California overturns gay marriage ban.

[Walter Sobchak]

http://www.cnn.com/2008/US/05/15/sam...age/index.html

This is such a great day for progressive values. Massachusetts was a step, but California is so huge, it could have a domino effect. I am happy.

Thoughts?

[FF Ace Cid]

Well, this will hopefully help other states realize that they have no right to prevent marriage for homosexuals, that goes against their NATURAL rights. Even if someone does not believe in someone being homosexual, they have no right to prevent them from doing anything that anyone else could do.

[Govinda]

Excellent news.

All the gay dating adverts on this thread's page are cool too.

I doubt it'll have a domino effect though. Especially in the square shaped states in the middle. Maybe Texas. They had a really cool guy there, I think he was almost made a senator; he supported gay marriage on the logic that gay people shouldn't be excluded from the misery of marriage.

[Walter Sobchak]

I doubt it'll have a domino effect though.

Unfortunately, it is going to. This kind of thing will get the Bible-thumpers who are ambivalent to McCain to the election in November, where many states (including my own) have Amendments to ban gay marriage in the state.

[OceanEyes28]

Unfortunately, it is going to. This kind of thing will get the Bible-thumpers who are ambivalent to McCain to the election in November, where many states (including my own) have Amendments to ban gay marriage in the state.

Yeah, that's what I've been worried about. I'm all about gay marriage, and I really want it to be allowed everywhere (the moms would be soooo happy), but I kind of wish it had happened after the election. Because you're right, people will get scared over "gays taking over and destroying our nation!" and they'll go out and vote for the more conservative candidate. I'm more concerned about the longterm result of getting a candidate in office that supports civil unions.

I hope that works out.

[Walter Sobchak]

Yeah, that's what I've been worried about. I'm all about gay marriage, and I really want it to be allowed everywhere (the moms would be soooo happy), but I kind of wish it had happened after the election. Because you're right, people will get scared over "gays taking over and destroying our nation!" and they'll go out and vote for the more conservative candidate. I'm more concerned about the longterm result of getting a candidate in office that supports civil unions.

I hope that works out.

Your moms are in Arkansas? The state that elected Mike Huckabee? That'll take awhile.

Unfortunately, this polarizes the issue. If you asked any ten year old what two states were the most progressive, he/she would say Mass. and California (They wouldn't, because kids are stupid, but you know what I mean). My state (Florida) is pretty middle of the road politically, but now that gay marriage ban will pass. It is scary.

[Rocky]

This is a very interesting turn of events, I wonder how this is going to play out in the election polls though. I can still see Obama coming out on top though, despite states that have a moderate disposition towards voting for specific parties, most will stick with the Democratic candidate. I think that people are so sick of the lack of change going on currently that most states will vote a democratic president, regardless of who it is, unless Clinton is the delegate, otherwise we could be screwed and this could turn into something pretty messy. Anyways, this is just coming from my views that I have gathered from the midwest, I don't know how other regions of the U.S. will take the whole voting thing come November.

[Usagy]

It's still sad that in many states of the US it's forbidden, so about damn time that some states are lifting the ban. Hell, maybe someday your rules will start to look normal, but that's probably too much wishful thinking.

Peace out

[Bleachfangirl]

Gay marriage! Yay! In my state too! Well, since California is a huge state with a mighty population, it might do something to help persuade the other states. I haven't been paying much attention to this, but it's a cool thing to know that more people are being allowed their natural right...

Does this mean we'll be getting more gay couples in California? That would be kind of cool (in a strange way). 8D

[Phantom]

This...is...FANTASTIC! This is amazing, the best news I've heard about this subject in a few years. Gay couples should have the same rights and benefits as a typical heterosexual couple. This is just one major step forward for all gay and lesbians seeking marriage, and Cali is a very LARGE step forward. I want to live in Cali one day. When I finally do meet that special man I want to spent my life with, Cali would be my first choice to move to heh. But yeah, this is excellent, show those Bible-Thumpers that gays and lesbians have rights too!

[Sasquatch]

I honestly don't see how same-sex marriage is a "right" any more than marriage to a child, animal, or relative is a "right" (or prostitution, or public sex, or quite a few other indecent issues), but you don't hear too many people whining about how those are still illegal. California has a history of being radical, so the only thing that surprises me about this is that it took this long.

I also realize that not all change is "progress".

I said something that doesn't whole-heartedly support homosexuality. Go ahead and leave the negative rep, Phantom.

[Phantom]

I honestly don't see how same-sex marriage is a "right" any more than marriage to a child, animal, or relative is a "right" (or prostitution, or public sex, or quite a few other indecent issues), but you don't hear too many people whining about how those are still illegal. California has a history of being radical, so the only thing that surprises me about this is that it took this long.

I also realize that not all change is "progress".

I said something that doesn't whole-heartedly support homosexuality. Go ahead and leave the negative rep, Phantom.

I stopped caring what your views are, so leaving you negative rep would be a waste of my time. I'm all for everyone's throughts and opinons but targeting me in this kind of thread is kind of distasteful and low even for you, sorry but I'm not going to take your flamebait pal.

Sorry for the off-topicness

[Sasquatch]

sorry but I'm not going to take your flamebait pal.

...except for that short, irrelevant post, anyway.

Heterosexual marriage isn't a 'right' either. It's part of socialised society. So why not let gay people do it?

Because, as you said, heterosexual marriage is a part of "socialised society".

I don't agree with it, and neither do you, but marriage to minors and your relatives is legal and 'normal' in some societies; but not ours.

I'm sorry, but whether or not it's socially accepted never has and never will decide the difference in whether something is "right" or "wrong". It's not "right" to eat human flesh because some Indian religious sects do it, it's not "right" to molest little boys because NAMBLA supports it, it's not "right" spread AIDS with the belief that raping virgins cures it because some villages in Africa do it, and it's not "right" to marry somebody of the same sex. It may be "normal" in some societies -- or, in this case, moreso, somewhat socially acceptable -- but that doesn't make it "right" at all. Unless you wait to said that murdering unborn children, spousal abuse, and slavery are (or were) all "right" at some point in time because they were socially acceptable.

For that, we are thankful, because we think it's disgusting. We'd like to see it wiped out, but that is not our 'right'.

It's "our right" to try to "wipe out" marriages to relatives, children, animals, or multiple partners, but not between two men? Who decides these "rights", and how are they brought upon?

There's also the question of legality when talking about marriage to children and animals. Our legal systems are set up so that those incapable of truly making a decision, namely children and animals, are not allowed to do so. They cannot be subjugated into it because our society sees them as being incapable to say either yes or no and really mean it.

And why has our "society" decided that children and animals can't make decisions like that for themselves? Why can't we go back to the decision that people of specific races are somehow "less", or that women are incapable of making competent voting decisions?

The same logic doesn't apply to gay people, who are adult human beings fully capable of choosing what they want to do.

So are relatives and multiple spouses, but there are still laws against marrying them.

Baiting a member you know to be gay doesn't help your case much.

The specific member has, on multiple occasions, taken personal offense -- or at least responded like they had taken personal offense -- to general, non-insulting comments. I made a comment regarding his typical response to anything he can possibly interpret as slightly offensive.

This isn't a question of financial benefits ...

Actually, that's exactly one of the points being made. Tax breaks, which will raise taxes for everybody else.

Most if not all of Heterosexual Marriages pretty much end with a sheet of white paper stating a divorce, and pretty much all of heterosexual couples getting married waste money too so whats the difference?

Did you really just say "if not all" when referring to marriages ending in divorce? Wow. Anyway. What statistics do you have that homosexual marriages are so much better than heterosexual marriages, taking into affect the time that heterosexual marriages last and that most homosexual marriages haven't been legal for long enough to be compared accurately?

The church is making the people live in a hynotic world where its heterosexuals all the time, and that homosexuals are the acid of the earth and deserve to go to hell. The Church are the real criminals, the real slime of the earth. Homosexuals have done nothing more then live their lives, and they would like to live their lives in peace without being afriad to let their voices be heard by bible-humpers and thick headed homophobes who wish to oppress them. Marriage between a Man and a Woman ain't so "sacred" as you think it to be.

Wow. And it's all those Bible-thumping hillbillies that are prejudiced and brainwashed, ain't it.

Spreading hate, and oppressing homosexuals for living there damn lives in peace.

Of course, because all heterosexuals "oppress" homosexuals. Riiiiiight.

and you wonder why many homosexual kids are getting teased, tortured, and beaten to death.

Define "many". Kids get teased for anything and everything -- if it wasn't for one thing, it'd be for another, or another, or another. If a kid can't take a little teasing, hell, they might as well off themselves while their bodies won't take up much room. What, you think everybody else here didn't get teased as a kid?

This is about Human dignity, not money, or finacial numbers.

The acceptance -- or, moreso, promotion -- of homosexual marriage has nothing to do with "human dignity", whereas the existence of homosexual marriage had quite a bit to do with the lack thereof.

So unless some huge percentage of America is gay and decides to get married, the rises in tax will be negligible.

So? Whether I'm paying five dollars extra per year or five thousand dollars extra per year, the point remains that it does have an affect.

It's like when people say they don't want universal healthcare because it'll raise taxes.

Socialized medicine is an entirely different can of worms, but for the record -- most people don't say they don't want it because it'll "raise taxes", but because it will charge uniformly for a low-quality service. Not because it will "slightly" (pshaw) raise taxes, but because it will do much more damage than it would help anything. But if you want to compare the two subjects, they are both alike in the aspect that they cost taxpayers money without providing anything decent back.

... if you want to be justified when you band around the world teaching the brown people how to behave ...

And out comes the prejudice again. Maybe if the last few thousand upon thousand of American lives hadn't been in defense of those "brown people", you could start talking about overstepping our bounds. Or maybe if millions upon millions of those same "brown people" weren't ready to give their lives for the same causes as those followed by American soldiers.

[Phantom]

...except for that short, irrelevant post, anyway.

Because, as you said, heterosexual marriage is a part of "socialised society".I'm sorry, but whether or not it's socially accepted never has and never will decide the difference in whether something is "right" or "wrong". It's not "right" to eat human flesh because some Indian religious sects do it, it's not "right" to molest little boys because NAMBLA supports it, it's not "right" spread AIDS with the belief that raping virgins cures it because some villages in Africa do it, and it's not "right" to marry somebody of the same sex. It may be "normal" in some societies -- or, in this case, moreso, somewhat socially acceptable -- but that doesn't make it "right" at all. Unless you wait to said that murdering unborn children, spousal abuse, and slavery are (or were) all "right" at some point in time because they were socially acceptable.It's "our right" to try to "wipe out" marriages to relatives, children, animals, or multiple partners, but not between two men? Who decides these "rights", and how are they brought upon?And why has our "society" decided that children and animals can't make decisions like that for themselves? Why can't we go back to the decision that people of specific races are somehow "less", or that women are incapable of making competent voting decisions?So are relatives and multiple spouses, but there are still laws against marrying them.The specific member has, on multiple occasions, taken personal offense -- or at least responded like they had taken personal offense -- to general, non-insulting comments. I made a comment regarding his typical response to anything he can possibly interpret as slightly offensive.

Actually, that's exactly one of the points being made. Tax breaks, which will raise taxes for everybody else.Did you really just say "if not all" when referring to marriages ending in divorce? Wow. Anyway. What statistics do you have that homosexual marriages are so much better than heterosexual marriages, taking into affect the time that heterosexual marriages last and that most homosexual marriages haven't been legal for long enough to be compared accurately?Wow. And it's all those Bible-thumping hillbillies that are prejudiced and brainwashed, ain't it.Of course, because all heterosexuals "oppress" homosexuals. Riiiiiight.Define "many". Kids get teased for anything and everything -- if it wasn't for one thing, it'd be for another, or another, or another. If a kid can't take a little teasing, hell, they might as well off themselves while their bodies won't take up much room. What, you think everybody else here didn't get teased as a kid?The acceptance -- or, moreso, promotion -- of homosexual marriage has nothing to do with "human dignity", whereas the existence of homosexual marriage had quite a bit to do with the lack thereof.

So? Whether I'm paying five dollars extra per year or five thousand dollars extra per year, the point remains that it does have an affect.Socialized medicine is an entirely different can of worms, but for the record -- most people don't say they don't want it because it'll "raise taxes", but because it will charge uniformly for a low-quality service. Not because it will "slightly" (pshaw) raise taxes, but because it will do much more damage than it would help anything. But if you want to compare the two subjects, they are both alike in the aspect that they cost taxpayers money without providing anything decent back.And out comes the prejudice again. Maybe if the last few thousand upon thousand of American lives hadn't been in defense of those "brown people", you could start talking about overstepping our bounds. Or maybe if millions upon millions of those same "brown people" weren't ready to give their lives for the same causes as those followed by American soldiers.

And yet all you can do is continue to try and flamebait and tear apart posts, because setting ppl off is your speciality in life. Right? You remind me of a "bully" I clashed with in high school. He was a HUGE homophobe and he would love nothing more then to try and set me off so he would catch me off guard and pick on me more, odd your not so different from him really, through he was more thick headed then you. You would'nt notice a negative comment from your posts like "non-insulting comments" because you aren't the one being insulted by them. Oh and Sas (Mr. Genius Soldier guy ) I'm not as typical as you might think, keep that in mind next time you try to flamebait me.

Sorry for the off-topicness again.

[Furore]

...except for that short, irrelevant post, anyway.

He was just defending himself from the flamebait. And it served the purpose of bringing it to the attention of others.

Because, as you said, heterosexual marriage is a part of "socialised society".I'm sorry, but whether or not it's socially accepted never has and never will decide the difference in whether something is "right" or "wrong".

True enough. Society allows a lot of injustice. Like hating minority groups for example. And 'right' and 'wrong' are relative terms. People percieve 'right' and 'wrong' quite differently much of the time.

It's not "right" to eat human flesh because some Indian religious sects do it, it's not "right" to molest little boys because NAMBLA supports it, it's not "right" spread AIDS with the belief that raping virgins cures it because some villages in Africa do it, and it's not "right" to marry somebody of the same sex.

It's not right to do most of the examples as it involves someone else getting harmed for another's desires. Human people must die before they can be eaten, and it can be seen as disrespectful to eat their flesh if that wasn't what they wanted to have happen, little boys rarely like being molested and even if they do, their mind is not developed enough to be fully aware of the implications of such things and raping virgins causes them harm directly for someone else's gratification. Gay marriage on the other hand doesn't harm anybody. It's just a way for two people to show their love and commitment to eachother. Is it right to take that away from any loving couple based only on their sexual preferences and a possible desire to save a few cents in tax?

It may be "normal" in some societies -- or, in this case, moreso, somewhat socially acceptable -- but that doesn't make it "right" at all. Unless you wait to said that murdering unborn children, spousal abuse, and slavery are (or were) all "right" at some point in time because they were socially acceptable.

But murdering children, spousal abuse and slavery all have the side effect that someone gets harmed or killed. While the shock value may be there, who really gets harmed in a gay couple marrying? You could argue that the sperm they could produce would be dying, but then again, a whole lot of straight people wank to the same effect, and not all gay couples might be into sex anyways. There are people capable of having a relationship with no actual sex. Oh, and I'll drop two words from a fair few straight relationships. 'Birth control'.

It's "our right" to try to "wipe out" marriages to relatives, children, animals, or multiple partners, but not between two men?

Marriages between relatives can cause the children to have a weaker set of genes leading to a poorer quality of life in many cases. Children may not fully understand their actions as their mind isn't as fully developed, and their bodies might not yet be ready for the other things a marriage may ask for, animals have no say in the matter and don't understand things well enough and multiple partners show a lack of respect for what would have been a sole partner. Marriages between two men (or women) on the other hand, don't really hurt either of the two nor anyone else.

Who decides these "rights", and how are they brought upon?

Things like this were decided long ago, in very different societies. Some such societies had nothing wrong with homosexual people, and some of these socieities are also responsible for much we see around us. Often taboos exist merely as a few people with the power decided things should be as they are for whatever reason. They were made law due mostly to someone's perception of 'right' and 'wrong'.

And why has our "society" decided that children and animals can't make decisions like that for themselves?

Due to research for the better part I'd believe. Parts of the human brain have been shown to develop more as a person gets older, and their body also needs to mature. Animals on the other hand do not think as we do. They may not recognise what is happening and human advances could cause them distress, injury and possibly psychological harm. And personally, I'd hate to find semen in my rump steaks...

Why can't we go back to the decision that people of specific races are somehow "less", or that women are incapable of making competent voting decisions?

Because attitudes have evolved. Why should we want to treat people like shit for superficial differences? It's a more positive shared perception that people like these should be treated fairly. I certainly agree with it.

So are relatives and multiple spouses, but there are still laws against marrying them.

I explained above. To reiterate, relative + relative = bad genes. And multiple spouses can be seen as disrespectful to the multiple spouses. If a man has a harem he isn't showing that he is equal to each of the women. Because of the lack of respect, that kind of marriage wouldn't really work.

The specific member has, on multiple occasions, taken personal offense -- or at least responded like they had taken personal offense -- to general, non-insulting comments. I made a comment regarding his typical response to anything he can possibly interpret as slightly offensive.

He has every right to take offence at what he percieves as discrimination. And few people never take something the wrong way. Bringing the a person's history into such an issue is just a cheap way of trying to dismiss their perhaps more than valid opinion. Or that's how it looks anyways.

Actually, that's exactly one of the points being made. Tax breaks, which will raise taxes for everybody else.

I believe Govinda already smashed that idea. The taxes would be minimal at best as there are already that many things that are taxed. And to go further I ask, why should a person's freedoms be violated for a little money?

Did you really just say "if not all" when referring to marriages ending in divorce? Wow. Anyway. What statistics do you have that homosexual marriages are so much better than heterosexual marriages, taking into affect the time that heterosexual marriages last and that most homosexual marriages haven't been legal for long enough to be compared accurately?

Regardless, a valid point was raised, even if the information behind it may not be quite up to scratch. How many homosexual coupes do we hear of divorcing? I'm yet to hear of a single one. Heterosexual couples? All the time...

Wow. And it's all those Bible-thumping hillbillies that are prejudiced and brainwashed, ain't it.

No, they're just close-minded, at times almost arrogant pricks who refuse to see things from the view of another. A fair few scientifically minded people can fall into the same category. If a person's mind isn't open to possibility, and they cannot actually prove their beliefs to be true, what is their word really worth?

Of course, because all heterosexuals "oppress" homosexuals. Riiiiiight.

Many do. Those who don't in some regions are often a minority. Right.

Define "many". Kids get teased for anything and everything -- if it wasn't for one thing, it'd be for another, or another, or another. If a kid can't take a little teasing, hell, they might as well off themselves while their bodies won't take up much room. What, you think everybody else here didn't get teased as a kid?

many (a quantifier that can be used with count nouns and is often preceded by `as' or `too' or `so' or `that'; amounting to a large but indefinite number) "many temptations"; "the temptations are many"; "a good many"; "a great many"; "many directions"; "take as many apples as you like"; "too many clouds to see"; "never saw so many people"
- http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=many

Just because teasing happens to a good deal of people, doesn't make it 'right'. Or is your perception of 'right' one that includes teasing? I would agree that some people need to harden the **** up (often out of necessity), but it's still not right. And yeah, he mentioned bashings, and murder. Because that's heaps right...

The acceptance -- or, moreso, promotion -- of homosexual marriage has nothing to do with "human dignity", whereas the existence of homosexual marriage had quite a bit to do with the lack thereof.

So a society's perception of what is or isn't dignified should rule a person's actions and therefore their freedoms? I think not...
As in the examples you have used above of slavery and gender discrimination, much of society's ideas are well and truly outdated. Some are just yet to change.

So? Whether I'm paying five dollars extra per year or five thousand dollars extra per year, the point remains that it does have an affect.

Or 5 cents a year. Big whoop. Chances are all the money would get you is a Mcdonalds cheeseburger and the accompanying diarrhoea/mass vomiting associated with one. If you were paying five thousand dollars in tax a year, then chances are you'd have enough money anyways.

Socialized medicine is an entirely different can of worms, but for the record -- most people don't say they don't want it because it'll "raise taxes", but because it will charge uniformly for a low-quality service. Not because it will "slightly" (pshaw) raise taxes, but because it will do much more damage than it would help anything. But if you want to compare the two subjects, they are both alike in the aspect that they cost taxpayers money without providing anything decent back.

But those it does benefit can outweigh it's uselessness to others in some cases. What if something happened randomly involving bodily harm? YOU GET MEDICAL AID! Though it may cost a little in taxes, chances are it may better someone's health sooner or later. There are people out there who would prefer being patched up to death I'd like to believe.

And out comes the prejudice again. Maybe if the last few thousand upon thousand of American lives hadn't been in defense of those "brown people", you could start talking about overstepping our bounds. Or maybe if millions upon millions of those same "brown people" weren't ready to give their lives for the same causes as those followed by American soldiers.

Yeah, there's pretty much always prejudice. 'Brown people' got respect and rights, 'gay people' still haven't gotten all the same rights as people. I wonder how many homosexual men have died for America? Chances are there would have been a few of them.

[Sasquatch]

And 'right' and 'wrong' are relative terms. People percieve 'right' and 'wrong' quite differently much of the time.

Remember this. "Right" and "wrong" are supposedly dictated by people, by society.

Human people must die before they can be eaten, and it can be seen as disrespectful to eat their flesh if that wasn't what they wanted to have happen

It can be, but it's still done, and it's considered "right" by the people that do it. And what's to disrespect? Most religions believe that when a person dies, their earthly body becomes a lump of flesh anyway. Just because your opinions differs from their opinions doesn't mean you should force your beliefs on them. Just because our society differs from their society doesn't mean we should call them "wrong".

little boys rarely like being molested and even if they do, their mind is not developed enough to be fully aware of the implications of such things

It's still seen as "right" by some people, so how is it wrong? The same argument could be twisted to say that homosexuals must not be right in the head, or they wouldn't be homosexual, just like some children must not be right (or "developed") or they wouldn't enjoy/accept being molested. Just because your opinions differs from their opinions doesn't mean you should force your beliefs on them. Just because our society differs from their society doesn't mean we should call them "wrong".

... and raping virgins causes them harm directly for someone else's gratification.

But, according to the people who believe it cures AIDS, it betters society. It would be "wrong" to prevent them this "gratification" because of this. Just because your opinions differs from their opinions doesn't mean you should force your beliefs on them. Just because our society differs from their society doesn't mean we should call them "wrong".

But murdering children, spousal abuse and slavery all have the side effect that someone gets harmed or killed.

According to the people that support these issues, it's "just a fetus", "just a woman", or "just a negro", and it doesn't matter much anyway that they get hurt/killed. These issues were/are still not "wrong". Because society dictates right and wrong, remember.

There are people capable of having a relationship with no actual sex. Oh, and I'll drop two words from a fair few straight relationships. 'Birth control'.

Rarely is the argument made that people shouldn't be in a relationship because the objective of every romantic relationship is procreation. But remember this argument.

Marriages between relatives can cause the children to have a weaker set of genes leading to a poorer quality of life in many cases.

First, it's not a "weaker set of genes" that's the problem, it's the increased likelyhood of non-dominant genes becoming dominant because both sets of chromosomes possess the same genes -- because of this, genetic disabilities that are usually "overruled" by the better gene pair up and become dominant. But second, and more importantly, refer to the last comment. Your last comment -- the one you wrote. If you don't want to look up a few inches, I'll cite it back -- "There are people capable of having a relationship with no actual sex. Oh, and I'll drop two words from a fair few straight relationships. 'Birth control'."

Children may not fully understand their actions as their mind isn't as fully developed, and their bodies might not yet be ready for the other things a marriage may ask for

Female humans may be impregnated as young as 12 or 13, or younger in some cases. According to some people, that's all it takes. This is one reason why the age of consent in some countries is 13, or even 12.

animals have no say in the matter and don't understand things well enough

I read a blog or some sort once from a man who was convinced otherwise. I don't know where he lived, but he "knew" that he loved a dolphin that lived near the beach outside his home, and he "knew" that the dolphin loved him -- and yes, he and the dolphin had sex on a regular basis. Seems "wrong" to me, but hey, if "right" and "wrong" have no set meaning at all, who am I to say that this guy was a friggin' sick, twisted bastard?

... and multiple partners show a lack of respect for what would have been a sole partner.

Says who? This may be your opinion, sure, but I'm sure the people who participate in such practices think much differently, or they wouldn't do it. The same could be argued that having more than one child shows a lack of respect and appreciation (not to mention a decline in parenting) compared to parenting one child.

Marriages between two men (or women) on the other hand, don't really hurt either of the two nor anyone else.

And again, according to some people, neither do marriages between adults and children, animals, relatives, or multiple partners.

I believe Govinda already smashed that idea. The taxes would be minimal at best as there are already that many things that are taxed.

The point was brought up that it is a financial issue as well as otherwise. As "minimal" as it may seem to you, the amount is not an issue.

And to go further I ask, why should a person's freedoms be violated for a little money?

I ask, why should I pay money for somebody else to have special rights available to them?

Regardless, a valid point was raised, even if the information behind it may not be quite up to scratch. How many homosexual coupes do we hear of divorcing? I'm yet to hear of a single one. Heterosexual couples? All the time...

You've yet to hear of a single homosexual divorce? Frankly, your ignorance of the subject -- and the lack of sources of factual information on it -- does not constitute an absence of homosexual divorces. The argument was made, or attempted at least, that heterosexual marriages -- "most if not all", if I remember correctly -- end in divorce. I'm just asking for information on homosexual marriages to provide comparison.

No, they're just close-minded, at times almost arrogant pricks who refuse to see things from the view of another.

Ah, because "The Church are the real criminals, the real slime of the earth" and "bible-humpers and thick headed homophobes" is so very open-minded.

Many do. Those who don't in some regions are often a minority. Right.

Oh that's right I almost forgot, I actually just got back from leading my church's youth group around, beating up homosexuals. I have the Saturday morning group, but I'm hoping to switch to the Saturday evening group, because there are so many more opportunities then.[/sarcasm]

I've never seen "many" heterosexuals "oppressing" any homosexuals. The few isolated incidents I've heard mention of are just that -- few in number, and rare. And, having lived in quite a few places in my life, I've never seen a "region" where the majority of the people were oppressive. Unless you're talking about somewhere outside America, like the Middle East, where homosexuals are stoned to death, or some places in Africa, where their genitals are forcibly removed.

Just because teasing happens to a good deal of people, doesn't make it 'right'.

But wait. If a lot of people tease, and a lot of people think it's "right" to tease, wouldn't that make it "right", since "right" and "wrong" are completely dictated by society anyway?

I would agree that some people need to harden the **** up (often out of necessity), but it's still not right.

I would agree. It may not be right, but it happens anyway. We all get teased for different things, and we can either live with it and move on or curl up into the fetal position and rock back and forth in the corner of the room for the rest of our lives.

And yeah, he mentioned bashings, and murder. Because that's heaps right...

That also happens on an extremely rare basis, despite the huge amount of media attention that such cases attract. The one that got the most attention was the dragging and murder of a homosexual man in Texas, which was made into an anti-Bush political commercial where the man's daughter spoke about "when Bush refused to sign such-and-such hate crime bill into law, it was like he killed my daddy all over again". (Of course, the political commercial didn't mention that all four of the bastards who participated in the incident were given maximum or near-maximum sentences anyway.) This reminds me of The Office, where the boss crusades against rabies.

So a society's perception of what is or isn't dignified should rule a person's actions and therefore their freedoms? I think not...

So society dictates what is "right" or "wrong", but what they perceive as "right" and "wrong" should have no bearing on freedoms?

As in the examples you have used above of slavery and gender discrimination, much of society's ideas are well and truly outdated. Some are just yet to change.

And before they changed to what they are today, they dictated the freedoms for the time -- for all time. Not all change is progress.

Or 5 cents a year. Big whoop. Chances are all the money would get you is a Mcdonalds cheeseburger and the accompanying diarrhoea/mass vomiting associated with one. If you were paying five thousand dollars in tax a year, then chances are you'd have enough money anyways.

First off, as has been mentioned, the amount is not the issue. Second, you must not understand the tax structure of the United States if you believe somebody paying five thousand dollars a year in taxes can afford what they want. Sure, all of us "have enough money" to spare a nickel. The question isn't "why should we not", it's "why should we".

But those it does benefit can outweigh it's uselessness to others in some cases. What if something happened randomly involving bodily harm? YOU GET MEDICAL AID! Though it may cost a little in taxes, chances are it may better someone's health sooner or later. There are people out there who would prefer being patched up to death I'd like to believe.

That's what insurance is for, and being financially responsible enough to have insurance. Despite what Michael Moore says, the American healthcare industry isn't terrible. And it's a hell of a lot better than many socialized healthcare programs. But let's not stray from the topic.

Lets name two things the Greeks had. Accepted homosexuality and democracy. Hey, democracy was unacceptable for thousands of years. Lets get rid of it.

The Greeks had a very sexual culture. There wasn't much for strait-up homosexuality, just general sexuality. And democracy wasn't "unacceptable", just not implemented.

A. Does gay marriage infringe on ones right to life or safety from bodily harm?
B. Does gay marriage infringe on your freedom to be straight and marry a woman?
C. Does gay marriage keep you from leading a happy life?

Answer the same questions regarding marriage to children, relatives, animals, or multiple spouses. None of which are legal.

If you answered yes to any of these questions, you are wrong. If you answered no to all of them, you have the basis of why gay marriage should be illegal.

"See it my way or you're wrong," huh? But of course, it's those Bible-thumpers who are the closed-minded ones.

Why can't either of you admit that your arguments are rooted in your religion? The same religion whose holy book discusses giants and talking snakes. And don't forget the suggestion that slavery is okay.

Oh, the ignorance. Before we get to your incomprehension and misunderstanding, let me ask how many Bible verses have been quoted in this thread, and how many times a member here has mentioned that they take their stance on the topic solely from their religion. Moving on, I will assume you're referring to Christianity and its "holy book", the Bible. In which case, the three comments you made -- giants, talking snakes, and slavery being "okay" -- are all either incorrect or grossly incorrect. There are differences between giants and big people (unless you're just using the word "giants" to discredit the issue), and not only have the bones of big people been found, we still have big people today. There are no "talking snakes" in the Bible that I'm aware of, and I would assume you're referring to the serpent in Exodus. Serpent/snake, at that time there was a difference -- do a little research on the subject. And while the Bible mentions, briefly, how slaves should act, nowhere does it condone slavery, and a slight knowledge of the Bible would tell you -- no, you know what, you can look it up if you want to know. Why did Moses leave Egypt? The first time, I mean, before the whole "let my people go" thing.

Short thing to say to SAsquatch - study anthropology. It teaches you that what is acceptable in a society is seen as 'right' in that society.

"Normal", sure, but "right" and "wrong", despite how each society may view them, don't change from place to place.

And I know how horrible war is.

Praytell, how?

But before America goes around spreading 'democracy' it must fully accept what freedom entails in the minds of fully grown homosexuals who know what they want and, like many of us, see no reason not to pursue it.

"Freedom" can be a general and specific term. We have "freedom" without having the "freedom" to do certain things. And possessing "freedom" to do anything we might possibly want doesn't exactly help anything.

[Govinda]

I honestly don't see how same-sex marriage is a "right" any more than marriage to a child, animal, or relative is a "right" (or prostitution, or public sex, or quite a few other indecent issues), but you don't hear too many people whining about how those are still illegal. California has a history of being radical, so the only thing that surprises me about this is that it took this long.

Heterosexual marriage isn't a 'right' either. It's part of socialised society. So why not let gay people do it? I don't agree with it, and neither do you, but marriage to minors and your relatives is legal and 'normal' in some societies; but not ours. For that, we are thankful, because we think it's disgusting. We'd like to see it wiped out, but that is not our 'right'.

There's also the question of legality when talking about marriage to children and animals. Our legal systems are set up so that those incapable of truly making a decision, namely children and animals, are not allowed to do so. They cannot be subjugated into it because our society sees them as being incapable to say either yes or no and really mean it.

The same logic doesn't apply to gay people, who are adult human beings fully capable of choosing what they want to do. There is no reason, societal or legal, to stop them. Baiting a member you know to be gay doesn't help your case much.

You're entitled to your opinion, sure. I'm fairly sure I'm too tired to be writing this. Anyway. If you're going to say that gay marriage isn't cool, tell us why, give us something more than an implication of 'indecency'. You can't expect to be taken seriously when you come out with nothing of substance, make it sound like it's going to raise annoyance, and then target a homosexual dude at the end. It's bedtime.

[Dimi]

It will be interesting to see how this does play out across the nation. If anything, I'm glad to see it's been approved over here. Personally, I don't have a problem with gays or lesbians. I love lesbians though.

But yeah, people are people. It doesn't matter if you're gay, straight, or bi. Or even black, white, or brown. The world we live in is diverse where everyone is different and everyone's gonna have their own opinion about it. Good for them though. ^^

[X SlAyEr]

It will be interesting to see how this does play out across the nation. If anything, I'm glad to see it's been approved over here. Personally, I don't have a problem with gays or lesbians. I love lesbians though.

But yeah, people are people. It doesn't matter if you're gay, straight, or bi. Or even black, white, or brown. The world we live in is diverse where everyone is different and everyone's gonna have their own opinion about it. Good for them though. ^^

I agree with you people are people but not gay man married gay man cos i feel that's not right i mean it's not the natural, and i don't like lesbians
if gay married gay or even lesbians there will be effects on them like AIDS or any disease maybe not now they get the disease maybe after 5 or 7 years or more and this is not good for them, for real i'm shocked man married man

[Phantom]

I agree with you people are people but not gay man married gay man cos i feel that's not right i mean it's not the natural, and i don't like lesbians
if gay married gay or even lesbians there will be effects on them like AIDS or any disease maybe not now they get the disease maybe after 5 or 7 years or more and this is not good for them, for real i'm shocked man married man

How about getting some better grammer skills? I could hardly understand a word that you just said. Writing in complete sentences is not that hard. So let me get this striaght: You think Gay men and lesbians are the only ones in the world that get AIDS? Go check yourself. And you think Heterosexuals aren't capable of getting AIDS and other sexual diseases? Have you gotten yourself tested? The reason people get sexual diseases is because they are to stupid not to use protection when they have sex, so don't pin all the sexual diseases in the world on gay people.




Gay people are people too regardless of what YOU, homophobes, or anyone else thinks. Falling in love with someone you love regardless if their a different race or the same gender is normal and natural. You think that the main purpose of why were here on earth is for just to mate and make babies 24/7? You and those homophobes and continue to live your dillusions of grande if you want, but those who actually have lives, live in the real world. If we don't want kids guess what? We won't. We fall in love with the same sex, and start a relationship, why? Because its our right, and because we can. We aren't constricted to some things, we have freedom, rights, and independence, if gay couples want to adopt a child, they can.



If gay couples want to kiss in public, guess what? They can. And whoever stares at them in disgust can go screw themselves. I'm a gay man and I have a boyfriend whom I love very much with all my heart. If that kind of love is unnatural, then here's what I have to say to that: "I don't give a ****". And one more thing, you might want to finish school. Sorry for the off-topic rant.

[darkViVi]

Oh noes! it hath begun! THE GAYS WILL TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!!

[X SlAyEr]

Oh noes! it hath begun! THE GAYS WILL TAKE OVER THE WORLD!!!!

well no you wrong they are people like us, and hill yeah they will>>> ^__^

[Furore]

I personally think Gov (Pablo Honey) summed this up very well. Personally I feel that because gay couples can know what they're doing and make the commitment just as straight couples do, who am I to deny them of what they desire when it doesn't really affect me negatively in any way? And I believe others should ask themselves that same question. Does preventing two homosexual people from marrying eachother really benefit anyone in any way? Bearing in mind of course, that they can be a couple anyways, regardless of marital status. All that happens really is that they're banned from taking their relationship to that next step. That's discrimination plain and simple...

The only thing stopping gay marriage as far as I'm concerned is the outdated ideas held by much of many societies. Some people are homosexual, that's fine. Why should they be penalised because of a society's prejudices? It's honestly complete bullshit.

[Polk]

This is great news. The only way this is negative is that Ellen Degeneres and Portia de Rossi are getting married. Thus ends my dream of meeting Portia de Rossi at a bar or something. She's single. Maybe confused. I buy her a drink. We talk. We date for a while. She realizes she's in love with me. Next thing you know, I'm banging Lindsey Bluth.

One more dream to erase from the list.

[nix]

Coming from a neutral stand point but, Is being gay not going against the church and their beliefs ? But now by law they are allowed to piss on the church pretty much by getting married?

So god was wrong ? Is that what they are trying to say ?

I'm confused

[Furore]

Coming from a neutral stand point but, Is being gay not going against the church and their beliefs ? But now by law they are allowed to piss on the church pretty much by getting married?

So god was wrong ? Is that what they are trying to say ?

I'm confused

The Church isn't the only authority that can perform weddings I think. I believe in most countries the state can, and I've heard some places will allow captains of ships and the like to perform weddings. I believe the definition states marriages can be sanctioned with governmental, social, or religious recognition. I could be wrong on that though.

It was however in school that I learnt this, and I wasn't really paying much attention to it at the time.

[Walter Sobchak]

This is great news. The only way this is negative is that Ellen Degeneres and Portia de Rossi are getting married. Thus ends my dream of meeting Portia de Rossi at a bar or something. She's single. Maybe confused. I buy her a drink. We talk. We date for a while. She realizes she's in love with me. Next thing you know, I'm banging Lindsey Bluth.

One more dream to erase from the list.

Hey, that was my dream too.

Coming from a neutral stand point but, Is being gay not going against the church and their beliefs ? But now by law they are allowed to piss on the church pretty much by getting married?

So god was wrong ? Is that what they are trying to say ?

I'm confused

Churches aren't the only way to get married. An actual marriage license comes from the local government.

You can get a United Life Reverend to preside. I am legally a Reverend, and can marry people.

[Omega]

LOL, how is homosexual marriage progress? Progress of what? Our acceptance now of what has been unacceptable for thousands of years?

That's progress?

So in like 40,000 years if Murder is then acceptable do we call it progress?



I'm against it, but I've never been for it and never will for many reasons. Not just religious mind you, it's much more than that. It's impure, driven by sexuality only, and it raises taxes. Which the last of those is the most unacceptable since that affects me personally.

If homosexuals could get married and have no financial government related tax breaks that they don't deserve anyway, I'd have no problem with it. Well I would, but I'd be able to deal with it.

But for you to tell me that a homosexual couple should have equal rights of tax benefits as if they were a family, is completely inaccurate since they can't have friggin children.

The basis and mentality behind tax breaks for couples was because the thought was they have or are going to have children and therefore will need help raising kids. There is no reason to give the same tax breaks to homosexual couples UNLESS they adopted. So I'd agree to homosexual marriage with no change in tax benefits but simply acknowledgement of a legal marriage document sure.

But it's not about that and never has been. It's not about love like many like to claim, it's about money.

When I get my 6,000 check in 2 weeks and the damn thing is 2,500 dollars after taxes, I tell all you going to school for veterinarian or doctor or lawyer to think again. Take the kids jobs here on this site that are working for Taco Bell, because chances are, at the lower pay levels, you'll actually end up making the same amount of money. Let someone else pay for useless taxes like homosexual couple benefits that are completely unjustified.

Nobody sees the whole picture they only want to caress and love one another as if in some hypnotic world of acid tripping Jesus admonished homosexuality from being a sin, and we are to just let it be, let live and let love. Give me a break.

A total and complete joke of law. It most likely will be overturned again, and back and forth again and again. Or it will smother the states and eventually Revelation will occur and then everything will make sense to us as we're all destroyed, but hey let's have fun in the meantime. lolz

I'm pretty cynical obviously, and my financial knowledge of the subject comes from my degree in Accounting, so I apologize for the financial truth and current shitty economy of America affecting my views perhaps.

[Phantom]

LOL, how is homosexual marriage progress? Progress of what? Our acceptance now of what has been unacceptable for thousands of years?

That's progress?

So in like 40,000 years if Murder is then acceptable do we call it progress?



I'm against it, but I've never been for it and never will for many reasons. Not just religious mind you, it's much more than that. It's impure, driven by sexuality only, and it raises taxes. Which the last of those is the most unacceptable since that affects me personally.

If homosexuals could get married and have no financial government related tax breaks that they don't deserve anyway, I'd have no problem with it. Well I would, but I'd be able to deal with it.

But for you to tell me that a homosexual couple should have equal rights of tax benefits as if they were a family, is completely inaccurate since they can't have friggin children.

The basis and mentality behind tax breaks for couples was because the thought was they have or are going to have children and therefore will need help raising kids. There is no reason to give the same tax breaks to homosexual couples UNLESS they adopted. So I'd agree to homosexual marriage with no change in tax benefits but simply acknowledgement of a legal marriage document sure.

But it's not about that and never has been. It's not about love like many like to claim, it's about money.

When I get my 6,000 check in 2 weeks and the damn thing is 2,500 dollars after taxes, I tell all you going to school for veterinarian or doctor or lawyer to think again. Take the kids jobs here on this site that are working for Taco Bell, because chances are, at the lower pay levels, you'll actually end up making the same amount of money. Let someone else pay for useless taxes like homosexual couple benefits that are completely unjustified.

Nobody sees the whole picture they only want to caress and love one another as if in some hypnotic world of acid tripping Jesus admonished homosexuality from being a sin, and we are to just let it be, let live and let love. Give me a break.

A total and complete joke of law. It most likely will be overturned again, and back and forth again and again. Or it will smother the states and eventually Revelation will occur and then everything will make sense to us as we're all destroyed, but hey let's have fun in the meantime. lolz

I'm pretty cynical obviously, and my financial knowledge of the subject comes from my degree in Accounting, so I apologize for the financial truth and current shitty economy of America affecting my views perhaps.

And how is homosexuals getting married effect you in any way? This isn't a question of financial benefits and the world's shitty economy, this is about if two people really love each other and want to make a lifelong commitment then they should hav the right to get married. Most if not all of Heterosexual Marriages pretty much end with a sheet of white paper stating a divorce, and pretty much all of heterosexual couples getting married waste money too so whats the difference? I'm not trying to fight your beliefs or how you feel about the subject, but to say that homosexual marriage is impure and that me and those who are homosexual are driven by sexuality and desires only isn't very fair. So if what you say is true what about heterosexuals?






You think they aren't driven by sexual desires and impure throughts? Take a good look around. Oh, and one more thing how exactly does homosexuals raise taxes? You have proof or evidence of this occuring before? Unless you have proof to back this up this statement you said is just a bunch of bull. If it was true then wouldn't heterosexuals be uping the taxes more am I right? And another thing, why shouldn't homosexuals get the same tax breaks as heterosexuals? Money my arse. Or is just because their homosexuals and theirfore shouldn't have the same benefits as marriage couples? Even if me and my boyfriend chose not to adopt a child we should still get the same benefits as heterosexuals. Oh, and buddy homosexuals don't live in no hypnotic world, our love for our partners and spouses are REAL.





The church is making the people live in a hynotic world where its heterosexuals all the time, and that homosexuals are the acid of the earth and deserve to go to hell. The Church are the real criminals, the real slime of the earth. Homosexuals have done nothing more then live their lives, and they would like to live their lives in peace without being afriad to let their voices be heard by bible-humpers and thick headed homophobes who wish to oppress them. Marriage between a Man and a Woman ain't so "sacred" as you think it to be.





Take a freakin look in the world today and tell me that heterosexuals aren't impure themselves. Spreading hate, and oppressing homosexuals for living there damn lives in peace. Homosexuals deserve the many rights heterosexuals do, and I would love to see that gay marriage is accepted in ALL states AND countries in the world. It's 2008, the world is moving forward, and gays and lesbians are starting to take back their lives and livelyhood that the Church and the government keep taking away from them, like their slaves, the Church talk about spreading peace and acceptance of all, but its all a big fat lie, and the ppl just eat it up, and you wonder why many homosexual kids are getting teased, tortured, and beaten to death. This is about Human dignity, not money, or finacial numbers.

[Walter Sobchak]

LOL, how is homosexual marriage progress? Progress of what? Our acceptance now of what has been unacceptable for thousands of years?

Well, since you admit your background is in accounting, time for some history.

Lets name two things the Greeks had. Accepted homosexuality and democracy. Hey, democracy was unacceptable for thousands of years. Lets get rid of it.

Also, slaves being free was unacceptable, so why don't we go get our bullwhips and put them back to work?

This is a illogical argument. You lose.

Sasquatch, Omega, you both miss a point. Let me point to the phrase "Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness".

A. Does gay marriage infringe on ones right to life or safety from bodily harm?
B. Does gay marriage infringe on your freedom to be straight and marry a woman?
C. Does gay marriage keep you from leading a happy life?

If you answered yes to any of these questions, you are wrong. If you answered no to all of them, you have the basis of why gay marriage should be illegal.

It is anti-American to deny human beings equal rights. I toss and turn at night when I realize there are people that disagree with this.

Why can't either of you admit that your arguments are rooted in your religion? The same religion whose holy book discusses giants and talking snakes. And don't forget the suggestion that slavery is okay.