Calif court upholds Prop 8...sortaFollow

No, perhaps it's ignorance and fear. Two people of the same sex marrying is no less normal than a fully grown man pretending to be a warrior in a video game, it's no less normal than a man fathering a child he has no intention of raising, it's no less normal than a man and a woman who have blended families.

Who are YOU to decide what's normal and then impose that decision on others? You know dam well that two men marrying will have absolutely no impact on your life, yet...yet, why? What's the point Totem?






Edited, May 27th 2009 3:48pm by Elinda

No, two men marrying won't have even a discernable impact on my life-- to that extent I agree with you. But just because someone should disagree with you for whatever reason, spurious or not, that does not make them a bigot, a label you're quick to saddle this 52% of the voting populace as someone pointed out. It matters not who funded the efforts; after all, I haven't seen anyone blast the anti-Prop 8 supporters for having been largely funded by pole smokers and tuna boat cleaners, but for some reason having the LDS church push for something they feel strongly about, if I am reading you correctly, is wrong or underhanded as you see it.

As I have said in a different and previous thread, when the pro-homosexual rights crowd fights as rigorously for the rights of the unborn child-- who has much much more to lose than a mere marriage license --then I'll be happy to champion the rights of gays to marry. In the meantime, it has been shown time and time again the will of the people is for same sex individuals not to marry each other. Time to stop kicking against the pricks, so to speak.

Sorry. I couldn't help myself there.

Totem

It's a perceptional difference. No one's "imposing" on gay couples at all. We're asking that we not be imposed upon. I care about the issue of gay marriage exactly as much as I am impacted by gay marriage. I have no problems with gay couples getting married. My issues only arise when those gay couples insist that their marriage must qualify them for state benefits which I must pay for.


Their marriage has no impact on my life. The benefits they want to draw from the state do.

No one's "imposing" on gay couples at all.

Gay couples don't pay taxes? Wow, when did this happen? I mean that's the only imposition in question, right? You love gays, you just don't want to be taxed to support the massive wealth they'll gain by being married, right?

I pay taxes as well Smash. I don't expect to receive any of the benefits in question unless I marry someone with whom I might just happen to get pregnant at some point. I expect that the law should treat a gay person exactly the same. Don't you agree? That's equality, right?


Or do I have to go through the whole "Ok. So you're saying it's ok for me to marry my brother, but not my sister" bit to show you just how stupid and inconsistent the argument that marriage has nothing to do with potential child production? Really? Again? Cause I'd think you'd have gotten it the last 8 times...

So, ladies who hit menopause shouldn't have the right to get married?

Haha, you are so full of ****.

This lil thread you cling to - the one about the purpose of state sanctioned marriage is to more effectively propagate the species...is imaginary. Don't think it's really been a relevant factor since, like, caveman days.

Then why do we provide those benefits? See. I keep getting all these people insisting that my explanation must be wrong, but no one seems to be able to provide any sort of alternative explanation. Do you disagree with me because my explanation doesn't match the benefits or the conditions under which they are applied? Or do you disagree purely because if I'm right, it really does represent a valid and legitimate reason to restrict those benefits and the entire gay marriage argument fails?


Again. I suspect the latter. I'd love to hear someone actually give me a reason why the state should provide those benefits to married couples in the first place. And "tradition" isn't a good answer. There has to be a reason why we choose to create them back before it became a tradition. So, before you condemn my explanation, you might at least try to come up with one yourself.

Look, I'm really sorry you're single, but don't take your pitiful anger out on the rest of the world by acting like there's a cold chance in hell all marriage benefits/rights can/should be removed.

Fact 1: Marriage benefits/rights for straight couples are not going anywhere any time soon.
Fact 2: Gay couples are not able to have these benefits.
Conclusion: You're a fucking moron if you expect anyone to take you seriously when your only argument against gay marriage (for benefits/rights) rests upon no rights existing.

If you want to campaign for that, be my guest. Until you manage to get all marriage benefits/rights removed from every aspect of life in every state, you have nothing to stand on with this argument.


Edited, May 27th 2009 10:53pm by CBD

Also, and lastly, this is SO not about incurring additional tax burden on YOU. It's about insuring that a same-sex couples life-time commitment to each other being is valued no more and no less than a straight couples.

You tell me why it shouldn't be?

((and you can't use the argument that it's because they can't have kids (though they can and do) we've already decided that that isn't a criteria for marriage)).

3: occurring naturally <normal immunity>

4. Biology, Medicine/Medical.
a. free from any infection or other form of disease or malformation, or from experimental therapy or manipulation.
b. of natural occurrence.

3. occurring naturally: maintained or occurring in a natural state

2. Biology Functioning or occurring in a natural way; lacking observable abnormalities or deficiencies.

That's not what the word "normal" means. If you intended to use the word "common," "numerous," "manifold," a "majority," or "frequent" occurrence then you'd be accurate.

The word "normal" is qualified by how something occurs, not how often. If there is 1 red marble in a jar full of of 1000 blue marbles it is still normal to draw it--just not probable, common, or frequently occurring.

Well, you're obviously illiterate because I've answered this question a few times now. You stomped your feet and said "Not so!" but the fact that you refused to acknowledge those reasons (not surprising as they'd debase your entire argument) isn't the same thing as "No one's provided any reasons".