Article: California Gay Couples Set To Wed

[Pander Bear]

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.

And lets not forget giving communion and last rites to all those repressed homosexuals who couldn't manage to get their marriages annulled. :D

 

[Pander Bear]

The state (not our state, any state) has a vested interest in promoting the propagation of the nation. Therefore, it does make some sense to recognize family structures that produce and raise offspring.

And as for the nature of families: I'd take the two most irresponsible, fucked up, unloving homosexuals in the world over an orphanage or a group home. When conservatives stop pissing and moaning about condoms for Africans, abortion-on-demand, and uncomplicated access to birth control-- we'll have the conversation again, and I'll still have the high ground.

 

[phlegm69]

get over it and move on....hetros are different to gays

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?

you just don't get it do you? it's like me telling you the world is round, yet you continually state that the world is flat....even though the former is correct

like i intelligently pointed out, gays cannot have children. thus, the marriage act that defines hetro relationships CANNOT be applied to gays. if you cannot grasp that i truly feel sorry for you.

instead of attacking me why don't you dissect The Marriage Act and then try and relate it to your inane claims.

at the end of the day why don't you just get over the freaking fact that queer relationships are different to hetero relationships! is it wrong for heteros to want a word that uniquely descibes their relationships? i don't think so...and i'm sure the majority agrees with me.

gays should instead be looking for a term, that is legally/legislatively endorsed, that uniquely defines their relationship and the differing variables involved.

fuck it ain't rocket science

 

[phlegm69]

this one takes the cake

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

you sure offer a great example of cavilling.

in court cases.....is it a case of the majority rules?

the democratic process also follows the process of majority rules.

anyhoos.....your childish argument is refreshing indeed.

 

[Fausty]

like i intelligently pointed out, gays cannot have children. thus, the marriage act that defines hetro relationships CANNOT be applied to gays. if you cannot grasp that i truly feel sorry for you.

Aha, so are you "intelligently" saying that only people who can have children are allowed to get married? You guys must have some sort of standardized fertility testing program down there, to ensure marriage licenses don't accidentally get issued to anyone who can't biologically procreate. And women past menopause?

I'm still waiting for one semi-cogent response from you. One. It's been a long wait, thus far. . .

Peace,

Fausty

 

[phlegm69]

do you f@ck dogs? cos that just might explain soomething.....

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.

that's you educated take on the situation.

can you show me an instance where a gay couple have a child that is biologically linkedd to both partners?

LOL.

i reckon i'll be waiting a loooooooooooong time sunnshine for you to provide some fact.

in the meantime....keep on dreaming.

 

[phlegm69]

another einstein...lets use emotion rather that fact....LOL

Aha, so are you "intelligently" saying that only people who can have children are allowed to get married? You guys must have some sort of standardized fertility testing program down there, to ensure marriage licenses don't accidentally get issued to anyone who can't biologically procreate. And women past menopause?

I'm still waiting for one semi-cogent response from you. One. It's been a long wait, thus far. . .

Peace,

Fausty

the argument is lost on you sunshine. give me an exam ple of a gay couple having a child that is biologically linked to both partners!

till then...i'm not interested in your wet dreams

 

[socko]

can you show me an instance where a gay couple have a child that is biologically linkedd to both partners?

By your logic butterscotch, a relationship between man who marries a woman with a child from a previous relationship (or vice versa) cannot be a family either.

 

[Pander Bear]

The argument that marriage is a contractual property exchange is lost completely on you, isn't it.

And as for leaving straight people something special, isn't living by jesus' side for all eternity, and the joy of putting a penis inside a vagina enough?

 

[tambourine-man]

you just don't get it do you? it's like me telling you the world is round, yet you continually state that the world is flat....even though the former is correct

like i intelligently pointed out, gays cannot have children. thus, the marriage act that defines hetro relationships CANNOT be applied to gays. if you cannot grasp that i truly feel sorry for you.

instead of attacking me why don't you dissect The Marriage Act and then try and relate it to your inane claims.

at the end of the day why don't you just get over the freaking fact that queer relationships are different to hetero relationships! is it wrong for heteros to want a word that uniquely descibes their relationships? i don't think so...and i'm sure the majority agrees with me.

gays should instead be looking for a term, that is legally/legislatively endorsed, that uniquely defines their relationship and the differing variables involved.

What does marriage (or a "wedding") have to do with biological reproduction?

If an infertile man and woman get married, does their inability to reproduce nullify their marriage?

 

[Fausty]

the argument is lost on you sunshine. give me an exam ple of a gay couple having a child that is biologically linked to both partners!

till then...i'm not interested in your wet dreams

Oh, this is the highlight of my evening - a troll with delusions of grandeur. And one who calls me "sunshine" to boot!

Are you familiar with the fallacy of inclusion? I don't want to overwhelm you with "emotion," but I thought perhaps we need to establish at least a basic level of competence on your part in the area of formal logic.

Once we've got that settled, it would appear we need to review with you what a "discussion" entails. In such situations, generally speaking, someone asks a question. You respond to that question (we refer to this as an "answer," usually) and, if you're feeling cheeky, perhaps you may ask a new question in return. It's quite efficacious in engendering. . . discussion. Sometimes the folks involved even learn a thing or two, in the process.


Your argument is indeed "lost on me," for the simple reason that I can't make out any coherent argument you've put forth thus far. Could you perhaps summarize your key points, so we don't have to keep playing musical chairs with your definitional flexibility?

Thanks, hon.

Peace,

Fausty (who is, technically, a dog-fuckee rather than "dog-fucker" but you can just call me "sunshine" )

 

[phlegm69]

keepon defending the impossible...the majority is right

Oh, this is the highlight of my evening - a troll with delusions of grandeur. And one who calls me "sunshine" to boot!

Are you familiar with the fallacy of inclusion? I don't want to overwhelm you with "emotion," but I thought perhaps we need to establish at least a basic level of competence on your part in the area of formal logic.

Once we've got that settled, it would appear we need to review with you what a "discussion" entails. In such situations, generally speaking, someone asks a question. You respond to that question (we refer to this as an "answer," usually) and, if you're feeling cheeky, perhaps you may ask a new question in return. It's quite efficacious in engendering. . . discussion. Sometimes the folks involved even learn a thing or two, in the process.


Your argument is indeed "lost on me," for the simple reason that I can't make out any coherent argument you've put forth thus far. Could you perhaps summarize your key points, so we don't have to keep playing musical chairs with your definitional flexibility?

Thanks, hon.

Peace,

Fausty (who is, technically, a dog-fuckee rather than "dog-fucker" but you can just call me "sunshine" )

no facts...hey no surprise there. lets keep the rhetoric flowing. when ya gunna dissect the Marriage Act?

let me guess you can't.

bye bye...it's bedtime for me now...so say a little prayer that'll make me sleep tight...and keep those wretched bed bugs away from where i'm tight....

allah akbar

 

[phlegm69]

when is someone here going to dissect the marriage act?

 

[Fausty]

^^ wow.

Peace,

Fausty

 

[Kalash]

The state (not our state, any state) has a vested interest in promoting the propagation of the nation. Therefore, it does make some sense to recognize family structures that produce and raise offspring.

EXACTLY!

This collective identity (organism) that relies on human minds as its host (the nation/state) REQUIRES new minds to infest in order to continue its survival (more hosts, more cells, more evolved the organism/state becomes).


And... again... EXACTLY!
The state has no LAWFUL AUTHORITY to recognize nor reward the propagation of itself through reproduction.
The state has no RIGHTS - it is a concept - and idea. It cannot be touched nor harmed through physical actions.

Realizing that the state is nothing more than an idea makes the whole concept of the STATE deciding things ridiculous.
The state is not a person - it isn't a place. It's a concept.
Concepts should not make decisions for real people.

The problem we have is that this Collective-identity-organism infects people and causes them to be willing to resort to violence in the name of the collective identity.

Anyone questioning the collective-identity-organism must be eliminated (through violent force if necessary) in order to protect the collective.

People are NOTHING to the collective - the collective will live on if a few of its hosts are killed.



When the collective-organism obtains power over life/death/property/imprisonment of dissidents, the people are no longer safe nor free.
When the collective obtains the power to tax generally (take from everyone) to benefit its chosen few (God's Jews, the chosen people... In this case, the STRAIGHTS that decide to get married), the collective has overcome the rights and lives of the individuals...

Under the U.S. Constitution that is illegal, criminal, and intolerable.

Banning gay marriage? It can't happen either...
But even more sinister is the state's recognition of ANY marriage by which the participants are rewarded by the state (through a reduction in theft (taxation), or special privileges that are granted to those getting married by permission (license) of the state.



Phlegm - as for your precious marriage act...
The definition of marriage only being between a man and a woman wasn't added until 2004.
This infallible ACT that you keep citing was passed in 1961.
So...
Lets see...
4 years of marriage being between a man and a woman...
And....
47 years of marriage NOT being defined as being between a man and a woman.

So... historical precedence...
On a scale of 10 to 1, marriage is NOT historically recognized as only being between a man and a woman.
I've got to know...
How did society keep from collapsing between 1961 and 2004?
Unless you contend that it DID collapse and things started getting back on track in 2004...


The Defense of Marriage act - in the U.S. is entirely unconstitutional and void ab initio (as though it had never been passed.)

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

#1 is in direct conflict with the Constitution... From Wikipedia...

A right to marriage, overriding the provisions of state law, was found in Loving v. Virginia. The Full Faith and Credit Clause of the United States Constitution obligates states to give "Full Faith and Credit ... to the public Acts, Records, and judicial Proceedings of every other State." The Effects Clause (Art IV, § 1) grants Congress the authority to "prescribe the manner in which such acts, records and proceedings shall be proved, and the effect thereof."

Of course - they dig too deep, look too far, and find nothing.
It says there is a "RIGHT" to marriage.
No RIGHT may be deprived of ANYONE without due process.

14th Amendment
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

Banning gay marriage - without due process (conviction in a court of law) cannot be done.

Deprivation of the RIGHT of marriage (absent due process) is a crime - from which all people are to be equally protected under the law.
Anyone claiming authority to deprive another of their RIGHT to marry is committing a CRIME - regardless of their status (Congressman, president, citizen, police officer, etc.)
For more info, see Title 18 Chapter 13 Sections 241 and 242 of the U.S. Code.

Happy phlegm?
Discuss.
Please.

 

[Mariposa]

when is someone here going to dissect the marriage act?

It's been previously posted, banga. Would you like to take a stab at it?

 

[Mariposa]

Inheritance is contract law - I can leave whatever I want to whomever I want. If I'm not married - this isn't automatic. So WRITE A @^$&ING WILL.

If you can be married and leave everything to your cats..........
The government doesn't need to be involved in that.

Kalash: this isn't true. At present, anyone who wishes to set up a testamentary trust under their will (or a trust) can leave property for the benefit of a pet (or a person, charity, whatever) but the trust has to be administered by either a human trustee above the age of majority, a corporation (bank or trust corporation) or other entity that has the power to administer trusts. The person writing the will or setting up the trust names the trustee and any successor. Leona Helmsley's dog, for example, cannot act as trustee.

Also, many states have "elective share" statutes under which a spouse has the right to a portion of the other spouse's property even if the spouse dies intestate. There are ways to disinherit people who might otherwise be one's heirs other than that, but that about covers the basics.

Wills must be admitted to probate and a personal representative/executor(trix) must petition the court for admission. This is potentially avoidable by setting up a living trust - which many same-sex couples do.

 

[Kalash]

Kalash: this isn't true. At present, anyone who wishes to set up a testamentary trust under their will (or a trust) can leave property for the benefit of a pet (or a person, charity, whatever) but the trust has to be administered by either a human trustee above the age of majority, a corporation (bank or trust corporation) or other entity that has the power to administer trusts. The person writing the will or setting up the trust names the trustee and any successor. Leona Helmsley's dog, for example, cannot act as trustee.

Also, many states have "elective share" statutes under which a spouse has the right to a portion of the other spouse's property even if the spouse dies intestate. There are ways to disinherit people who might otherwise be one's heirs other than that, but that about covers the basics.

Wills must be admitted to probate and a personal representative/executor(trix) must petition the court for admission. This is potentially avoidable by setting up a living trust - which many same-sex couples do.

The government doesn't NEED to be involved in that.
They obviously are. Which is why you were able to write a 3 paragraph summary of certain rules/laws which prohibit one from controlling their property, in violation of the 5th Amendment.


Marriage shouldn't be an issue in a will.
Legislation controlling a person's property in defiance of that person's will is theft by the government, usurpation of that person's rights, and shouldn't be tolerated.
Again - I'm not against gay marriage, I'm against state recognition of ANY sort of union by which the union begets the participants benefits granted by the state.

The state has no authority to do this - and they have no lawful authority to override the will of the deceased.

 

[@lterEgo]

the word "wed" only petains to hetrosexual relationships, much the same way as the word "gay" petains to homosexual personns.

it has always been the prime mechanism for the proper inheritance of name and property.

the definition, purpose, and spirit of marriage has changed and evolved countless times over the course of human history. clinging desperately to a version of the law that supports your personal brand of bigotry is about as myopic as it gets. for the record, the word gay hasn't always been synonymous with homosexual either. if you're going to base your position on a logical fallacy (appeal to tradition) by suggesting things have always been a certain way, at least have the courtesy to check your facts. there are so many holes in your argument that i wish i had a dick.

 

[alasdairm]

there are so many holes in your argument that i wish i had a dick.

this is one of the greatest things i've ever read on bl. i wish i could still have a signature

alasdair