-MBS-]

So this threads still alive eh. :huh

[Lord of Fire]

^ not really just posting so some liberal will come bash me or something and then i can get banned when i defend my self

[Tsukiyomi]

I have a question for those of you who are anti-gay marriage. Even if you ban it now across the country, how long do you really think that's going to last? Civil rights battles like this have a pretty solid history of always eventually going to the oppressed minority over the oppressing majority.

I mean think about it, years ago being gay would have gotten you a jail sentence in parts of this country. Same thing with interracial marriage, it was a felony in parts of the country.

Most kids polled these days are in favor of gay marriage, and they're going to be the ones setting the laws in the future.

So how long do you really think any "victory" you gain here will really last?

[LouDAgreat]

^ not really just posting so some liberal will come bash me or something and then i can get banned when i defend my self

I strongly disagree with you on your stance on gay marriage. But, it would be wrong for you to get banned on stating your beliefs....no matter how much they don't make sense, no matter how much they don't stand towards values of individual liberty and responsibility, and nor how much they don't stand towards consenting parties engaging in contracts freely.

[Lord of Fire]

I have a question for those of you who are anti-gay marriage. Even if you ban it now across the country, how long do you really think that's going to last? Civil rights battles like this have a pretty solid history of always eventually going to the oppressed minority over the oppressing majority.

I mean think about it, years ago being gay would have gotten you a jail sentence in parts of this country. Same thing with interracial marriage, it was a felony in parts of the country.

Most kids polled these days are in favor of gay marriage, and they're going to be the ones setting the laws in the future.

So how long do you really think any "victory" you gain here will really last?

this isnt civil rights mlk was civil rights this is marriage

[ZeroBlack]

this isnt civil rights mlk was civil rights this is marriage

Marriage is part of civil rights, every citizen has the right to get married to who they want. Interracial marraige was about marriage and it counts under civil rights.

[Tsukiyomi]

this isnt civil rights mlk was civil rights this is marriage

How was interracial marriage not "marriage"? Its still about denying marriage to a particular group of people while allowing it for others simply because they belong to that group.

And you may not view it as a civil rights issue by millions do. Do you really think all the people trying to keep schools and relationships segregated thought it was a civil rights issue? No, they probably thought "this isn't civil rights, this is schools" or "this isn't civil rights its racial purity and integrity".

Marriage grants rights, and you're denying those rights to gay people.

As I said, most kids polled are in favor of gay marriage, future generations always get gradually more liberal.

[Lord of Fire]

Marriage is part of civil rights, every citizen has the right to get married to who they want. Interracial marraige was about marriage and it counts under civil rights.

again but where we talking about interracial marriage there not the same issue

[Tsukiyomi]

again but where we talking about interracial marriage there not the same issue

Its denying marriage to a group of people simply because they are part of that group. How exactly is that different?

That's like saying denying a seat at the front of the bus to an asian guy is different than denying it to a black guy. It doesn't matter that they're different groups, you're still denying them something because they're a member of that group.

[Kyasurin Yakuto]

I hope prop 8 dies because I'm tired of seeing gay people getting discriminated against.

I have a question for those of you who are anti-gay marriage. Even if you ban it now across the country, how long do you really think that's going to last? Civil rights battles like this have a pretty solid history of always eventually going to the oppressed minority over the oppressing majority.

I mean think about it, years ago being gay would have gotten you a jail sentence in parts of this country. Same thing with interracial marriage, it was a felony in parts of the country.

Most kids polled these days are in favor of gay marriage, and they're going to be the ones setting the laws in the future.

So how long do you really think any "victory" you gain here will really last?

Yeah most young people are more accepting of these things. It's mostly the older generation that's holding onto these beliefs.

[Zabuzalives]

You just said marriage should only be between people who can reproduce.

I would work on your reading comprehension if I were you.
I didnt say anything like that.

[Hwon]

Argument: it is not a restriction of an established right...you want to expand on the established civil right set by rulings like Loving.

All individual rights are established by the Constitution or by legislation. Court rulings like loving did not expanding on any right, but recognized or clarified the extent of certain rights while striking down unconstitutional laws.

Argument: yes if you put it like that its purely appeal to tradition..though i stated that myself.

It does matter in that a large part of the voters grew up under a definition that is to them structurally changed if it would include gay-marriage.

Legally it doesn't matter what people grew up with or what they want it to mean. Rights > opinion.

Argument: I know that if rights are attacked or restricted, popular vote goes out of the window as should be, i am not promoting a full democracy here.

I question if rights are even restricted. One shared by majority of judges so far.

If this is not the case...normal democratic process should take place else you are giving special rights to your group.

there is no fundamental right to have your personal definitions incorporated into law/recognized by law.

Again, you are falling back on a fallacy. Just because a majority or even judges are of the opinion that it is not a violation of a right doesn't then dismiss the merits of the arguments that it is. Even Supreme Court decisions are reversable when the judges presented obvious biased in their reasoning or lack there of.

Also, you don't understand that there is no special group. That again is part of the fundamental misconception about this issue. Tim can't marry Bob, but Sarah can. Sarah can't marry Alice, but Tim can. That's not equal because the choice to marry whom you please is restricted based on gender and sexual orientation. There has yet to be a justified legal reason to restrict the choice to whom you wish to marry if all parties are legally capable of doing so.

You are correct that there is no fundamental right to have personal definition incorporated or recognized by law. No one had the right to demand that marriage ever be recognized legally. However, once the government started recognizing any marriage it was obligated by the constitution to honor alternative and equal forms as well. Plus, those who actively oppose same-sex marriage are the ones using legislation to ban those marriages by defining it legally with their definition.

link??
I had not seen anything about how calling it different is ruled seperate but equal.
and ""has no other purpose or motive then to make it unequal"" which is BS cause that is not my motive at all.

segregation=/=differentiating lets just get that clear.

Brown vs. BoE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education)

Brown was about segregation, but the fundamental issue underneath all of it was discrimination. The implications of brown from which further ruling were made are that it is not the role of the government to discriminate on the basis of race. It did not matter if the segregation was equal it was never the duty of the government to make it law or to be involved. Just as it is not the duty of the government to discriminate based on gender or sexual orientation. It does not matter if Civil Unions are equal in every possible way it is not the duty of the government to make additional law just to protect the meaning of a word for some people.

Do tell me what is the legal purpose for creating Civil Unions instead of using marriage and show me where it states its the governments duty to do such a thing.

Regardless, Civil Unions are still not equal just as segregation was not equal. You can debate your hypotheticals while in reality rights are restricted.

the homosexual individuals get (i believe atleast) equal treatment. They get the same status, only we leave pure matters of definition over to democratic process due to matters of practicality.

""dont deserve"" has nothing to do with it.

Its not the role of the government to decide matters of definitions for an equal set of rights nad protections. As I showed above this is expressly unconstitutional regardless of hypothetical equality. Its absurd that 2 people can't enter into a contract because one group of people disagree with the "name" of the contract. You are restricting the actions of some with the opinion of others.

[Zabuzalives]

All individual rights are established by the Constitution or by legislation. Court rulings like loving did not expanding on any right, but recognized or clarified the extent of certain rights while striking down unconstitutional laws.


and they clarified the extent of a right in such a way that does not involve acknowledging gay-union as marriage....

you want to expand on the extent of a right, mainly by changing majority judges interpretation of marriage laws.


Legally it doesn't matter what people grew up with or what they want it to mean. Rights > opinion.

IF there are even rights restricted with equal civil union

My point was that they do not call ""a spade a spade"" out of spite as some have argued in this thread.
Unlike with the interracial marriages they dont see this as a form of marriage that must be outlawed...no they dont see it as a form of marriage at all.
they would call a saw a saw and a hammer a hammer.

nothing discriminatory about it, and if there are also no rights restricted we have appeal to novelty vs appeal to tradition, which should bre resolved through democratic means. The group with the new definition must be sufficiently large to warrant changing laws else the law gets incomprehensive and unpractical and you waste money doing that.


Again, you are falling back on a fallacy. Just because a majority or even judges are of the opinion that it is not a violation of a right doesn't then dismiss the merits of the arguments that it is. Even Supreme Court decisions are reversable when the judges presented obvious biased in their reasoning or lack there of.

pointing out that there is disagreement on how exactly to interpret certain rulings and rights is a fallacy? :laugh


people keep bringing up rights>opinion as a rebuttal....while the premise of those calling for democratic process is that there are NO rights restricted.

So the rebuttal does not apply to the point AT ALL. You are basically summing up something I agree with do you realize that?? We just differ in our opinion that rights are restricted or not....

the rebuttal should be about WHY there are rights restricted.
Only if people agree rights are restricted yet still ask for democratic process does the rebuttal make any sense.

As you use it now you act like its more or less a fact that rights are restricted. Which is why i pointed out that this is not the case at all as it is open to interpretation and there is no consensus.

Also, you don't understand that there is no special group. That again is part of the fundamental misconception about this issue. Tim can't marry Bob, but Sarah can. Sarah can't marry Alice, but Tim can.

wording it like that makes it seem personal freedom is restricted, while in fact its only about law defining your union as marriage.

That's not equal because the choice to marry whom you please is restricted based on gender and sexual orientation.

ruling was about laws banning form of marriage. This is about calling something different, different.

if by law everyone has a right to a free saw...(marriage)
you then want a hammer (gay union) to be called a saw by law so you can have a free hammer.
Not complying with what you want does not restrict your right to a free saw.


There has yet to be a justified legal reason to restrict the choice to whom you wish to marry if all parties are legally capable of doing so.

they can have a personal marriage. this isnt like the laws banning a form of marriage, this is about acknowledging something different as a form of marriage or not.

You are correct that there is no fundamental right to have personal definition incorporated or recognized by law. No one had the right to demand that marriage ever be recognized legally. However, once the government started recognizing any marriage it was obligated by the constitution to honor alternative and equal forms as well.

honor them doesnt meant call them the same. You can grant them equal status/benefits, call it differentely.

Plus, those who actively oppose same-sex marriage are the ones using legislation to ban those marriages by defining it legally with their definition.


as i said, if its just a definition issue leave it to normal democratic process.


Brown vs. BoE (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brown_v._Board_of_Education)

Brown was about segregation,

we have a winner

you are comparing a form of segregation to a form of differentiation.

but the fundamental issue underneath all of it was discrimination. The implications of brown from which further ruling were made are that it is not the role of the government to discriminate on the basis of race. It did not matter if the segregation was equal it was never the duty of the government to make it law or to be involved. Just as it is not the duty of the government to discriminate based on gender or sexual orientation. It does not matter if Civil Unions are equal in every possible way it is not the duty of the government to make additional law just to protect the meaning of a word for some people.

I am not discriminating based on sexual orientation or gender.
infact..you dont 100% know their sexual orientation once forming a certain union.

I am differentiating between certain unions because of the structural difference. the building blocks are different.


Do tell me what is the legal purpose for creating Civil Unions instead of using marriage and show me where it states its the governments duty to do such a thing.

any law purely about definition should be influenced by democratic process. go through legal scrutiny if this is required.

the legal purpose is to get equal treatment.
calling it marriage would get them equal treatment as well, but then you also change the law to implement a personal view/definition. Something you should not do without just cause and something seperate from the rights issue.


Regardless, Civil Unions are still not equal just as segregation was not equal. You can debate your hypotheticals while in reality rights are restricted.

I will, cause its interesting to see how people view the matter and their arguments.
Can you call something different yet treat it equal? is calling something different inherently discrimination? etc.

Difference in rights and benefits between civil union and marriage varies greatly. UK and New Zealand come pretty close to equal civil union scenario.

I do wonder if you would not have had equal civil union if you just focused on equal rights...instead of equal rights+title of marriage

Its not the role of the government to decide matters of definitions for an equal set of rights nad protections.
As I showed above this is expressly unconstitutional regardless of hypothetical equality.

showed me? you compare the situation to segregation.


Its absurd that 2 people can't enter into a contract because one group of people disagree with the "name" of the contract. You are restricting the actions of some with the opinion of others.

they can enter into a contract.

personal wedding, legally marry as legal marriage is defined.

the law shouldnt change because a small minority wants their different views and definitions recognized by the law.

when its 47% having the different definition it should be implemented. It should only be blocked if there is a mass majority against.
(thats why im not entirely happy with prop8)

[Hisagi]

down with prop 8 fuckers :fu

[fghj]

Fucking fags.

[Grrblt]

Fucking fags.

Yes, this thread is about fucking fags.

[Pilaf]

Fucking fags.

You have sex with cigarettes? You Moose Limbs are much friskier than I thought!

[-MBS-]

Fucking fags.

:rotfl ....

[Xyloxi]

^ not really just posting so some liberal will come bash me or something and then i can get banned when i defend my self

Lol, liberals. :LOS

this isnt civil rights mlk was civil rights this is marriage

I suppose mlk is the only civil rights ever, what about Catholic in Northern Ireland wanting equality (not the IRA)?

nah because you guys chased all the conservatives away so im goin to stay because gotta try and balance it out

Thats because they A, don't post on social issues much anymore or B, this is an anime forum where 95% of the population are yaoi fangirls. To be honest, I'd say the majority of the population of NF are Conservatives, smile you have a conservative president. :zaru

You have sex with cigarettes? You Moose Limbs are much friskier than I thought!

Rule 34.

[Lord of Fire]

Lol, liberals. :LOS



I suppose mlk is the only civil rights ever, what about Catholic in Northern Ireland wanting equality (not the IRA)?
i would count that


Thats because they A, don't post on social issues much anymore or B, this is an anime forum where 95% of the population are yaoi fangirls. To be honest, I'd say the majority of the population of NF are Conservatives, smile you have a conservative president. :zaru



Rule 34.

who is the president ?and i doubt it because alotta theses people are gay or pro gay

[Xyloxi]

who is the president ?and i doubt it because alotta theses people are gay or pro gay

A member of a Conservative party. So you've never seen a gay Conservative before? :uwah Or one that was in favour of gay rights?

[Lord of Fire]

A member of a Conservative party. So you've never seen a gay Conservative before? :uwah Or one that was in favour of gay rights?

nah i just don't believe in them there not true conservatives to me

[AlexaStar]

Gay people should have the right to marry no matter what! Nobody should prohibit gay marriage!

[Xyloxi]

nah i just don't believe in them there not true conservatives to me

I can find plenty of Gay Conservatives or Conservatives MP's who voted for gay rights.

[Tsukiyomi]

Zabuzalives, you still haven't shown how making gay people enter into different unions than straight people is any different then making black people use different water fountains then whites.

You're still forcing a small group of people to a different set of standards simply because they belong to that group.

[Zabuzalives]

Zabuzalives, you still haven't shown how making gay people enter into different unions than straight people is any different then making black people use different water fountains then whites.

You're still forcing a small group of people to a different set of standards simply because they belong to that group.

i am not forcing them into a different union at all
I leave a matter of definition up to democratic process.

And the comparison is off seeing how gay people have access to my ""fountain"" (marrying as defined man-woman) just as i have access to theirs. (committing to a gay-union).

Segregation=/=differentiation.

And to undermine your point even further..this differentiation is not done on sexual orientation of a person..it is done due to the building blocks of the union. Namely same-sex or opposite sex.

I am differentiating between unions.
Not discriminating against gays as persons or a group.

You might claim i am ""discriminating"" between unions, (you same-sex union discriminator!!!:cry takes the edge of the accusation does it not?) but this is only if I treat them unequal, which in case of equal civil union I do not.

[Xyloxi]

i am not forcing them into a different union at all
I leave a matter of definition up to democratic process.

And the comparison is off seeing how gay people have access to my ""fountain"" (marrying as defined man-woman) just as i have access to theirs. (committing to a gay-union).

Segregation=/=differentiation.

And to undermine your point even further..this differentiation is not done on sexual orientation of a person..it is done due to the building blocks of the union. Namely same-sex or opposite sex.

I am differentiating between unions.
Not discriminating against gays as persons or a group.

You might claim i am ""discriminating"" between unions, (you same-sex union discriminator!!!:cry takes the edge of the accusation does it not?) but this is only if I treat them unequal, which in case of equal civil union I do not.

Do you not understand that a civil union is unequal? If it was equal, it would be called marriage and not something else. :edu

[Zabuzalives]

Do you not understand that a civil union is unequal? If it was equal, it would be called marriage and not something else. :edu

I clearly pointed out that you can call something different yet treat it equal several times in this thread.
Used definitions, examples, and explained the logic behind it.

I can call something different yet treat it equal.
Man-woman, saw-hammer.

Just like i can call something the same but still treat it unequal. (more akin to segregation, where we both get fountains but yours are inferior)

if this doesnt clearly show that equal treatment is not tied to naming it the same...then i do not know what will.


You guys actually convinced yourself that not naming something the same is discrimination, its hilarious.

[LouDAgreat]

You guys actually convinced yourself that not naming something the same is discrimination, its hilarious.

I can only imagine how a politician can use those different terms "Marriages" "Unions" as a way to favor one term over another in a future legislation to afford new rights to couples.

"These sets of rights are afforded to Married couples" Unionized couples not included"

What's to stop a politician from doing that? Logic? What's logic to a politician that's homophobic, or has his moral values inscribed into his head?

[Tsukiyomi]

i am not forcing them into a different union at all
I leave a matter of definition up to democratic process.

The democratic process? So if the "democratic process" wanted to ban blacks from marrying whites thats ok? There is a reason we don't leave everything up to popular vote.

And the comparison is off seeing how gay people have access to my ""fountain"" (marrying as defined man-woman) just as i have access to theirs. (committing to a gay-union).

So the fact that they get to choose between what you want to offer:

1.) A relationship they don't want (a gay person won't want to be in a straight relationship)

or

2.) A relationship where they get a fraction of the rights

You somehow think that makes it ok? How do you figure?

Segregation=/=differentiation.

So if I only sell one type of food to black people and another to white people thats fine? I meant thats just "differentitation".

And to undermine your point even further..this differentiation is not done on sexual orientation of a person..it is done due to the building blocks of the union. Namely same-sex or opposite sex.

I am differentiating between unions.
Not discriminating against gays as persons or a group.

You might claim i am ""discriminating"" between unions, (you same-sex union discriminator!!! takes the edge of the accusation does it not?) but this is only if I treat them unequal, which in case of equal civil union I do not.[/quote]

I wasn't aware that all that mattered was how YOU treated them. See I was under the impression it was a matter of legal rights, and civil unions are not even close to the same level of legal rights and priviledges as marriage.

Also you haven't answered my other question. How long do you think any "victory" you win here would last? Civil rights issues like this have a strong history of coming out in favor of the oppressed minority. Most children polled on the issue say they favor gay marriage and they're going to be the ones setting the laws in the future.

[Zabuzalives]

I can only imagine how a politician can use those different terms "Marriages" "Unions" as a way to favor one term over another in a future legislation to afford new rights to couples.

"These sets of rights are afforded to Married couples" Unionized couples not included"

What's to stop a politician from doing that? Logic? What's logic to a politician that's homophobic, or has his moral values inscribed into his head?

Its about how the judges will react.

granting different rights and benefits to one union and not to another must then pass intermediate/high scrutiny (probably). why are you granting fewer rights to a same sex couple?
In this case you make the facility second class. Here your ""segregation"" comparisons actually start to make sense.

under this kind of scrutiny you would need proper legal argumentation, logical governmental interests. Which would be very hard.

Also, i dont see how you cannot get a federal law/country wide law stating that the unions need to have equal status which is then enforced over states.

If you can get a court ruling enforcing states about equal rights+name. then you surely can do the same when its just about equal rights.


But if you have any proof otherwise, show me.
If the system is that flawed and bureuacratic/scattered, i might also find it wise to skip to gay-marriage. Not because of agreeing with your sides arguments, but to avoid the equal civil union ruling being used as a tool for rights abuse/restrictions. It is after all just a matter of definition between equal civil union and marriage.

[Lord of Fire]

I can find plenty of Gay Conservatives or Conservatives MP's who voted for gay rights.

yeah there not true conservatives

[Tsukiyomi]

yeah there not true conservatives

So a person who believes in equal treatment for all under the law can't be a "true conservative"?

[Tokoyami]

yeah there not true scotsmanFIX'D!!!!

/lol 10 char

[Zabuzalives]

The democratic process? So if the "democratic process" wanted to ban blacks from marrying whites thats ok? There is a reason we don't leave everything up to popular vote.

No..thats an entire different scenario where rights and personal freedom are restricted.

rights>vote.


So the fact that they get to choose between what you want to offer:

1.) A relationship they don't want (a gay person won't want to be in a straight relationship)

or

2.) A relationship where they get a fraction of the rights

You somehow think that makes it ok? How do you figure?

i would use union instead of relationship in my wording.

And i dont think thats ok..hence i want equal civil union. So that in 2. they get equal rights.

So if I only sell one type of food to black people and another to white people thats fine? I meant thats just "differentitation".

comparison is off. again you use a situation where one group has no access to the facility of another group.

again your comarison has individual persons where here its about unions.

segregation=/=differentiation...Yes or no?



I wasn't aware that all that mattered was how YOU treated them. See I was under the impression it was a matter of legal rights

I was not making that argument.

I was talking about ""me"" in the position of the court/judges.

You can fill in ""the law"" instead of ""I"" if that makes you feel better. it makes no difference. seems like your dodging the issue now.

, and civil unions are not even close to the same level of legal rights and priviledges as marriage.

which is why I propose an equal civil union!:notrust
I even say so in my argumentation, yet you blatantly ignored the word ""equal""

my argument is based on the premise of an equal civil union used.....IF equal civil union, i feel there is no discrimination is the argumentation....

And how is your response to that? (and many of your side constantly do)
""but current civil unions arent equal""...well no shit!!!
How does that even adress my argument let alone act as a valid rebuttal?? :nuts: notrust

I KNOW many current civil unions are unequal! that is why i propose equal civil marriage in the first place!



Also you haven't answered my other question. How long do you think any "victory" you win here would last? Civil rights issues like this have a strong history of coming out in favor of the oppressed minority. Most children polled on the issue say they favor gay marriage and they're going to be the ones setting the laws in the future.

ehh? you adressed me with that post??

I am not ""anti-gay marriage"", I just oppose having a definition issue be pushed into law based on what I view as BS grounds and claims.
nor do i want to ban it across the country. Why would i do that when I keep saying i want it open to normal democratic process??

Most children defining gay-union as a form of marriage is fine with me. Definitions change over time. Legal definitions should then reflect that change. Nothing wrong with that and in fact a process im in favor of.

I just get annoyed when people cry wolf when ther views and personal definitions is not immediately being adopted into law. And when I bring up the concept of calling something different yet treating it equally, I get brandished as a bigoted discriminating homophobe who wants a new form of segregation.

This is why i debate so strongly on this issue. Cause to compare differentiating to segregation, a definition issue to discrimination... is just retarded.
But will be the norm if we give in (out of political correctness) to this over sensitive, over defensive view of things.

[Tsukiyomi]

ehh? you adressed me with that post??

I am not ""anti-gay marriage"", I just oppose having a definition issue be pushed into law based on what I view as BS grounds and claims.
nor do i want to ban it across the country. Why would i do that when I keep saying i want it open to normal democratic process??

Most children defining gay-union as a form of marriage is fine with me. Definitions change over time. Legal definitions should then reflect that change. Nothing wrong with that and in fact a process im in favor of.

I just get annoyed when people cry wolf when ther views and personal definitions is not immediately being adopted into law. And when I bring up the concept of calling something different yet treating it equally, I get brandished as a bigoted discriminating homophobe who wants a new form of segregation.

This is why i debate so strongly on this issue. Cause to compare differentiating to segregation, a definition issue to discrimination... is just retarded.
But will be the norm if we give in (out of political correctness) to this over sensitive, over defensive view of things.

I'm confused, where is the difference? Both times its being changed because people view it unjust. Where is the difference?

And i'm confused as to why you think a "definition" should be defended by the law.

[Lord of Fire]

So a person who believes in equal treatment for all under the law can't be a "true conservative"?

its not about equal treatment its about family marriage religion

[Tsukiyomi]

its not about equal treatment its about family marriage religion

Thats the EXACT same argument made against interracial marriage. It was no more valid then than it is now.

And you still haven't explained how a person who believes that isn't a "true" conservative. You don't have to take the conservative stance on 100% of the issues to be a conservative. If that were true then few people fit any political label.

[Zabuzalives]

I'm confused, where is the difference? Both times its being changed because people view it unjust. Where is the difference?

And i'm confused as to why you think a "definition" should be defended by the law.

there is a big difference in changing it because you feel calling it different is breaking rights/discrimination.

And it changing to reflect definition changing in society. Not all perceiving gay-marriage as a form of marriage buy this ""differentiation=segregation bs.

in one the change is done on what i view as false grounds, in the other its
following normal democratic process..which fits what i see as a definition issue.
concluding: I have issues with how the change is brought about. How the change is argumented.

And i dont feel law should ""defend"" a definition. I am just asking for proper grounds for a change, else law ends up incomprehensibly broad.

[Tsukiyomi]

there is a big difference in changing it because you feel calling it different is breaking rights/discrimination.

And it changing to reflect definition changing in society. Not all perceiving gay-marriage as a form of marriage buy this ""differentiation=segregation bs.

in one the change is done on what i view as false grounds, in the other its
following normal democratic process..which fits what i see as a definition issue.
concluding: I have issues with how the change is brought about. How the change is argumented.

And i dont feel law should ""defend"" a definition. I am just asking for proper grounds for a change, else law ends up incomprehensibly broad.

Proper grounds for a change? A words definition can be changed at any time for a variety of reasons. Why is making the argument that its current definition is discriminatory not valid?

Also just so we're clear, you don't care about marriage or anything that makes up marriage itself, just the actual word "marriage" that you're defending right?

[Xyloxi]

its not about equal treatment its about family marriage religion

Marriage has to be about religion? No, just no.

yeah there not true conservatives

I thoht being a conservative was about free markets and other fun stuff which is different for each nation e.g. Euroscepticism in the UK.

[lishiyo]

I'm not sure where these religious connotations have come from - we use the word to refer to marriages between couples of any religion or atheists, and as the translation for marriages in non-religious countries. Marriage was never originally about religion (or about romance / love and all that good stuff we attach to it now) in the past, it existed primarily as a civic and social institution - though in the modern era Americans have built a mythos around it.

Part of that mythos is simply "finding true love" - something I hope one day won't be constrained by gender, in the same way our ideal of true love now looks past the person's wealth, social station, looks, ethnicity etc, to see the content of their character (or simply fate :hurr).

I'd also suggest that our remarkable divorce rate is far more harmful to not only its image but the basic integrity of the institution itself. It's very, very lame to complain about the so-called sanctity of marriage when you're the ones marrying then dumping each other after a week. In reality the definition of "marriage" has always been very pragmatic and will allow any two losers of opposite gender to get married, so I'm rather surprised people would raise such a fuss about someone's genitalia (would it make them feel better if one of them cut off their dick and got boob implants?) when there are so many idiots out there taking advantage of the marriage system.

On another note, countries like Spain have legal same-sex marriage, so what do we translate el matrimonio homosexual as, "gay/same-sex marriage" or "civil union"? Are we still going to shudder at calling what everyone else calls marriage by its name? Are we really that prudish? :facepalm Or is marriage in Spain somehow different from our definition of marriage since they don't give a fuck about their gender, in which case why are we still translating matrimonio as marriage?

There are people of all different backgrounds all around the world getting married for a vast variety of reasons; with such a huge range already existent in the meaning of marriage, I highly doubt if their gender contributes so much to a different 'type' of marriage such that a whole new legal word has to be invented for it. (Unless you think gay love is different from straight love, in which case there is no reasoning with you.)

There is no point at all to legal differentiation when they are judged equally under the law and have the exact same content in terms of being the exact same action and effects. They have different agents, which is why one is specified as "same-sex" and the other isn't. If you want to differentiate them in a social context, then that would evolve naturally, and I would bet that we'd just end up calling it as "gay marriage" regardless of what the law defines it as. Because every time someone calls it a "civil union" online, someone will be replying, "it's fucking homo marriage, PC fag". :zaru (And for the sake of the English language - whoever says "they got civil unionized / united / unified" deserves to be shot. :sun)

[Zabuzalives]

Proper grounds for a change? A words definition can be changed at any time for a variety of reasons.

if the reasons are valid.

Why is making the argument that its current definition is discriminatory not valid?

cause it is not. differentiation=/=discrimination


Also just so we're clear, you don't care about marriage or anything that makes up marriage itself,

yes I do. just not enough to make a huge deal over a personal definition.


just the actual word "marriage" that you're defending right?

I am not defending the word marriage as i said before already.
I am defending the proper workings of the law.
I am defending against an overly sensitive, overly defensive group that wants to have matters of definition seen as discrimination, yet are incorrect in this view.

[Lord of Fire]

Thats the EXACT same argument made against interracial marriage. It was no more valid then than it is now.

And you still haven't explained how a person who believes that isn't a "true" conservative. You don't have to take the conservative stance on 100% of the issues to be a conservative. If that were true then few people fit any political label.

that a main issue for true conservatives

[Xyloxi]

that a main issue for true conservatives

So every Conservative who isn't totally against gay rights (or even gay themselves) is not a Conservative?

[Lord of Fire]

pretty much id say :zaru

[Xyloxi]

pretty much id say :zaru

So a large amount of Conservative MPs and even one Conservative prime minister aren't Conservatives?

[Lord of Fire]

yep by my definition id say man :zaru

[Xyloxi]

yep by my definition id say man :zaru

So, if someone belives in free markets and small governments etc and voted mderatly for equal gay rights, they aren't a Conservative? Despite being elected as a Conservative MP?

[Lord of Fire]

dude im joking i just not for it

[Xyloxi]

dude im joking i just not for it

I know we've gone through this, but even same sex unions which aren't related to religion at all?

[Lord of Fire]

im to the point where i dont care sense all the state around me are fucking up letting them get married anyway just like iowa

[Xyloxi]

im to the point where i dont care sense all the state around me are fucking up letting them get married anyway just like iowa

I'd say in the developed world its inevitable.

[Lord of Fire]

I'd say in the developed world its inevitable.

not as long as we got states like California :zaru

[Xyloxi]

not as long as we got states like California :zaru

California will have same sex marriage, to be honest the first state that sprang to mind would have been Texas. :quite

[Lord of Fire]

but seeing as its not going to change anytime soon im ok with that

[Xyloxi]

but seeing as its not going to change anytime soon im ok with that

I can't see it changing till Arnie leaves office.

[Lord of Fire]

yeah and still then i dont thk so

[Xyloxi]

yeah and still then i dont thk so

It depends who the next governer is really, which might depend on Obama's performance over the next few years.

[Lord of Fire]

yeah i really dont know i chose the lesser of the too evils when voting and since i could trust Palin i chose Obama

[Xyloxi]

yeah i really dont know i chose the lesser of the too evils when voting and since i could trust Palin i chose Obama

I don't particularly like Obama that much, but he seems better than McCain who's likely to drop dead and Palin seems too inexperienced of the wider world.

[Lord of Fire]

I don't particularly like Obama that much, but he seems better than McCain who's likely to drop dead and Palin seems too inexperienced of the wider world.

The drop dead comment is over played but McCain had enough experience for the both of them But Palin scared me away from voting with the party

[Xyloxi]

The drop dead comment is over played but McCain had enough experience for the both of them But Palin scared me away from voting with the party

McCain would have had to become more Conservative in the way he governed if he was elected, Palin is just stupid. She thought Africa was a country. :facepalm

[Lord of Fire]

McCain would have had to become more Conservative in the way he governed if he was elected, Palin is just stupid. She thought Africa was a country. :facepalm

she just had a pretty face thats all but who says that doesn't get you far nowadays