Article: California Gay Couples Set To Wed

[Pander Bear]

kal, that's all well and good, but the alternative for gay couple's right now isn't between a libertarian paradise and the nanny state-- its between first and second class citizenship in said nanny state.

 

[Kalash]

kal, that's all well and good, but the alternative for gay couple's right now isn't between a libertarian paradise and the nanny state-- its between first and second class citizenship in said nanny state.

GRRR!!! >_<

Then it's time to rebel?

http://new.revolutioni.st

Freedom is ALWAYS an option.
You just have to be willing to pay for it.

 

[phlegm69]

phlegm, methinks you got one too many labels stuck up your arse...er, ass....uh rear. The point is that if two people love each other and want to be lifelong partners, then they should have access to the same benefits and privileges that heterosexual couples enjoy.

Who are you or anyone else to deny them that?

if they want respect...well then they should respect others?

as for labels stuck up my arse..what about the gays...what do they have up their arses?

 

[phlegm69]

to many RAMBO movies must turn the US queers on

I'm opposed to gay marriage for the opposite reasons...
Gay marriage was NEVER illegal anyway - gay marriages happened anyway.
You didn't get arrested for having a gay wedding/marriage.

Gay marriage has ALWAYS BEEN LEGAL (my lifetime anyway...)

My issue is that "legally forming relationships" rubs me the wrong way. I don't see why the state needs to be involved in a relationship/contract between two private people.

Gotta ask though - what's it matter if two dogs "wed?"

Does it affect your life? At all?
If not - you have no standing to raise a complaint.
Gay marriage was NEVER a legal issue - it never should have become one...
And the state needs to get out of EVERY marriage it's dug its claws into.
Marriage is between a man and a woman.... a man and a man... a woman and a woman......
Or whatever.

A marriage is NOT between a man, woman, and their Country.
Occasionally, it's between a man, woman, and their god.
The Country is NOT a god - and it shouldn't be recognized in a similar manner.
Ever.

I've got to admit, walking through Pride in WeHo last weekend felt... weird.
I swear I was the only non-Obama supporter, and only person there that was against the gay marriage ruling.
Course... I talked to people.
And they said what I thought made sense.
Didn't do much to change their minds though. People want equal privileges (license to do things derived from the state's consent and permission being granted to the "free" individual) - not equal rights.

where the fuck have i denied a legally recognised union between two queers (a queer eye for a straight guy remember!)? eh? i fucking haven't.

i have a problem with the definition of gay relationships.

further.....do you recognise that the word homosexual has diffferent letters in it compared to hetrosexual?

if so you would agree with me.....unless your illiterate.

for fuck's sake....what is the matter with you yanks....you are so pedantic about definitions. all the queers here in australia that i know accept that they cannot be married. they want unions.

finally sunshine...if you want acceptance....remember the majority and respect them...because i'm sure it will be returned.

allah akbar you freaking infidel!

 

[alasdairm]

this is how things should be because this is how they've always been?

even you can't say that with a straight face, surely?



in what sense are gay couples wishing to wed showing no respect? the fact is that you don't like them/hate them/feel threatened by them/whatever so you'll just label anything they do as disrespectful and feel your case is made.

i have a theory. traditionally, gay-bashers have wielded the 'infidelity' club when smiting homosexuals. "they are hedonists", "they are unfaithful", they cry. gay marriage is a huge blow to the anti-gay arsenal because, shock horror, it's gay people wanting to settle down to a life of monogomy and if they do that it's way harder to bash them with the weapons they have at their disposal. the fact is there's no good reason to discriminate against homosexuals wishing to marry and those against gay marriage are just watching the sands run out.

let me ask you a question. given that a gay couple in san francisco getting married does not impact your life in any way whatsoever, why are you so vehemently opposed to them marrying?

i suspect - although obviously i can not be sure - that the answer is a lot closer to home than you're comfortable with?

the irony of your last question would be laughable if it were not so sad (and predictable).

regards

alasdair

 

[alasdairm]

your illiterate

itt: irony



alasdair

 

[Fausty]

tthe marriage act relates to the legally recognised unionn of man and women. you may say language is dynamic....but....marriges between man and woman have been around alot longer than homosexual union. the law of precedence?

Um, I'm quite sure that humans have been forming same-sex pair bonds since before the capacity for spoken language evolved. Like. . . long before.

Where's your "law of precedence" now, vato?

Peace,

Fausty

 

[Kalash]

where the fuck have i denied a legally recognised union between two queers (a queer eye for a straight guy remember!)? eh? i fucking haven't.

i have a problem with the definition of gay relationships.

for fuck's sake....what is the matter with you yanks....you are so pedantic about definitions. all the queers here in australia that i know accept that they cannot be married. they want unions.

So... I'm stuck on definitions - when I don't think we should be using them anyway...
But you're the one that has a problem with the definition of "gay relationships" - as in... "A gay relationship is two members of the same sex having a relationship."
Erm... What kind of problem can you have with a definition? Really - the word is OK, but the definition... Now THAT has to go!
:blink :blink ???

finally sunshine...if you want acceptance....remember the majority and respect them...because i'm sure it will be returned.

I do respect relationships - of everyone...
Enough to want the government to stop regulating them, licensing them (giving permits for people to have relationships), controlling them, and subsidizing certain ones.

It's a matter of respect that I don't care about your personal life - as it is personal... and none of my business...
Just as my personal matters are no business of yours.

What's it matter what I call my relationship with my partner (presuming that I find one some day...)?
Will me, using a different word to define what we have together, change the nature of the relationship?
Will it affect YOUR relationship?

I'd love to find someone to be chesna with.

Though the definition on that page is incomplete...
Chesna is a "close relationship between hara whom have devoted themselves to each other."

Much like an open marriage - however this is more of a soul bonding - the bodies are brought together as well, but the body is less important.
The main thing holding the two together is the connection of the minds and souls.
There is no jealousy - as the connection shared is so deep that matters of the flesh are nothing compared to the connection between the participants.


So... now...
If all gay partnerships were to be labeled as Chesna...
As in...
"We're chesna."
Or... "I'm chesna with XXXXX."

Would you still have an issue with the definition?

What exactly do I have to do to respect you? Recognize your relationship - and ask about it - let you flaunt how straight you are, and how your partnership with your (member of opposite sex) is the ideal that I can never aspire to?
Just because you're straight doesn't mean I have to worship you for being perfect. I'm sure you're not.

What kind of respect are you asking for?

 

[Kalash]

Um, I'm quite sure that humans have been forming same-sex pair bonds since before the capacity for spoken language evolved. Like. . . long before.

Where's your "law of precedence" now, vato?

Peace,

Fausty

Epic of Gilgamesh, what? :blink

 

[Fausty]

polygamy too

This is now officially my favorite post of all time, anywhere.

Concise, clever, pertinent, and just orthogonal enough to stretch the dialog.

Two paws up!

Peace,

Fausty

 

[Kalash]

This is now officially my favorite post of all time, anywhere.

Concise, clever, pertinent, and just orthogonal enough to stretch the dialog.

Two paws up!

Peace,

Fausty

You can have sex with animals all you want...
But you can't marry them!
It'd offend me!!

I mean... if you can do it with an animal, and I do it with another person... that just cheapens it.
It'd make my wife/husband seem more like a... a... PET than a partner!
You're disrespecting my wife/husband by trying to marry a horse/cat/dog/etc.

People don't marry their pets. What kind of sicko are you?


(End of sarcastic rant in attempt to emulate the reaction I'm getting to gay marriage. How'd I do?)

 

[Fausty]

(End of sarcastic rant in attempt to emulate the reaction I'm getting to gay marriage. How'd I do?)

I give you a 6.5 out of 10. There's not enough vitriol in it - gotta have more of that random emotional intensity that's all out of proportion to the direct personal impact it has on your life.

Something like. .

"Listen you sick FREAK don't fucking tell me you want to marry some goddamned dog - that cheapens the roots of the beautiful institution of marriage - God intended marriage to be a holy sacrament between a MAN and a MAN. . . or at least a MAN and something with two legs. Keep your filthy, four-legged fornication the fuck out of my face!"

(ok, a little overboard with the alliteration but hey what can you do?)

Peace,

Fausty

 

[Kalash]

I give you a 6.5 out of 10. There's not enough vitriol in it - gotta have more of that random emotional intensity that's all out of proportion to the direct personal impact it has on your life.

Something like. .

"Listen you sick FREAK don't fucking tell me you want to marry some goddamned dog - that cheapens the roots of the beautiful institution of marriage - God intended marriage to be a holy sacrament between a MAN and a MAN. . . or at least a MAN and something with two legs. Keep your filthy, four-legged fornication the fuck out of my face!"

(ok, a little overboard with the alliteration but hey what can you do?)

Peace,

Fausty

Thanks.
I'll try harder next time.

 

[phlegm69]

ditto

this is how things should be because this is how they've always been?

even you can't say that with a straight face, surely?



in what sense are gay couples wishing to wed showing no respect? the fact is that you don't like them/hate them/feel threatened by them/whatever so you'll just label anything they do as disrespectful and feel your case is made.

i have a theory. traditionally, gay-bashers have wielded the 'infidelity' club when smiting homosexuals. "they are hedonists", "they are unfaithful", they cry. gay marriage is a huge blow to the anti-gay arsenal because, shock horror, it's gay people wanting to settle down to a life of monogomy and if they do that it's way harder to bash them with the weapons they have at their disposal. the fact is there's no good reason to discriminate against homosexuals wishing to marry and those against gay marriage are just watching the sands run out.

let me ask you a question. given that a gay couple in san francisco getting married does not impact your life in any way whatsoever, why are you so vehemently opposed to them marrying?

i suspect - although obviously i can not be sure - that the answer is a lot closer to home than you're comfortable with?

the irony of your last question would be laughable if it were not so sad (and predictable).

regards

alasdair

stop using emotion to justify your case.

you have to look at the facts to properly to comprehend the case for queers not being able to marry.

like i've said before, i could never deny that gay couples do indeed form lasting relationships based on love and mutual caring.

but at the same time, this does not mean that these people should be given access to the FORMALLY recognised marriage enjoyed by heterosexual couples.

here in australia, officially sanctioned marriage HAS been a means of protecting the RIGHTS of the husband and wife and THEIR children.

it has always been the prime mechanism for the proper inheritance of name and property. marriage law was brought into what amounted to a contract so that no matter what the state of feeling between the parents, the children retained basic entitlements. as i said that purpose continues today and is no less necessary.

marriage, to the vast majority of people, is much more than a public declaration of love and sexual exclusivity, although it certainly fills that role.
further, the matrimonial union of a man and women, whether endorsed by state or religion, or both is the basis of a FAMILY.

singling out childless marriages, infertility, or adoptions is just pure quibbling and a daft pretence that a few exceptions counter the weight of the vast majority of cases.

in my opinion gay and lesbian couples are entitled to ceremonies in which they can publicly acknowledge and celebrate their relationships.

however, marriage ain't one of them.

so there you have it my dear friends...the whole truth...nothing but the truth....so help me god.

amen.

 

[Pander Bear]

i lol all over this thread.

Its not like the catholic church is going to extend a holy sacrament to homosexuals. And nobody is forcing you to get a gay marriage. Where does all this outrage come from?

 

[alasdairm]

how things are is not a proof of why things are. also, how things are is not a 100% reliable way to predict how things will be.

where does all this outrage come from indeed?

alasdair

 

[Mariposa]

i lol all over this thread.

Its not like the catholic church is going to extend a holy sacrament to homosexuals. And nobody is forcing you to get a gay marriage. Where does all this outrage come from?

Banga, of course. :D

I came all over this thread!

For various reasons, and in this thread and this thread only, the rules against ad-hominem insults are being slightly bent. Please report anything you find to be out of order in that context. Thank you.

PB: The Catholic Church already extended a "holy sacrament" to homosexuals when it looked the other way as priests sexually abused altar boys.

 

[Kalash]

in my opinion gay and lesbian couples are entitled to ceremonies in which they can publicly acknowledge and celebrate their relationships.

however, marriage ain't one of them.

so there you have it my dear friends...the whole truth...nothing but the truth....so help me god.

amen.

So your opinion is the truth - the fact - and the only unquestionable fact....
And yet... any evidence to the contrary is emotionally responsive?

Am I the only one that doesn't understand this?

Alright - if gay people can have long lasting relationships - why should they be discriminated against by NOT getting the same treatment as a straight couple?

Give me a reason. That's all I'm asking for... Just one based in fact - not moral opinion or religious justification.





Better yet - because that goes against my own arguments...
Give me ONE reason why the state has any business recognizing ANY marriage.
Tell me why people can't come up with their own domestic contracts and leave it at that? Why does the state have to recognize their contract, license the ability to create said contract, and push their own agenda into the mix - rather than leaving the couple open to create the contract, file it, and be done?

Why does the government get to choose what a marriage is and isn't?

 

[Fausty]

marriage, to the vast majority of people, is much more than a public declaration of love and sexual exclusivity, although it certainly fills that role. further, the matrimonial union of a man and women, whether endorsed by state or religion, or both is the basis of a FAMILY.

Soooo. . . a widow raising three children isn't a family?

I'm curious about this "family" thing - your definition seems nice and crisp, which is always a plus. Do you acknowledge that you've also excluded the majority of households from being considered families?

Just wondering. . . though not holding my breath. You've comprehensively ducked every substantive question asked of you in this thread. I'd hardly expect you to start respond directly, all the sudden.

Peace,

Fausty

 

[socko]

phlegm: you have a very narrow idea of what a family is. A gay couple can be a family too. Moreover, they might even have theri own offspring. They can adopt children. One or both might even have children - possibly from a previous hetero relationship, or from artificial insemination. And for all I care, interspecies bestiality groups can be a family too.

Kalash: In the ideal anarcho-libertarian paradise, the govt, in the limited extent that it exists, would not be involved in these things. However, until we have a successful revoluiton, this ruling improves the lives of a lot of people and therefore, this is a good thing.