Article: California Gay Couples Set To Wed
- Thread starter Mariposa
- Start date
phlegm69
Bluelighter
Kalash said:
honestly what do you want me to say? you've only shown that you think the marriage act takes away the rights of gays. if that's the best argument you can put forth....well then i'll salute you.
i'm wasting my time.like i've said before (i'm gunna sound like a broken record here) marriage is a union between male and female...for obvious reasons.
again; like i've said before.... is it too much to ask our dear gay brethren here to use another name, which is endorsed by state, in defining their gay relationship. honestly is it?
i don't think so.
personally, i think a lot of you gays manifest your insecurities through your militant behavior like trying to hijack the term "marriage". by doing so all you are doing is covering up you insecurities. but at the same time....you all fail to grasp the fact that you are also pissing on a lot of people who hold dear the notion of marriage...ie the vast majority of heterosexual people.
if you don't want to respect the vast majority, in your quest for legitimacy, don't expect them to treat you with respect in return.
respect is a two street.
a
phlegm69
Bluelighter
big on bluster....short on fact
since you posted the original article...why don't you have..."a stab at it" einstein?
let me guess youu can't.
Mariposa said:
since you posted the original article...why don't you have..."a stab at it" einstein?
let me guess youu can't.
phlegm69
Bluelighter
without hetros....you wouldn't be here!!!!
one word...pathetic. 0/10.
back to kindergarten for you.
@lterEgo said:
one word...pathetic. 0/10.
back to kindergarten for you.
Pander Bear
Bluelight Crew
the queers aren't like the reds, banga. they don't seek worldwide revolution. The term "pinko" is only tangentially applicable. 
Fausty
Bluelighter
phlegm69 said:
Actually, you said marriage was only applicable for reproductively-viable couples. Then you got caught in your own lack of logical consistency. Then you ignored that, and started blathering about the MARRIAGE ACT and dissections.
Anyway, please cite these "obvious reasons" because they don't seem so obvious to me. Maybe this is just my lack of educational credentials biting me in the ass - I'm sure you can fill in the details, in any event.
Peace,
Fausty
Kalash
Bluelighter
aanallein said:
And that right there is the whole summary of the topic.
The government is an intrusive 3rd party in a marriage - that isn't there by consent, but because they offer benefits to people that ask the government to LET them get married.
Gay marriage - by any name - is NOT illegal.
The concept that "Gay people won't get married if the state doesn't recognize it." is ridiculous.
Gay people get married anyway - they just don't get the benefits the state provides straight couples.
There's no such thing as "stealing the term marriage" - what kind of ludicrous logic is that?
It's like patenting the term, "pizza" and preventing anyone else selling a similar product (stuff covered in cheese on a crust...) from calling it pizza because they don't use the right kind of cheese.
There's a difference here though...
Straight people don't hold a patent on pizza. The original creator of pizza could, arguably, hold a patent on the item as well as the name.
Unless you're going to tell me that straight people have a legitimate LEGAL monopoly on the use and representation of the term, "marriage," then you have no case.
phlegm69
Bluelighter
one for you..two for me...now lets all do a big wee
remember: only you.....thought i got caught up in my "logical" consistancies.
obvious reasons: show me an example of a gay couple producing a child that is biologically linked to both partners. till then...i've proven myself correct...like i always have.
allah akbar infidel
Fausty said:
remember: only you.....thought i got caught up in my "logical" consistancies.
obvious reasons: show me an example of a gay couple producing a child that is biologically linked to both partners. till then...i've proven myself correct...like i always have.
allah akbar infidel
Pander Bear
Bluelight Crew
http://www.ivf.net/ivf/lesbian_couples_could_have_own_baby-o13-en.html
just give it a few years, banga. Then you can feel as wrong as youve always been
just give it a few years, banga. Then you can feel as wrong as youve always been
B9
Bluelight Crew
It's completely irrelevant in my opinion. I didn't consider going to a registry office "getting married". I considered it to be between me & my missus only & I still do, if anyone reckons it's got some basis in law perhaps they're missing the whole point of "marriage".
Fausty
Bluelighter
phlegm69 said:remember: only you.....thought i got caught up in my "logical" consistancies.
obvious reasons: show me an example of a gay couple producing a child that is biologically linked to both partners. till then...i've proven myself correct...like i always have.
allah akbar infidel
Ok, I give up - this is like trying to teach algebra to a chimp. Then again, I suspect chimps at least have better spelling - and proper written grammar.
Peace,
Fausty
Mariposa
Bluelight Crew
phlegm69 said:since you posted the original article...why don't you have..."a stab at it" einstein?
let me guess youu can't.
If I had a more worthy opponent...
My daddy always said "you can't argue with stupid".
But since you asked, this is the text of the opinion that more or less sums it up:
Chief Justice Ronald M. George said:
Basically, all persons are guaranteed to marry the person of their choice because disallowing one group from so doing is discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Ibn sharmuta.
Kalash
Bluelighter
B9 said:
And while we're on the subject - if anyone thinks that the state's recognition of your union with your partner of choice makes your relationship somehow "more legitimate" you don't have a stable enough relationship to call a marriage to begin with.
If you love someone, it shouldn't matter what anyone else thinks about your partnership - no matter what name you choose to give it.
Why does it matter what the state thinks?
What RIGHT/AUTHORITY does the state have to punish people for doing something without their recognition of a private contract, and/or rewarding people for attaining recognition of their private contract?
If I sell you something (enter into a private contract with you), what vested interest does the state have in that contract? They are a 3rd party without standing.
They have no legitimate interest in our contract. It doesn't matter what type of contract it is - business, personal, sexual, habitable, marriage, etc.
Why would you willingly give the state - an uninvolved 3rd party - the ability to control all aspects of that contract?
It doesn't make any sense.
Tryptamine*Dreamer
Ex-Bluelighter
Gay marriage should be allowed everywhere. It should be no business of the government or the bible thumpers who choose to stick their noses where they don't belong. It's about time this happened.
Exactly how do the anti-gays think gay marriage is going to destroy marriages for straights? I'd like to hear them give a logical explanation, but it is not possible.
I wonder how many states will be putting anti-gay legislation on the ballots in November? That's one sure way to get the holier-than-thou religious wackos out to the polls. They won't possibly say no to a chance to shove their morals down the throats of anyone who doesn't want them.
They seem to be obsessed with sex. I doubt they'd worry much if someone nearby was murdered, but they'd be in a big fuss over any sex act or romantic relationship they disapprove of. I fail to understand why they are so disturbed by consensual sex. They sure don't seem as concerned about violence or murder, unless the victim is a fetus.
Exactly how do the anti-gays think gay marriage is going to destroy marriages for straights? I'd like to hear them give a logical explanation, but it is not possible.
I wonder how many states will be putting anti-gay legislation on the ballots in November? That's one sure way to get the holier-than-thou religious wackos out to the polls. They won't possibly say no to a chance to shove their morals down the throats of anyone who doesn't want them.
They seem to be obsessed with sex. I doubt they'd worry much if someone nearby was murdered, but they'd be in a big fuss over any sex act or romantic relationship they disapprove of. I fail to understand why they are so disturbed by consensual sex. They sure don't seem as concerned about violence or murder, unless the victim is a fetus.
phlegm69
Bluelighter
one for you...two for me....so lets see who can do the biggest wee
cursumik arifik and sharmuta to you too shaheed.
the quote you offered by the blinkered chief justice doesn't even include the word marriage!
moreover, can you give me an example of a gay couple having a child that is biologically linked to both partners?
now einstein.....what were you saying about the stupid?
Mariposa said:If I had a more worthy opponent...
My daddy always said "you can't argue with stupid".
But since you asked, this is the text of the opinion that more or less sums it up:
Basically, all persons are guaranteed to marry the person of their choice because disallowing one group from so doing is discriminatory and unconstitutional.
Ibn sharmuta.
cursumik arifik and sharmuta to you too shaheed.
the quote you offered by the blinkered chief justice doesn't even include the word marriage!
moreover, can you give me an example of a gay couple having a child that is biologically linked to both partners?
now einstein.....what were you saying about the stupid?
Pander Bear
Bluelight Crew
Mariposa
Bluelight Crew
Banga, the word "marriage" was said many other places in the text, certainly in the term "family relationship" it is illustrative of context. Did you read the opinion, habibi?
And yeah, you're about 6 years too late. While our gametes are still our gametes, there's plenty in the works... and there's that all-too-seldom used means of "adoption" in addition to existing artificial insemination techniques and the good old-fashioned turkey baster. Families can have entirely different DNA if the family was created through adoption, and in my mind that is no less a family than a family with biological children.
Ahh, we can never teach an old troll new tricks...
And yeah, you're about 6 years too late. While our gametes are still our gametes, there's plenty in the works... and there's that all-too-seldom used means of "adoption" in addition to existing artificial insemination techniques and the good old-fashioned turkey baster. Families can have entirely different DNA if the family was created through adoption, and in my mind that is no less a family than a family with biological children.
Ahh, we can never teach an old troll new tricks...
phlegm69, you are indeed an idiot. Just admit that you are homophobe and that the idea of gay marriages scares you for whatever reason even though it will have no effect whatsoever on your life. There is no other reason for you to feel so strongly about this issue as other posters in this thread have shown your points to be illogical.
Now I hate to give him new ammunition, but what do you guys think about this argument:
"Homosexuals have exactly the same marriage rights as heterosexuals. They can marry anyone of their choosing so long as its a person of the opposite sex"
Now, mind you, I don't believe this argument to be a valid one, but it may be the most compelling one against gay marriage. I just want to see if anybody can give an argument against it that I haven't thought of yet.
Now I hate to give him new ammunition, but what do you guys think about this argument:
"Homosexuals have exactly the same marriage rights as heterosexuals. They can marry anyone of their choosing so long as its a person of the opposite sex"
Now, mind you, I don't believe this argument to be a valid one, but it may be the most compelling one against gay marriage. I just want to see if anybody can give an argument against it that I haven't thought of yet.
^ i could as easily write: "heterosexuals have the right to marry the person they love. homosexuals do not" therefore they do not have the same right.
i agree, as pander bear wrote, that the 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."
what i don't understand is why banga thinks that gay marriage is going to suddenly cause heterosexual couples to stop getting married and raising children.
the fact is that a gay couple getting married in san francisco doesn't impact banga's life one bit yet he still doesn't think they should be allowed to do it...
alasdair
i agree, as pander bear wrote, that the 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."
what i don't understand is why banga thinks that gay marriage is going to suddenly cause heterosexual couples to stop getting married and raising children.
the fact is that a gay couple getting married in san francisco doesn't impact banga's life one bit yet he still doesn't think they should be allowed to do it...
alasdair