California Gays just wont give up! Damn Freaks!

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by Xaquin44

actually, I'm married =)

sorry



(actually, I'm not sorry at all)

married, engaged or just shacking up?
your confusion between the three may be an indication of why you cant understand the resistance of the legally Married people.

oh well, at least your not a ranger of the rump

[camily]

Maybe they want to get married because they love each other and want to make the commitment to each other legally. Why do other people get married? They want to be married for the same reason. Gay people are just people. Homosexuality does NOT define them. When you think of who you are is heterosexual the first thing that comes to your mind? Probably not. Their sexuality is only an issue to YOU. They think of themselves as someone that is in love with someone else and wants to marry them. Plain and simple. Yes, their sexuality is an issue, but ONLY because some heterosexuals make it that way. I personally have bigger fish to fry. I'm happy to see other people happy.

[sunmoonstars]

Originally Posted by puggymom

My mom's church (Episcopalian) will perform gay blessings. Are they 'married ' then?

Gay and blessings just don't seem to go together.
I don't know if it's just me...

[bcp (Premo)]

Originally Posted by sunmoonstars

Gay and blessings just don't seem to go together.
I don't know if it's just me...

homophobe

[Geek]

Originally Posted by Toxick

You still have that gorilla suit?

I could never get rid of something that special.

[sunmoonstars]

Originally Posted by bcp

homophobe

NO.
Aww BCP are you bored?
Need some lovin'?
You seem to LOVE talking to me.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by puggymom

And the whole animal thing is a different argument as animals cannot consent. We are dealing with consenting human adults.

Who said anything about animals? It wasn't me.....


However, do you really think incest is just fine? Other than the limit YOU put on it (kinda like the limit the majority of Californians put on "marriage" definition)?

As far as "separate but equal" - that doesn't apply. Homosexuals are not separate in marriage - they can marry someone of the opposite sex that is not too closely related already and is not too young just like everyone else can. The status of two people of the same gender being in a union is different than the status of two people of opposite gender being together, and therefore would fall into a different category of license. Sort of like driving a motorcycle or a semi or a speedboat - they all have different licenses because they're different situations - regardless of their similarities.



Edit: Sorry, I missed the bible question - whether it was permissible in the Bible or not is really not germane to the situation. We govern by man's laws, not God's. Historically, long before the 30 +/- years ago that the word "marriage" began to morph, "marriage" has been one man and one woman. Yes, people will declare women property at some points and some cultures, and arranged marriages, and all of the other meaningless crap to the discussion, but it doesn't change that marriage has historically always been one woman and one man in the vast majority of cultures.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Larry Gude

it is silly and a violation of the constitution to give a tinkers damn what two adults do in terms of a legal contract that has nothing to do with anyone else.

You (and everyone else) have still not produced a Constitutional violation.

However, no one does care what people do in terms of a legal contract. It's just which contract do they fill out.

Civil union for same gendered, "marriage" contract for opposite gendered.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

As long as they are afforded the same benefits or "rights" as those in a Marriage you'd have a case. The Judges in California didnt "give in" they ruled that having one set of benefits for Marriage and a different set for "Civil Unions" wasnt equal.

I may be wrong (I admit that), but my understanding was the benefits (which are not rights, by the way) were the same (except for federal tax laws, which the state has no control over) for both. The CA Supreme Court merely said you can't call two different things by two different names if one side doesn't like it.

[This_person]

Originally Posted by Nucklesack

There isnt a reason for the Government to be involved in people personal lives when their is no harm. Especially when it involves consenting adults.

This is a loser for Conservatives, you cant complain about Government interfering in your home (say in the raising of a child) while then wanting the Government to interfere in other peoples homes.

the point is that it DOES cause harm.

Over generations, devaluing the concept of marriage slides society to decline. This is historically accurate, and the reason for a "marriage" tax advantage at all. Like churches and other societal advantagous organizations, there is a societal stabilizing factor in some institutions - marriage is just one of them. And, these institutions receive tax advantages.