Ban On Gay Marriage Struck Down

Let them be as miserable as the rest of us...At the end of the day its just a piece of paper anyways. The only reason most fight for it so hard is they want the tax cuts.

Now my only thing I have against it...the argument of choice. We all make the choice. If you want to argue its not then I wanna see you keep that same though for a pedophile or a rapist. You are basically saying that we as people can not control our actions when you say it is not a choice.


And lets keep religion out of the argument since neither evolution nor creation can be 100% proven that's why they are called theory.

I've always wanted to go through book stores and put a
"This is just a theory" sticker on all the Bibles, lol

/rerail

Gravity's just a theory too. So is the germ theory of disease.

The "it's just a theory so we can choose to ignore it" defense starts to break down past a certain practical level of evidence.

---------------

As for reply to post earlier, evidence was presented in the Prop 8 case that proved (and rendered as part of the verdict's findings of fact):

- Countries with gay marriage saw no change in divorce or marriage rates after it was legalized.

- The acceptance of gay marriage in these countries had no effect on the overall institution of marriage of heterosexual's attitudes towards it.

- Once legalized and socially accepted, gays and straights had no measurable difference in sexual behavior or attitudes about relationships.

My simply point on that is there is a "Certain practical level of evidence" to argue several theories on the origin of life. Until someone makes a time machine and we can actually go take a look it will away be up in the air.


Back on topic the evidence introduced is very compelling. Though you cant be sure it will be the same due to over all cultural differences.

/derail

Gravity is actualy Newton's law of gravity. It's reproducable and has enough empirical evidence to support it.

Darwin's theory of evolution is still a theory is because there hasn't been enough time to give it the evidence it needs to become a law.

Newton's law of gravity is not a law. It's actually completely untrue at large distances, and is trumped via empirical evidence by Einstein's theory of general relativity.

I stand suprised and corrected

Oh Jaerik, I want your gaybies sometimes.

I think they should let people marry sheep or goats too.

If you can get the goat to sign a binding legal document with informed consent, then we'll talk.

What about a monkey? :P

I lol'd.

Well what about people practicing polygamy? Wouldn't current law, be unconstitutional in CA because it has no rational basis for denying the same status to polygamist couples?

Why is it ok to rewrite the rules for some but not for others?

Ok,
1) Marriage and sexual reproduction are two different things, Dogs can reproduce in the same manner we do, but don't have a socially understood version of marriage! Making your "Bumbabies dont count so you can't get married" argument pointless.
2) Marriage as a concept was never about a binding of love in order to reproduce (yea cause lets face it... every Religious person is a virgin before marriage >.>; ), originally it was to improve impoverished families reputation through dowries and family contacts....
3) Actually the most common cause of the inability to conceive is through drug/alcohol/physical abuse.... please do some research before spouting crap....
and 4).... Nature is changing... cause were kinda killing it....

That says more about you as a person really >.>;

What facts do you want?? I mean really... If I were to ask you when you knew you where (presumably) Straight... I assume your answere would be "Around the time I became sexually aware of other people". I can tell you as a gay person the answer would be for same for me. I'm gay and im telling you it wasn't a choice, What more proof is there? If you wont excpet a driect answere from someone who actually KNOWS then your simply never going to listen at all.

My personal opinion on polygamy is probably irrelevant to the thread.

However, the rational basis for previous court rulings regarding polygamy is that it's incompatible with existing legal frameworks regarding inheritance and property sharing. Basically, how does child support work in a polygamist divorce? How about custody rights? Inheritance rights? If the husband dies, how do his wives inherit property equally? What about if a wife dies? What about if it's multiple husbands to one wife?

The courts have ruled that these complications give the government a rational basis for ensuring it can't happen.

By contrast, this court ruling on Prop 8 is that there is no such insurmountable problem to letting gays get married.

Except for the fact that nature itself apparently begs to differ.

We don't know why a certain percentage of so many species seems to be homosexual or otherwise non-reproductive. It seems counter-intuitive with only a basic understanding of evolution.

That being said, the best scientific theory is that having a certain percentage of a social animal population unable to reproduce clears them up to pursue other endeavors, which can provide a net positive input to the survival of the species as a group.

I love how every tryhard bigot, anon or otherwise, keeps coming in here with the exact same ideas (e.g. lack of procreation, "GAYS AINT NATURAL HERP DERP", HELP I AM TRAPPED IN 2006 PLEASE SEND A TIME MACHINE comparisons to bigamy and bestiality, insinuations that we're a country based on a particular slice of christian morality, etc ad infinitum) that were specifically analyzed and discredited by Judge Walker yesterday.

It makes me feel much better about the ruling's chances of surviving at the SCOTUS level.

People who don't get laid are the ones playing FFXI. We're not contributing to society :D

Honestly, the root of the argument as far as government recognized marriage goes are all those things that are NOT part of the religious institution of marriage. Such as:

-The ability to file joint taxes with your spouse.
-The ability to name both people in a couple as legal guardians of an adoptee.
-The ability to name your spouse as the beneficiary of your insurance policies.
-The ability to write your spouse's name down as your "emergency contact" on any number of forms.
-The ability to visit your spouse in the hospital outside of normal visiting hours that are there for friends and family.
-Assuming homosexuals are ever welcome in the military, the ability to live off-post with your spouse instead of being relegated to the barracks.

The list goes on and on. The point in all this is that married couples get a ton of benefits that people don't even think about--benefits that homosexual couples have not been allowed to take advantage of. And calling gay marriage a "civil union" and extending all the same rights to them is about the same as ensuring both whites and blacks can ride the same bus as long as the blacks sit at the back IMO.

I'd like to see a good, sound, logical, well-thought-out reason why gay couples shouldn't be able to do these things (i.e. file taxes together, have insurance policies together) that doesn't invoke some religious or otherwise overarching sense of morality.

I could be wrong. I am by no means all right, all the time. I am occasionally wrong and as far as "views and opinions" go; these are things that luckily change as time moves forward although please forgive my seemingly "180" on the matter - I am wrong from time to time. xD

One of my favorite quotes is something I saw on "CSI" once;

"What we are, never changes. Who we are, never stops"

I like this quote because it lets us know that we will not be right 100% of the time and no matter how strongly we may feel about a belief or an opinion, there are those times that we can be, and often are - wrong about our views and/or opinions.

"The opinions of such a matter, are only limited by the number of people involved in the discussion." -(I forget the person this quote comes from)

So...could I be wrong? Certainly.
Is it my "right" to tell a gay couple they do not have the same right to pursue happiness as I do because I'm heterosexual? Absolutely not.
No one has that right.

Marriage is a tradition, one which has joined a man and a woman in the bonds of matrimony, and has been as such from the dawn of it's very existence. Now we have reached a point in our evolution where we have to ask ourselves if our beliefs are such that they are right and just. Even so to such a point that they should be imposed upon others and there again, while I am anti gay marriage, even I must accept that it is not my place or anyone else's, to tell any couple, gay, straight, or otherwise, that they do not have the same rights as me, be they God-given or simply the rights of human beings.
Someone being gay does not turn them into livestock and it certainly does not give anyone the right to discriminate upon them as such.
Where marriage is an act which is seen as somewhat Holy and overseen by God, at what point have we been told by the same, (God), that it is our right to condemn or deny anyone by race, religion, or sexual preference, that they do not have the same rights as anyone else? To do so is to silently say that there is 1 set group of people that have a "HOLY RIGHT" to be human whereas anyone else who does not share that view, is condemned to a pit of fire and burning, and death and torment and crying and agony - but God still loves you (Carlin R.I.P.).

Point is, as I believed in my other post that marriage should be something shared between only a man and a woman, after very careful consideration, I might have been wrong in that post and luckily I'm not so arrogant that I cannot admit my error.
It is not my right or anyone else's, to tell two consenting adults, that they have any less of a right to happiness, than I, or anyone else does.
I personally believe that marriage should be something that is shared between only a man and a woman, but I also believe that it's not my right to deny a gay couple their right to pursue happiness.
Thank you for reading and please forgive my earlier short-sightedness. I hope that others can read this and come to understand that change happens all around us, all the time.
No single one of us, has all the answers and we should never claim to.

speaking for yourself Excelior? lol sux you dun get laid

Not being serious. However I'm sure that will get trolled.

Not sure if this has been brought up in any form, and I can only imagine what the reaction on here will be however I propose this...

The US should mimick how marriage is handled in France.

Make everyone, gay or straight get a civil union which is state recognition and yay everyone gets all the rights the want, deserve and demmand.

As for marriage? Return it to its roots. IF you want a marriage then that's a religious ceremony, purely done to satisfy the requirements of your particular faith or creed. Yet if you do have one, it means nothing in the eyes of the state.

In effect the word marriage is preserved for its original meaning and intent which is really all conservatives really want. And everyone has the same status and rights.

I think the argument for and against the anti gay marriage initiative calls into question if there is any reason adults should be treated as less than human outside of already having thier civil rights stripped from conviction and incarceration. Human Californian adults that fall in love with same sex partner are real people that are happy thier way. Should people with specifically untraditional sexual preference be given lesser rights in legal joining with thier prefered partner? My answer would be obviously no, because that would amount to an excuse to cast negative judgement to another person that is not in my way or hurting anyone.

You are very confused my friend!

That is definitely the most ignorant thing I have ever heard in my life. It lets me know that you have no idea what the hell you are talking about.

The word theory has many different meanings, just like many other english words. You've been told that "evolution is just a theory", a guess, a hunch, and not a fact. When scientists use the word theory, it has a different meaning to normal everyday use.

You're confusing the everyday use of the word, with the scientific use of the word!

In Science, a theory is a well-substantiated, well-supported, and well documented explanation for our observations.

In Science, Theory is the goal! It is the ultimate goal. When a theory is finished, it is the closest that anything can ever come to being proven. There is nothing higher or better than a theory; Not even laws!

Facts and Laws are less important than a theory:

1. Theory
2. Laws
3. Facts

Scientific theory basically ties all of the facts together, and creates an explanation that best fits.


Take the theory of rain for example:

Fact 1: The sun gives off radiation that heats the Earth's atmosphere.

Fact 2: Radiation from the sun causes water to evaporate.

Fact 3: The Water vapor rises.

Fact 4: Transpiration, which is water escaping from plants due to Sun's heat, also contributes to some extent, to the process of evaporation.

Fact 5: Condensation: It is in this stage that cloud formation occurs. The water in the form of the vapors rising, cools down at a certain height and condenses to form clouds.

Fact 6: The water keeps condensing to form clouds.

Fact 7: When too much water accumulates, the clouds get too heavy, and it begins raining.

All of these facts together form an explanation on how this all happens.

That is what is what Scientists call a 'theory'.

The theory that you're confusing this with is the everday use.

Here is an example of your use of the word:

'All 30 children had a different theory as to who put the tack in the teachers seat.'

If you were to say that "Evolution is just a theory" to any scientist.. You would definitely be laughed at.

I would only say something like that if I were /anon as well >_>

This is actually how the state of Connecticut did it. They didn't "legalize gay marriage" so much as define a union between two people, straight or gay, as a "civil union." Marriages are something you have in a church and mean nothing in the eyes of the state.

The trouble is, you would effectively be "taking away marriage" from all the people already married, and replacing it with "civil unions." I'm sure the religious dominionists would scream just as loudly as they are now.

This was actually an interesting read Jaerik. Hadn't put much thought into the subject, and lol at the whole "If they cant reproduce it shouldn't be allowed." Seriously? Since when did the ability to/not to reproduce validate such an argument? I'd be curious to know your opinion on artificial insemination? Would you also say that a couple shouldn't be allowed to have a child if nature didn't permit it?

Poor choice/comparison aside, the same argument could be made according to your statement.