Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

[Boomyal]

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/15146903/

They just unwound that little bit of liberal warped-logic that banning gay marraige discriminates against those of the same sex persuasion. They affirmed that until the Legislature states otherwise, the definition of Marraige is the same today as it was yesterday. And no judical fiat should interfere.

Now they will go whining to the California Supreme Court, in hopes that they will enact a judical fiat.

 

[Mark42]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

I got no problem with that.

There is a special name for the union of a man and a woman; its called a "Marriage".

What the same sex crowd needs is a special name for their special union. How about "Garriage" or "Gayjoin" or "asdkf;alsfj;alsdfja".

I actually don't give a fig what they call their own special union. Just don't call it a Marriage.

That name has been taken already.

 

[Pony]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

what Mark said..........

 

[ob]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

I'm picking up on some homophobia here.I don't mean that in a bad way.

 

[RubberFrog]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

I'm picking up on some homophobia here.I don't mean that in a bad way.

What way did you mean it? It sounded like a typical liberal attack.
Can you show me the part where someone sounded afraid of gays?

 

[CJY]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

A typical liberal attack...maybe. But the start of this was not a typical conservative attack? I had a recent thread called a troll by a mod and then locked. If this is not the definition of a troll, then I am at a complete loss for words.

In my opinion, there is a simple explanation for why people are against gay marriage. They fear something. If it is not fear, what is it then?

Gay marriage in no way affects or demeans the marriage I have with my wife. Only two people can do that, my wife and/or myself. A marriage should be about the vows you make to your wife/husband, not the fact it is called a marriage or whom ever else is united through the term "marriage".

If this one is not locked soon, I will be amazed.

 

[CJY]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

"liberal warped logic"

What a troll.

 

[ob]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

I'm picking up on some homophobia here.I don't mean that in a bad way.

What way did you mean it? It sounded like a typical liberal attack.
Can you show me the part where someone sounded afraid of gays?

Settle down RF.Geeez.Do I have to place smileys on every comment.I couldn't give a ratzazz about gay marriage.Frankly I find it silly.

 

[Mark42]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

I'm picking up on some homophobia here.I don't mean that in a bad way.

What ever way you meant it is of no consequence. The bottom line is you are incorrect in your evaluation of the post.

The proper course of action for you is to learn from your mistake and refrain from making the same mistake in the future.

Your cooperation and commitment to this matter is greatly appreciated.

 

[rolmops]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

Boom,Your attitude towards gay marriage completely baffles me.
Here in the land of the free. You, the conservative protector of the constitution and freedoms it guarantees,have the gall to try and impose your opinion on a specific group of consenting adults in matters that only matter to them.You will probably agree with me that ,unlike a certain republican member of congress,the great mayority of these people are honest law abiding,hard working citizens who choose not to hide their love life preference.
I cannot help it Boom,but I smell the reek of hypocrasy.

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

I'm picking up on some homophobia here.I don't mean that in a bad way.

What way did you mean it? It sounded like a typical liberal attack.
Can you show me the part where someone sounded afraid of gays?
Frog......Where ya been?

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

His dissent is rooted in religion......JK

 

[QC]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

His dissent is rooted in religion......JK

Mine isn't. I will state my logical (not emotional, not religious dogma) opposition.

Marriage between a man and a woman is the cornerstone of society. The primary role of a marriage is the creation and upbringing of children. I believe that it is 100% logical to state that the ideal environment for the healthy upbringing of children is with the guidance of both a loving mother and loving father. I italicized ideal of course, on purpose. It is not the ONLY way to raise children, just the best. Soooooo, if that logical statement can be assumed (I believe it easily can), then society should reward, encourage, aspire to it . . . It is that simple.

Homophobia (which ob said in jest) is not the simple answer all of you who support gay marriage believe it is. Nor is religion thrown out derogatorily, as if just using the R word eliminates logic from the discussion Why not actually debate this issue instead of throwing out a label you believe will end the discussion?

Welcome back Frogger, I was beginning to consider a "Where's RF?" thread . . .

Edit: Yes, I know, I was less than logical, and reacted emotionally to CJY in the locked thread. Hey, I messed up . . .

 

[RubberFrog]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

Welcome back Frogger, I was beginning to consider a "Where's RF?" thread . . .

The last few months have been crazy.
We had a baby, the remodel is taking longer than planned, and I am setting up a new management team for a (re)start up.

 

[Haut Medoc]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

Just stating the facts......
You have a strong arguement.....
With to regard to past & contemporary society, but as everything else evolves, so must society.....
Though some would believe that evoloution is not indeed fact......
So, how long will organized religion stunt the evoloutionary process with regard to society.....
The 20th century model of society is well known, maybe it is time for society to move foreward to a new model for the21st......JK

 

[QC]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

So, how long will organized religion stunt the evoloutionary process with regard to society.....

Personally, to some extent, I hope forever . . .

 

[mrbscott19]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

1) Being gay is not natural. Real Americans always reject unnatural things like eyeglasses, polyester, and air conditioning. Also apparently those homosexual animals have picked up some unnatural behavier

2) Gay marriage will encourage people to be gay, in the same way that hanging around tall people will make you tall.

3) Gay marriage will change the foundation of society; we could never adapt to new social norms. Just like we haven't adapted to cars, the service-sector economy, or longer life spans.

4) Straight marriage has been around a long time and hasn't changed at all; women are still property, blacks still can't marry whites, and divorce is still illegal.

5) Straight marriage will be less meaningful if gay marriage were
allowed; the sanctity of Brittany Spears' 55-hour just-for-fun marriage would be destroyed.

6) Straight marriages are valid because they produce children. Gay couples, infertile couples, and old people shouldn't be allowed to marry because our orphanages aren't full yet, and the world needs more children.

7) Obviously gay parents will raise gay children, since straight parents only raise straight children.

8 ) Gay marriage is not supported by religion. In a theocracy like ours, the values of one religion are imposed on the entire country. That's why we have only one religion in America.

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.(for QC)

10) Legalizing gay marriage will open the door to all kinds of crazy behavior. People may even wish to marry their pets because a dog has legal standing and can sign a marriage contract.

 

[QC]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

9) Children can never succeed without a male and a female role model at home. That's why we as a society expressly forbid single parents to raise children.(for QC)

I was raised by a single mother who also got a PhD while raising my brothers and me. I have no animosity towards alternative families. What I said, and strongly believe, is that the IDEAL was one of each and of the loving variety. I submit this is logical and resisted only because you have an agenda. That agenda is that you believe (also strongly) that nothing can be determined as best or better as it will possibly offend someone and deprive them of their "rights". This I also strongly believe is hogwash!!

BTW, my mother sees me as the conservative black sheep in the family, but when we discuss topics like this without emotion we usually end up agreeing . . . She wishes we were socialist like her beloved Canada, so we are starting a long way apart. Also, the interesting thing is I learned most of my conservative values from her as a child! Ya know, the stuff that you learned when you were 5 . . .

P.S. No, I did not learn about gay marriage when I was 5, which I assume most of you would agree is not an appropriate discussion for 5 year olds, which points out why it also is not an appropriate environment for raising children. They don't NEED to understand this stuff at that age, so why would anybody plan on that unavoidable discussion that would most likely happen at 3?

 

[Pony]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

In my opinion, there is a simple explanation for why people are against gay marriage. They fear something. If it is not fear, what is it then?

Gay marriage in no way affects or demeans the marriage I have with my wife. Only two people can do that, my wife and/or myself. A marriage should be about the vows you make to your wife/husband, not the fact it is called a marriage or whom ever else is united through the term "marriage".

If this one is not locked soon, I will be amazed.

If that definition of "marriage" is how you see it then I can see your point............. I on the other hand have been raised in a Catholic home where marriage was something sacred. Its more than the vows..............your anology is like saying Thanksgiving is just about the food. Its more than that isnt it??? Likewise marriage is more than just the vows. To me Gay marriage would somewhat weaken that sacred bond.

I AM NOT A HOMOPHOPE, I dont fear anything. I have homosexual people in my family and have no problems with it at all................I just happen to see marriage differently.

 

[xtraham]

Re: Who'da thunk! Calif. court hands defeat to same-sex marriage

brides maid available.............