Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

I didn't say there weren't. I just likened applying the same sort or government and social coercion currently applied to heterosexuals to get them to marry to gay couples to a cheap bible salesman attempting to convince you to change your relationship into something other people want and not what you want.

Gay couples didn't want or care about marriage until they were told by their political leaders that it was important that they did. Talk about manipulation!


Oh. And in case you didn't get it, my entire post (well, most of it) was tongue in cheek. I was asked to post something in favor of gays, so I did. I waxed poetical about the unmatched freedom and liberty they currently enjoy. I thought the whole "nagging mother" bit was enough to indicate this was a semi-joke...

This is why you will die alone and nobody will ever love you, because you do not understand what love and/or marriage is about. There's really no need to argue the topic further with you. By the way, you're wrong, in case you didn't catch the point.

Woah! Love isn't the issue here. Why do you think I mentioned common law marriage laws earlier as well? Lots of people love eachother, live together, and share their lives together. But we only have ever in the history of the world passed laws mandating that if they do that for 5 years (or whatever) that they are legally considered bound by a state marriage contract, when the couple doing so consists of an adult male and an adult female.

Why do you suppose that is? It's not about the love of the couple. People can be in love but not get married, and they can get married and not be in love. But, everything else being equal, the state would rather that couples who are shacked up, regardless of the reasons, get married. And that's precisely because of the mess that happens legally if they produce children and there's no legal agreement between them.


I'll note that you *still* have not provided an alternative state objective for the creation of marriage benefits that fits the set of criteria currently required. I've asked for this at least 4 or 5 times now, and you still refuse to answer.


I'm heading home. I'll see if you or someone else can come up with one when I get on tomorrow...

good job ignoring my question gbaji

I already knew you didn't have an answer, though.

I distinctly remember a number of posts (I believe they were from Jophiel) about the history of marriage being about property ownership and inheritence and yada yada, I'm too lazy to look it up now. But seriously, you have got to be kidding me. You're arguing that marriage came around as a "just in case" people accidently got pregnant? That it was in order to cut costs on custody battles? Then why is divorce legal?

Also, as someone who I've seen frequently discuss liberties and such, why does one such as yourself not think that, in a free country, it should not require a reason to make something legal, but the other way around? A reason should be require to make it illegal. Gay couples can make homes for those that have been given up by those single parents, or even those couples who did not believe they could afford to take care of a child. Stable households can do nothing but help as a whole. I can't think of any better reason for why we have marriage benefits.

Why do we have marriage benefits? I can't say for certain, and neither can you. But your reasoning is similar to that of "Look, the sun moves across the sky, so therefore it must be rotating around the Earth!" It's shallow, and befits someone of the 3rd grade.

If you don't believe that marriage should have any benefits at all, for either gay or hetero marriage, then say as such, but this crap that you spew about the "reason" for marriage is meaningless. Really, if there are marriage benefits at all, then they should stand for both gay and hetero marriages. If they fall, then it should be for both, not just one.

Edited, Aug 5th 2010 11:46pm by Siesen

Most states didn't have any actual codified prohibition against gay couples marrying until the 1980s. Did you know that? The first case in the US of a gay person *attempting* to get a marriage license was in 1970. The laws didn't expressly prohibit it, but everyone simply assumed that state defined marriage was specific to heterosexuals and almost no gay people ever tried to get married "legally" for most of US history.

It's only been in the last 30 years or so that it's become an issue. And even today, if you ask most gay people if *they* want or ever plan or even vaguely desire to get married, a vast majority of them will not only say "no", but "hell no". It's a fabricated issue. Always has been.

While I don't know much about the history of gay rights (history was never my strong suit), I want you to point out to me this "vast majority" of gays who don't want to get married. I knew a number of people in high school who said much the same thing, and guess what? Several of them are married! (and keep in mind I only graduated some 3 years ago, so there's still time.)

I think one image that has stuck in my mind was when Prop 8 was first passed, and someone (I think Anna) posted that they had received a call from a gay friend in California who was absolutely destroyed that it had been passed, as she had wanted to get married.

Can't we rename this **** a ritual of binding and be done with the out-group bickering?

Nope. The state benefits do though. Gee. I wish I'd been able to predict that someone would once again confuse these two...


Nothing prevents gay couples from entering into a legally binding contract which allows them to share property, inheritance, and yada yada. That's an irrelevant point, but people keep bringing it up. We are *only* talking about a set of state benefits. Nothing else. That's all you are granted by getting a marriage license. Doubly so in California, where there is a domestic partnership status which pre-defines a contract for you, just as the marriage status does.

I value my marriage as more than simply a piece of paper and a set of benefits. In fact, I'd say anyone who doesn't value their marriage that way, is probably headed for a divorce in a few short years.

And that last sentence is where things go entirely wrong.

We should be encouraging that the children be raised in such an environment, regardless of the circumstances of their creation.

My friends sister got married so that she could have a man to raise her child, and live off his military pension. They don't love each other at all...she could barely be brought to care when he went on his last tour. I say barely because she of course cares that if he dies she gets everything, plus the spousal benefits.

Yes lets protect the sanctity of loveless marriages such as that.

Oh and if you wonder, yes he was aware of the situation. Being single though he liked the idea of maybe having sex once a year...and he has a heart so he really does care about her and her kid. I wish she felt the same.

Edited, Aug 5th 2010 11:12pm by Dyadem