*NonOfficial* Ongoing states striking down same-sex marriage ban thread

[SlickSnake]

According to you failing to recognize gay relationships isn't "gay bashing".

See for example everything you wrote above about Indian culture and gays.

Never wrong, but never right. How is that working out for you in real life? Not too good I'd wager.

 

[moonbogg]

Yes, me and my hubby tied the knot at last after nearly 30 years! :$:wub:

And thank you for the support! :thumbsup::thumbsup:

He don't post here, because he's way too busy for it, frankly, but he reads some of the posts here that piss me off the most, lol.

Indeed, you got it. Its a shame people have had to wait this long to only do what comes natural to each of us. If I could apologize for humanity's collective bigotry and ignorance, I would.
Progress is good. The hatred of the few will never stop the onward march of reason and common sense morality desired by the many.

 

[TheSiege]

For the same reason Bill Clinton didn't technically lie under oath



Essentially every society in the world for centuries or millenia.

Can you give a more specific answer instead of something so convoluted?
And from what I know, history is ripe with homesexual activity and it wasn't a problem. I think of ancient greece perhaps.

 

[moonbogg]

Can you give a more specific answer instead of something so convoluted?
And from what I know, history is ripe with homesexual activity and it wasn't a problem. I think of ancient greece perhaps.

You risk confusing people with such facts. Its easier for the bigoted brain to stick to the lies, such as, "All of human behavior is based on choice alone".
I fully understand that my preference of vagina is no more of a choice than my preference of vanilla over chocolate. BAN CHOCOLATE.

 

[Victorian Gray]

I am not the one trying to argue that demanding the government recognize my relationship is the same as demanding that the government leave me alone.

I am not sure what is so difficult for you. Marriage is fundamentally about society/government recognizing a given relationship as "special".

Once again, doesn't matter bunky, you've already lost. The rate things are moving, two years tops and it's going to be nationwide.

Poor baby. <snicker>

btw, simple assault?

 

[Victorian Gray]

Nice topic, thanks!

Glad I finally got hitched after 30 years last week! Woohoo and stuff! :thumbsup: :whiste: :thumbsup:

http://www.chron.com/news/texas/article/Court-denies-request-to-stay-Oregon-gay-marriage-5488210.php

Congratulations.

 

[nehalem256]

Can you give a more specific answer instead of something so convoluted?

Marriage is fundamentally about recognizing pro-creative relationships. It should be obvious why pro-creative relationships are different from not pro-creative relationships and why society would inherently care more about such relationships.

And from what I know, history is ripe with homesexual activity and it wasn't a problem. I think of ancient greece perhaps.

And yet they still didn't have same-sex marriage.

 

[JEDIYoda]

And yet they still didn't have same-sex marriage.

what`s your point...........

 

[TheSiege]

Marriage is fundamentally about recognizing pro-creative relationships. It should be obvious why pro-creative relationships are different from not pro-creative relationships and why society would inherently care more about such relationships.



And yet they still didn't have same-sex marriage.

So would that mean people who are unable or unwilling to procreate not be allowed to be married?

 

[TheSiege]

I am just trying to get an understanding on why people are so against homosexuals getting married.

Marriage serves society in many different ways. And each and every couple can help society in their own way, procreating or not. Just look at NPH and his partner, one could hardly say that their marriage is a detriment to society.

It seems ignorant to base our decision of who can get married based on history. Polyamorous marriages were the norm before monogamous, and we used to forbid interracial marriage. We are a progressive people thats why we don't do things that we used to in the past. (slavery for example)

Outside of disliking homosexuals for xenophobic reasons, it just doesn't compute.
Its like saying someone shouldn't be allowed a doughnut because you don't agree with sugary foods.

 

[Victorian Gray]

So would that mean people who are unable or unwilling to procreate not be allowed to be married?

Good luck with that. He's been refusing to answer that question for months.

 

[nehalem256]

what`s your point...........

That opposition to same-sex marriage has nothing to do with "hating the gays" as evidenced by 2 cultures presented in this thread that didn't hate gays, but still didn't have same-sex marriage.

So would that mean people who are unable or unwilling to procreate not be allowed to be married?

This is a question with no practical relevance to the real world. Should we subject everyone to a lie detector test? Is there a 100% reliable medical test for infertility?

And at the same time it is also of far less importance than disallowing same-sex marriage. Allowing a couple that "secretly" doesn't want children to get married does not publicly disassociate procreation from marriage in the way that allowing same-sex marriage does.

I am just trying to get an understanding on why people are so against homosexuals getting married.

Marriage serves society in many different ways. And each and every couple can help society in their own way, procreating or not. Just look at NPH and his partner, one could hardly say that their marriage is a detriment to society.

Actually according to the leftist view of marriage, marriage doesn't serve society at all. Marriage exists solely to grant benefits onto a couple.

It seems ignorant to base our decision of who can get married based on history. Polyamorous marriages were the norm before monogamous, and we used to forbid interracial marriage. We are a progressive people thats why we don't do things that we used to in the past. (slavery for example)

Why do you think interracial marriages were forbidden? Perhaps because they didn't want a bunch of mixed-race kids running around?

Outside of disliking homosexuals for xenophobic reasons, it just doesn't compute.
Its like saying someone shouldn't be allowed a doughnut because you don't agree with sugary foods.

The problem with your theory is that we have examples of 2 cultures that didn't dislike homosexuals and yet STILL DIDN'T ALLOW SAME-SEX MARRIAGE.

 

[nehalem256]

Good luck with that. He's been refusing to answer that question for months.

I did answer it. You just didn't like the answer.

Now. When did you stop beating your wife? Did you remember to follow the rule of thumb?

 

[fskimospy]

I am just trying to get an understanding on why people are so against homosexuals getting married.

Marriage serves society in many different ways. And each and every couple can help society in their own way, procreating or not. Just look at NPH and his partner, one could hardly say that their marriage is a detriment to society.

It seems ignorant to base our decision of who can get married based on history. Polyamorous marriages were the norm before monogamous, and we used to forbid interracial marriage. We are a progressive people thats why we don't do things that we used to in the past. (slavery for example)

Outside of disliking homosexuals for xenophobic reasons, it just doesn't compute.
Its like saying someone shouldn't be allowed a doughnut because you don't agree with sugary foods.

They are against same sex marriages for the same reason that almost all of the same people were against repealing anti-sodomy laws, or approval of gay people in other segments of society.

It's not complicated to figure out their motivations, it's homophobia. Not only is there facially no rational explanation for opposition to it, but we have plenty of states that have legalized it for years now with absolutely none of opponents' dire predictions coming true. The only way you keep an opinion this irrational in the face of evidence is if it came from an irrational place to begin with.

 

[nehalem256]

They are against same sex marriages for the same reason that almost all of the same people were against repealing anti-sodomy laws, or approval of gay people in other segments of society.

It's not complicated to figure out their motivations, it's homophobia. Not only is there facially no rational explanation for opposition to it, but we have plenty of states that have legalized it for years now with absolutely none of opponents' dire predictions coming true. The only way you keep an opinion this irrational in the face of evidence is if it came from an irrational place to begin with.

That is a blatant lie.

Homosexual relationships are inherently different than heterosexual relationships. A difference that has been recognized in diverse clearly non-homo hating cultures such as India, Ancient Greece, and Japan.

Treating inherently different relationships differently is totally rational.

 

[fskimospy]

That is a blatant lie.

Homosexual relationships are inherently different than heterosexual relationships. A difference that has been recognized in diverse clearly non-homo hating cultures such as India, Ancient Greece, and Japan.

Treating inherently different relationships differently is totally rational.

Not in this way it isn't.

Funny thing too, the courts agree:
https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf

Plaintiffs challenge Proposition 8 under the Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of the Fourteenth Amendment. Each challenge is independently meritorious, as Proposition 8 both unconstitutionally burdens the exercise of the fundamental right to marry and creates an irrational classification on the basis of sexual orientation.

 

[SlickSnake]

The fact is traditional religious marriages prior to the modern age were only done to insure the wealth would be passed on to the male side of the family should the patriarch die. Even so, in some cultures such as Middle Eastern ones and Africa, the wife was not even allowed to inherit the wealth and possessions, and she would be forced to remarry a brother, uncle or cousin of her husband just to maintain her possesions and financial security, unless she had an adult son, in which case it would go to him. Which would force mom to be at the mercy of her son for support, and if she remarried someone else, she would have nothing.

Meanwhile, the traditional religious marriages we have today, are not really that traditional at all, from a historical perspective, even in this country. They are primarily contractual financial arrangements that offer over 1000 benefits to a married couple, that an unmarried couple does not have access to, and whether they have kids, or not. Which is a prime motivator to get married, isn't it? Of course it is. Without all those extra benefits, there would be a lot fewer marriages, you can count on it. And even saying marriage is done to preserve the family unit (kids) is now a bogus argument with divorce rates well above 50% in many countries around the world.

Now when we talk about India and same sex marriages hundreds of years ago, the reason they didn't do it is because they didn't have too. Try to wrap your head around this fact. Can you figure out why they didn't have to get same sex married? Because usually they would live together with one of their families and help with chores, farming or whatever, just like everyone else in the family did. And keep in mind we are talking LARGE extended families living together and sharing everything - except whom they slept with at night. If one of the same sex partners were to die, the family unit would continue, or the partner who was left might go back to their family.

And another thing, using India as an example, it was far more common for men to be gay than a women, because a woman's status was considerably less than a males in the first place. Women were largely bartered then for marriage just like they still are in the Middle East and Africa, so a woman simply had far less opportunity to even express a gay desire for a relationship than a man would because she was a man's PROPERTY.

I hope you learned a little bit from all this, but I sincerely doubt it. And if anyone from India would like to chime in and add anything or correct my perspective, please feel free, because this might be factually in error a bit because I read about this a long time ago, and I'm fixing to log out to get some rest ATM.

 

[nehalem256]

The fact is traditional religious marriages prior to the modern age were only done to insure the wealth would be passed on to the male side of the family should the patriarch die. Even so, in some cultures such as Middle Eastern ones and Africa, the wife was not even allowed to inherit the wealth and possessions, and she would be forced to remarry a brother, uncle or cousin of her husband just to maintain her possesions and financial security, unless she had an adult son, in which case it would go to him. Which would force mom to be at the mercy of her son for support, and if she remarried someone else, she would have nothing.

Meanwhile, the traditional religious marriages we have today, are not really that traditional at all, from a historical perspective, even in this country. They are primarily contractual financial arrangements that offer over 1000 benefits to a married couple, that an unmarried couple does not have access to, and whether they have kids, or not. Which is a prime motivator to get married, isn't it? Of course it is. Without all those extra benefits, there would be a lot fewer marriages, you can count on it. And even saying marriage is done to preserve the family unit (kids) is now a bogus argument with divorce rates well above 50% in many countries around the world.

Funny, when there were less fun government benefits for marriage there was more marriage. And people got married at a younger age.

And quite honestly I doubt if you asked most people why they got married they would say it was for the tax benefits.

Now when we talk about India and same sex marriages hundreds of years ago, the reason they didn't do it is because they didn't have too. Try to wrap your head around this fact. Can you figure out why they didn't have to get same sex married? Because usually they would live together with one of their families and help with chores, farming or whatever, just like everyone else in the family did. And keep in mind we are talking LARGE extended families living together and sharing everything - except whom they slept with at night. If one of the same sex partners were to die, the family unit would continue, or the partner who was left might go back to their family.

And another thing, using India as an example, it was far more common for men to be gay than a women, because a woman's status was considerably less than a males in the first place. Women were largely bartered then for marriage just like they still are in the Middle East and Africa, so a woman simply had far less opportunity to even express a gay desire for a relationship than a man would because she was a man's PROPERTY.

I hope you learned a little bit from all this, but I sincerely doubt it. And if anyone from India would like to chime in and add anything or correct my perspective, please feel free, because this might be factually in error a bit because I read about this a long time ago, and I'm fixing to log out to get some rest ATM.

So in other words I was right.

 

[nehalem256]

Not in this way it isn't.

Funny thing too, the courts agree:
https://ecf.cand.uscourts.gov/cand/09cv2292/files/09cv2292-ORDER.pdf

Please explain why treating inherently different relationships differently is irrational.

 

[fskimospy]

Please explain why treating inherently different relationships differently is irrational.

I already linked you to a decision explaining exactly why it is irrational in this case.

The courts just keep beating you down, don't they, haha.

 

[SlickSnake]

Funny, when there were less fun government benefits for marriage there was more marriage. And people got married at a younger age.

And quite honestly I doubt if you asked most people why they got married they would say it was for the tax benefits.

So in other words I was right.

Nope, once again you are wrong. Here's why. 200 years ago, even in this country, most women did not work or even vote which is why they HAD to get married. And if they couldn't find a suitable mate, they would continue to live with the parents until they died, because there was simply no other means for them to survive on their own.

Most women simply could not plow a field or work in a coal mine, and certainly couldn't join the military to find work. It was get married or starve for many women, and the security of the kids in marriage was more of a secondary concern, because if mom starved out of marriage, so would the kids. And frankly, many kids didn't live to adult hood, anyway.

 

[nehalem256]

I already linked you to a decision explaining exactly why it is irrational in this case.

The courts just keep beating you down, don't they, haha.

Why does it create an irrational classification?

Simple question.

 

[fskimospy]

Why does it create an irrational classification?

Simple question.

Simple answer: read the decision. It is clearly spelled out.

 

[nehalem256]

Nope, once again you are wrong. Here's why. 200 years ago, even in this country, most women did not work or even vote which is why they HAD to get married. And if they couldn't find a suitable mate, they would continue to live with the parents until they died, because there was simply no other means for them to survive on their own.

Most women simply could not plow a field or work in a coal mine, and certainly couldn't join the military to find work. It was get married or starve for many women, and the security of the kids in marriage was more of a secondary concern, because if mom starved out of marriage, so would the kids. And frankly, many kids didn't live to adult hood, anyway.

How is any of that an argument for why gays should be allowed to marry?

Also, looking at the poverty figures for single mom's I don't think as much has changed as you are claiming.

 

[nehalem256]

Simple answer: read the decision. It is clearly spelled out.

Come on now. If its so irrational you should be able to type up 5 sentences explaining why.

If you can't do that I think it is obvious to everyone the reason why.