• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Same Sex Marriages took place in S.F. against laws!

Page 3 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
I think what it comes down to is a redefinition of institutions. A couple hundred years ago, the phrase "We the people" didn't include women and colored people. And here we are today, debating whether "marriage" and "family" should be exclusive to the literal and traditional relationship between man and woman or whether it should be redefined regardless of sexual orientation.

The way I see it, ideals outweigh definitions. Why is more important than what. History and tradition have dictated that marriage be between man and woman, but isn't the whole point of marriage to consummate love? Love is what makes marriage special. Why keep people apart?

I don't see anything wrong with what's going on in SF.
 
Originally posted by: UnixFreak
What I think is simply hilarious, is the liberals calling gay marriage opponents hypocrites. Why is this so funny? Well, because the liberals take down the ten commandments because of laws, and are so concerned with laws, and obeying the law, that they feel compelled to take down the ten commandments, and take god out of the pledge of allegience.

Then they do a stunt like this, and break the law and expect nobody to notice? If these people want society to take them seriously, maybe they should use some common sense, and logic, not half baked publicity stunts designed to make people angry.

I personally don't care about gay marriage. Allow it for all I care. But I also understand the basic reasoning behind outlawing it. Its called "the slippery slope". You allow a few small things here and there, and they bust out of control. We have enough "protected citizens" these days, and thats all we need is more people who live off the government, get special privileges, and commit crimes without worrying about getting punished. And I think conservatives are trying to prevent that, because of the way these types of things have always gone in the past.
Click to expand...
There's a huge difference between something being unlawful and something being unconstitutional. Separation of church and state is a constitutional right, not some law imposed by the state or federal legislature. The job of the supreme court is to ensure that state and federal laws comply with the constitution.

Hypocritical? Don't think so.

l2c
 
Originally posted by: cr4zymofo
Well, I don't really care what they do, just don't parade it in front of my face. If they keep it between themselves, pay taxes, and uphold their moral obligations as human beings, I have no problem.
Click to expand...

 
Originally posted by: UnixFreak
What I think is simply hilarious, is the liberals calling gay marriage opponents hypocrites. Why is this so funny? Well, because the liberals take down the ten commandments because of laws, and are so concerned with laws, and obeying the law, that they feel compelled to take down the ten commandments, and take god out of the pledge of allegience.

Then they do a stunt like this, and break the law and expect nobody to notice? If these people want society to take them seriously, maybe they should use some common sense, and logic, not half baked publicity stunts designed to make people angry.

I personally don't care about gay marriage. Allow it for all I care. But I also understand the basic reasoning behind outlawing it. Its called "the slippery slope". You allow a few small things here and there, and they bust out of control. We have enough "protected citizens" these days, and thats all we need is more people who live off the government, get special privileges, and commit crimes without worrying about getting punished. And I think conservatives are trying to prevent that, because of the way these types of things have always gone in the past.
Click to expand...

LOL, too bad those commandments are a slap in the face to anyone who doesn't agree with them. It basically states that our law revolves around them, and that's definately not cool.

Relgion has NO place in public settings unless it takes in to account all variations possible. I'd rather not list off the 1,000's of gods (including a null god for athiests) every time someone says the pledge of allegiance.
 
Marriage is a religious thing. If you want no religion in gov't, then your position on this entire issue should be that our gov't should not dictate marriage laws, PERIOD. If the gov't wants to come up with it's own scheme, they can do it, but call it something else.
 
Originally posted by: XZeroII
Marriage is a religious thing. If you want no religion in gov't, then your position on this entire issue should be that our gov't should not dictate marriage laws, PERIOD. If the gov't wants to come up with it's own scheme, they can do it, but call it something else.
Click to expand...

Since it's a religious thing, it's really good that no atheists can get married...otherwise that'd totally f up the system!
 
I'm a Republican all the way but with BUsh spouting off about how he'll push to amend the constitution so we can discriminate again gat people.... I'll probably vote democrat or independant or some such thing this time around. I don't understand why people are so scared if gay people can get married. It doesn't affect anyone except themselves so what's the big deal?
 
right on franky!

Anyhow, who cares, why shouldn't a functioning couple in scociety reep the same benifits another couple can have just because of sexual preferance? And why should anyone else care?
 
Originally posted by: FrankyJunior
I'm a Republican all the way but with BUsh spouting off about how he'll push to amend the constitution so we can discriminate again gat people.... I'll probably vote democrat or independant or some such thing this time around. I don't understand why people are so scared if gay people can get married. It doesn't affect anyone except themselves so what's the big deal?
Click to expand...

The big deal, for those at home, is that large companies will lose more money because gay people will be allowed to have a spouse on their insurance now, and they will have to insure extra people (possibly children, too). I believe that the average married couple pays less taxes, too. So you see, it's about 95% about money.

Netopia: Your entire arguement about the equality of it is based on the idea that everyone has the right to marry someone of the opposite sex, whether straight or gay. However, should same sex marraiges be allowed, both straight and gay persons would legally be allowed to marry, so it's not a matter of them getting special rights, because both sides would still be equal.

I can help but think that you aren't a homophobe, but that you very strongly disagree with homosexuality. While I too think this way, it's not my right to impose my beliefs or values on others, just as they don't have the right to make me feel how they want me to feel. Why is it such an issue to you that homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry... from a personal standpoint?
 
OMG, the thought of two grown, hairy, sweaty men rutting against each other, along with the rhythmic slapping and whatnot, makes me want to puke. LOL, I'm out!

😛
 
Originally posted by: stormbv
OMG, the thought of two grown, hairy, sweaty men rutting against each other, along with the rhythmic slapping and whatnot, makes me want to puke. LOL, I'm out!

😛
Click to expand...
Buy you a drink? 😀
 
Originally posted by: DurocShark
Originally posted by: MovingTarget
Bleh! My discust at that is not because of my opposition to gay marriage, but that they had done so in an illegal fasion. If they want gay marriages to take place, then the legislature should take steps to allow it. For the mayor to overstep his bounds like that makes me sick. It is not his job to do such a thing as the people of the state had already spoken via refferendum.
Click to expand...

I'd have to agree with this, unfortunately. The law is the law. Don't like the law? Change it or move somewhere that you DO like the law.

It is wrong to violate the law regardless of your personal opinion. But the couples getting married are minor offenders here. The mayor set a bad precedent here. He said the mayor is above the law and can violate it whenever he likes.

I've always supported gay marriages, so that's not why I'm bothered here. I'm bothered that an elected leader would choose to publicly break the law.
Click to expand...



Haven't read the whole thread but....anyway...

"Change it or move somwhere that you DO like the law"? Well...that's not really what this country built on, was it? There was a time when blatant disregard for the law was required make changes to that law. I'm sure Britain would have considered it a "violation of the law" for our own militia to fight against their regulars, but we all know came about because of it. One might have considered it an "escalated-violent-protest", precursed by the "pseudo-non-violent-protest" of the Boston Tea Party....both illegal at the time.

IMHO the mayor is doing what he, and a very significant number of the people in his city, feel should be allowed in the first place. It's a way of making both a moral and political statement. HIS citizens likely support his blatant actions against what they probably feel is a "bad" law.
 
Either marriage (a union of a man and a woman) is equally available for everyone or it isn't. In every state I know of, anyone can marry anyone of the opposite sex... the equality is already in place!
Click to expand...

Neotopia, From the way I read your statement you're acting as if sexual orientation doesn't exist. I'll spin your same example:
The way it's setup now is this: Lets say all CHRISTIAN children are allowed to go to this school and read these books and have these teachers. Therefore ALL children have the SAME equal opportunity.....if they were only CHRISTIAN.

So the real world problem here is that marraige is available...for everyone.....equally......who's straight. Gay people are not straight and, depending on the person, might not be able to be straight. I don't wanna bring the whole nature vs. nurture argument into this, but I don't have to. Being gay is a way of life.....just the same as religion. If you say anyone can "choose" their sexual orientation, well....anyone can "choose" their religion (happens all the time), but these peoples' religious "rights", regardless of what they choose, are still supported in this country.

If people wanna say "well, sexual orientation isn't included in the bill of rights".....all I can say is that it should be.
 
I don't agree with homosexual marriages, but it's not something that the government has the right to regulate. They need to back off and let the homosexuals do as they please. If they can find someone to marry them, then let them get married.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top