Prop 8 OverturnedFollow

What is wonderful is that Humanism is going to win out in the end. It took a lot of philosophising, public arguing, legal wrangling over decades, but eventually peasants were freed, slaves were freed, women were emancipated, blacks and other minorities were emancipated and given legal parity with whites. We're not at a social utopia yet, but things are slowly getting better and better. More equal, more fair, with individuals able to rise and fall a little more on their own merits rather than their race or sex.

Now homosexual emancipation is going though it's first decades of legal testing. History suggests that in the end, acceptance of homosexuals as completely accepted members of society is inevitable. Homosexuals and bisexuals will end up with the same rights and responsibilities as straights.

Dark pockets of prejudice will linger, poisoned by their bitter revulsion, hate, and sense of inherent superiority. They will do nothing but poison their own lives with their moral hypocrisy, and will be able to act out less and less against their despised foes, as ****** are folded more and more into mainstream society, under the protection of the law.


Love and The Golden Law is going to win in the end.

Whatever was the reason why they decided to keep it, was their rationale on how marriage should be, i.e, a union between a man and a woman. That alone is an "overall theme". There's no way to avoid that fact.

I'm not claiming that is the theme, but just as with the "unity of family" example, it is a possibility.



You mean like the United States Constitution?



That's not how it works.. If we were redefining marriage from the beginning, then you'll be absolutely correct, but that's not how it is. Marriage has already been defined and you are already excluded, so YOU have to show why it shouldn't.

You claim that it's excluded because of our social history based on a moral argument. Well, now it's your turn to counter that argument to show why it is incorrect, you can't simply say "it isn't legitimate?", based on what? It doesn't matter if the argument was, "the sky is blue, so therefore SSM should be banned, you have to logically show how the sky being blue is not a valid argument, not just "it isn't legitimate".




I stated my stance numerous times over. Look on page 3.



What a weak cop out. How is this not "engaged". You seem to think that your arguments used in SSM only affects SSM, because no law cases refer to other previous cases....

Once again, what part of me don't you understand? Just because you don't agree or you're too simple minded to grasp the concept doesn't mean "I'm not making sense"



OF course I do, we're talking about how Christopher Columbus invented America.

Yikes.

I think, Alma, that you should leave thoughtful matters to folks whose grandparents were allowed to attend school. That's not an insult, really, just a gentle way of sayin' you might be more suited as a result of pedigree to field work than thinkin'. I'd even allow that afforded a few additional generations of evolutionary advance, you might have by this point moved out of the larval brain stage and into a more developed mode of cogitation, one whereby you'd be capable of quieting your inner-ape. Sadly that hasn't been the case, yet, but I'll be the civilized one among us and wish you luck on your journey.

I realized the errors of my ways... I was just watching the news and my city's mayor just passed a law that it is now illegal for a citizen to be less than a 7 on the Local City Pride Meter.

Who knew that the government can make laws on intangible things that they can't measure?

Your primordial tongue fascinates me. Your grunts and clicks. I would have you kept within glass enclosure for the public's safety and spectacle. History being any indicator, I could charge admission for folks to watch you do what you do, which is to revel in the handling and flinging of your own defecate. There's something almost human about you, but really it's just a shaved ape.

So let's go with the "reasons to restrict marriages" argument.

You are a human being. You can marry anyone except:

- An inanimate object, because it can't sign a contract. No chobits allowed.

- A dead person, because the late fiancé can't sign a contract. No Thin H Line allowed.

- A non-human living being, because it can't sign a contract. Paw prints only work in movies.

- Your brother or sister or father or mother or son or daughter, because ewwwwwww parent/child relationships are the universal human taboo, and you already have an official existing social contract with them that supercedes the possible role of spouse.

- A person under the age of majority for marriage, because they cannot sign legally binding contracts without parental permission. (Personally, I don't think anyone under the age of 18 ought to get married, even if they've got a baby on the way, because you're still a stupid teenager before 18 and marriage is a big life decision. But hey, in redneck states where you can still marry your first cousin, you can also get married at 14 if you knock your girlfriend up.)

- More than one person, because entering a contract with one automatically negates a contract with another. (Much to my best friend's disappointment, since she wants to have her own harem of husbands someday.)

- Someone who is already married, because again, their contract with their existing spouse must be terminated.

- Someone who is of the same gender as you because ... (fill in the blank with a good reason here)

Alma has yet to fill in a good reason. Neither has gbaji. And no, "because they can't have kids" doesn't count. As long as two 90 year olds can get married, that argument is moot.

So, all you detractors. There it is, spelled out for you. Give me a convincing argument along those lines. And "ewwwww" doesn't count because I already used it for incest.

Edited, Aug 13th 2010 9:16pm by catwho

Well, please explain to me, all knowing one. Tell me how I have "zero understanding".



"It should be restricted because there is no reason for it not to be restricted... Sounds stupid huh?



It's not like that at all. I'm just keeping it real and you're living in a fantasy world.

If marriage was a new concept, then you would be 100% absolutely correct, but it isn't. For one reason or another, SSM was excluded. You have to prove why it shouldn't be WITHOUT simply using some universal argument. That's kind of how life works, you know.



Oh, you mean by calling someone wrong with ZERO proof other than saying you have zero understanding..

Or do you mean how everyone says I'm lacking sense or lacking coherence and NOT ONE SINGLE person can give an example for further clarification?!

Or do you mean how people blatantly ignore questions that contradict their view point?

Oh yea, I guess you're right.

Explain why these are good reasons.

Yes, I'm bringing up the whole "but why do we discourage plural marriage" thing again because it's about a hundred times more entertaining than The gbaji'n'Alma Dog And Pony And Donkey Show.

It's because you're probably right around the median in your other social interactions, but here you are very clearly toward the bottom of the intellectual spectrum, probably right between Varus and Exodus. Honestly, I can barely tolerate your posts because you write so poorly, owing largely to a limited vocabulary stifling your ability to elucidate. I make sport of picking on retards, and I've never seen someone who so struggles to find words for their meanings. It's gotta be a real *****.