California's supreme court legalizes gay marriage

[Xil]

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

They can have all the benefits they want. Just concede that its not marriage. Its a civil union or whatever. Its called compromise.

i thought you just said all they wanted was benefits.
obviously not, they also want the RIGHT to be considered married.

If straights can do it so can gays. conservatives seem to have no idea what freedom is.

[JcP]

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

They can have all the benefits they want. Just concede that its not marriage. Its a civil union or whatever. Its called compromise.

that's a silly argument. Compromise? Please explain why I should have to compromise with you, if you are holding onto a position for the sole sake of denying me happiness and equality under the law?


should women have compromised with sexists and accepted, say, 75% the pay of men doing the same job?

should blacks have compromised with racists and accepted, say, being able to ride anywhere in public buses, but still having their own water fountains?

Your issues with homosexuality are not to be compromised with. They are discriminatory.

The mere fact you insist upon distinguishing your type of marriage over others showcases your insistance that homosexual coupling is not equal to heterosexual coupling.

If you want to believe that in terms of your religion, that's FINE AND DANDY. But unless the government changes all forms of unions it recognizes as "civil unions," all unions should be called the same thing (marriage).

I don't care if the government calls all unions "broccoli," they should call them all the same thing. If you want the term "marriage," get it out of the government all together.

[DubStyle311]

Originally Posted by JcP

that's a silly argument. Compromise? Please explain why I should have to compromise with you, if you are holding onto a position for the sole sake of denying me happiness and equality under the law?

Nah, I'm offering complete equality under the law. I just think you're holding onto an position for the sole sake of rubbing your gayness in my face by co-opting the institution of marriage.

should women have compromised with sexists and accepted, say, 75% the pay of men doing the same job?

Of course not. They should be given 100% of the pay men get. Just like gay couples should get 100% of the benefits straight ones do.

should blacks have compromised with racists and accepted, say, being able to ride anywhere in public buses, but still having their own water fountains?

No way! They should be able to sit anywhere that a white person can and drink from the same exact facilities....just like gays should be allowed to have the exact same benefits that straight couples get.

I really dont see where you are going with this.

Your issues with homosexuality are not to be compromised with. They are discriminatory.

I dont see how you can say that considering I think gays should get all the benefits straights get.

The mere fact you insist upon distinguishing your type of marriage over others showcases your insistance that homosexual coupling is not equal to heterosexual coupling.

I didnt say homo coupling is not equal to hetero coupling. I think its different. You dont? There is clearly a difference, no?

If you want to believe that in terms of your religion, that's FINE AND DANDY. But unless the government changes all forms of unions it recognizes as "civil unions," all unions should be called the same thing (marriage).

I don't care if the government calls all unions "broccoli," they should call them all the same thing. If you want the term "marriage," get it out of the government all together.

Religion has nothing to do with the argument. You brought it up, not me. The institution of marriage transcends state and religion.

[JcP]

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

Nah, I'm offering complete equality under the law. I just think you're holding onto an position for the sole sake of rubbing your gayness in my face by co-opting the institution of marriage. .

Oh yea. Gays wanting to be married is all about you.

This is the crux of the problem Dub. You think that asking for complete equality is rubbing gayness in your face. There would be no conflict if you wouldn't fight for the DENIAL of something to another person that does not affect you. You have no logical reason to be against granting homosexuals the right to marry. Zero.

The entire issue here is based completely in your (and people like you) refusal to relinquish your 'power' in being able to deny someone something they want. You are using RELIGIOUS belief to justify FEDERAL laws and wording. That is completely your issue.

You are not the victim here, Dub. You are not being forced to "accept teh gayness,". You are putting the cart before the horse.

There would be no gay pride parades if there wasn't something to reinforce: that being gay is okay. Without discrimination, there would be no need for gay-rights activists or "the gay agenda." Everything you find bad about the gay community is a DIRECT RESULT of the discrimination and idiocy of the very people who then complain about the gay community. It's fascinating in a way.

In fact, it has nothing at all to do with you. YOU MAKE IT ABOUT YOU when you stand in the way of equality.

So if you don't like the issue of gay marriage, shut up and let them marry. and the whole thing will go away. Problem solved!

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

Of course not. They should be given 100% of the pay men get. Just like gay couples should get 100% of the benefits straight ones do..

My point was your assumption that homosexuals should accept "compromise" with homophobic people. If you believe that women should have faught for complete equality, then being against the government using a single word to describe unions in this country is cognitive dissonance on your part.

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

No way! They should be able to sit anywhere that a white person can and drink from the same exact facilities....just like gays should be allowed to have the exact same benefits that straight couples get.

I really dont see where you are going with this. .

Of course you don't. Because you have a habit of being unable to distinguish between personal beliefs and what should be applied to everyone.

Once again: My point was your assumption that homosexuals should accept "compromise" with homophobic people. If you believe that blacks should have faught for complete equality, then being against the government using a single word to describe unions in this country is cognitive dissonance on your part

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

I dont see how you can say that considering I think gays should get all the benefits straights get..

No, you think gays should get the benefits except being able to be married. Whether you choose to view it as a benefit or not, once again, is your own personal beliefs clouding an issue that doesn't concern you in the least.
If you think gays should be equal under the law, then what's the holdup with letting them be equal under the law? Calling it "civil unions" is not equal, but seperate-but-equal. So which is it? Equality, or "pseudo-equality" ?

As I said, if the government wants to call all unions "civil unions" that's fine. Relegate "marriage" to religious usage. This is about equality in the eyes of our country, not being a stickler for a certain word.

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

I didnt say homo coupling is not equal to hetero coupling. I think its different. You dont? There is clearly a difference, no?.

Not in terms of what the coupling is, no. What difference (besides aesthetically) do you think there is? Black people are different than white people, but you don't call black people something other than "human" do you?

The union between homosexuals is the same as a union between heterosexuals except for what they have in their pants.

If you distinguish between homosexual and heterosexual as marriage and civil union, do you distinguish between interracial and same-race marriages? Does the government distinguish them with different words? Or are those still just simply "marriage" and homosexual still somehow "other" ? What about different ages? What about any number of "differences" you can think of?

Singling out homosexuality is exactly the problem. You are trying to discriminate whether you recognize it or not.

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

Religion has nothing to do with the argument. You brought it up, not me. The institution of marriage transcends state and religion.

The ONLY justification for being against applying the term marriage for all unions is to bring in personal moral and religious beliefs concerning the word. If you have another justification, please say so. Because that will be a first. I didn't bring religion up in this argument. I just said the word first.

[verklingen]

Originally Posted by JcP

The union between homosexuals is the same as a union between heterosexuals except for what they have in their pants.

qft

20 bucks says dub's incessant denial of an inner struggle with bigotry causes him to cop out at this point.

[SoothingSmoke]

Agreed that the courts shouldn't have anything to do with this. I don't agree with, or like homosexuality. That being said, that dislike does not translate to disliking the people. God bless America for the very reason that it's okay for me to have this opinion. I was raised to (and do) believe marriage is something holy, that is beyond a marriage contract and words, that is to be shared between a man and woman. But do I hate over it? No. Do I vote against this crap? Nope. All I ask the homosexual community is this: OKAY, WE GET IT. YOU'RE HERE, YOU'RE QUEER, and we'd better get used to it. I'd have a lot easier time getting used to these sorts of things if the homosexual community didn't make it such a point to throw their way of life in my face nonstop. That's all I ask.

[JcP]

I understand your sentiment soothingsmoke, but what exactly is being thrown in your face? I think when you dissasemble that argument you might find that 1/2 of it is because of the conflict that shouldn't be there (IE news reporting on gay issues) and the other 1/2 is just people being allowed to be themselves.

If you view 2 homosexuals holding hands on the street as "throwing it in your face" that's how you're interpreting basic interaction between two people.

Regardless, I have very little issue with someone who accepts that what they think about gay people is for themselves and not to translate into votes or hate.

[DubStyle311]

Originally Posted by JcP

that's a silly argument. Compromise? Please explain why I should have to compromise with you, if you are holding onto a position for the sole sake of denying me happiness and equality under the law?

Once again....I'm not denying you equality under the law. You are the one that is constructing this barrier to happiness - not me. Why is it is important to you that you be considered "married"? Why are you so obsessed with the term? Why is that term the thing that is blocking your happiness? You're getting the legal and financial benefits of marriage.

Originally Posted by JcP

Oh yea. Gays wanting to be married is all about you.

This is the crux of the problem Dub. You think that asking for complete equality is rubbing gayness in your face. There would be no conflict if you wouldn't fight for the DENIAL of something to another person that does not affect you. You have no logical reason to be against granting homosexuals the right to marry. Zero.

Once again...I think you should have complete equality too. I just think it would be nice if you would respect the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman. You can have all the legal and financial benefits a straight person can - anything less would be wrong. I'm really not fighting for anything and Ill get into my reasoning later.

Originally Posted by JcP

The entire issue here is based completely in your (and people like you) refusal to relinquish your 'power' in being able to deny someone something they want. You are using RELIGIOUS belief to justify FEDERAL laws and wording. That is completely your issue.

Dont you think youre being just a bit melodramatic here? I mean seriously dude. I dont want gays to marry (but allow them all the rights associated with such status) because i refuse to relinquish my power to deny people things? You really think I'm some sort of megalomaniacle sadist? lol. Duude.

There would be no gay pride parades if there wasn't something to reinforce: that being gay is okay. Without discrimination, there would be no need for gay-rights activists or "the gay agenda." Everything you find bad about the gay community is a DIRECT RESULT of the discrimination and idiocy of the very people who then complain about the gay community. It's fascinating in a way.

So gays reinforce that being gay is okay (I agree) by acting ridiculous and extreme? They try to prove theyre just like straight people by acting abnormal? Makes a ton of sense.

In fact, it has nothing at all to do with you. YOU MAKE IT ABOUT YOU when you stand in the way of equality.

I dont see how I'm standing in the way of equality. You guys deserve the tax breaks and legal rights and living wills and whatnot.

My point was your assumption that homosexuals should accept "compromise" with homophobic people. If you believe that women should have faught for complete equality, then being against the government using a single word to describe unions in this country is cognitive dissonance on your part.

Once again: My point was your assumption that homosexuals should accept "compromise" with homophobic people. If you believe that blacks should have faught for complete equality, then being against the government using a single word to describe unions in this country is cognitive dissonance on your part

No, you think gays should get the benefits except being able to be married. Whether you choose to view it as a benefit or not, once again, is your own personal beliefs clouding an issue that doesn't concern you in the least.

If you think gays should be equal under the law, then what's the holdup with letting them be equal under the law? Calling it "civil unions" is not equal, but seperate-but-equal. So which is it? Equality, or "pseudo-equality" ?

As I said, if the government wants to call all unions "civil unions" that's fine. Relegate "marriage" to religious usage. This is about equality in the eyes of our country, not being a stickler for a certain word.

Here is the deal. The whole "seperate-but-equal" argument is bogus. First of all, were not talking about facilities that local governments can underfund to screw over the gays like they did black people. Under a Civil Union law, gay couples can get identical benefits as the straight couples. These are legal and federal benefits that would not be able to be abused the way segregation laws were. Second of all, we live in such a litigious and PC and media hungry society that the abominations that happened under segregation would never fly.

Its a totally bullshit argument. Just because its not called marriage does not relegate gays to second class citizenry. Thats a construct of your own mind and issues.

Not in terms of what the coupling is, no. What difference (besides aesthetically) do you think there is? Black people are different than white people, but you don't call black people something other than "human" do you?

The union between homosexuals is the same as a union between heterosexuals except for what they have in their pants.

If you distinguish between homosexual and heterosexual as marriage and civil union, do you distinguish between interracial and same-race marriages? Does the government distinguish them with different words? Or are those still just simply "marriage" and homosexual still somehow "other" ? What about different ages? What about any number of "differences" you can think of?

Singling out homosexuality is exactly the problem. You are trying to discriminate whether you recognize it or not.

I think you are wrong. There is nothing different between black males and white males besides aesthetics. There are however distinct physiological differences between males and females. Men and woman are different aesthetically, physically, and mentally. Its a biological fact. Women have more natural body fat than men. Men have better hand eye coordination. The body and brains of men and women develop differently. Hormones are different. Now these are all biological differences, but they lead to psychological and social differences between the sexes. A relationship between a man and a woman is inherently different than between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. No better or worse. Just different.

The ONLY justification for being against applying the term marriage for all unions is to bring in personal moral and religious beliefs concerning the word. If you have another justification, please say so. Because that will be a first. I didn't bring religion up in this argument. I just said the word first.

Like I said before, marriage transcends state and religion. It was around long before either were developed. Marriage is one of the most basic social institutions around. It has a specific purpose - the continuation of the human species. It really has nothing to do with values or religion. Marriage = man and woman.

My justification is that marriage is one of the most basic human institutions. I hate PC bullshit. I think its absurd to change the whole friggin nature of marriage for no good reason. You're getting all the benefits and legal rights. I remember that used to be the big issue. That you couldnt have control over your spouses legal stuff and or realize the financial benefits. You suddenly dont hear so much about that anymore because most rational people understand that gay people should get those things. Why is that not good enough? You're not being relegated to second class citizenry. You seem to want your cake and eat it too.

I have no idea and this is a bit off topic but I feel like some gay people are just so used to playing the victim that they have begun to enjoy the role and nothing will ever be good enough.

[DubStyle311]

Originally Posted by SoothingSmoke

But do I hate over it? No. Do I vote against this crap? Nope.

Me neither. I just have opinions that I'd like to share. This is so far down on the list of things that are important to me. Its just fun to talk about.

[DubStyle311]

Originally Posted by verklingen

qft

20 bucks says dub's incessant denial of an inner struggle with bigotry causes him to cop out at this point.

What the hell is that supposed to mean?

And there most certainly is something different between hetero and homo couples. Like I said, men and woman are biologically and psychologically different. There is no way that a man and a man can experience the same relationship. No better, no worse. Just different.

[JcP]

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

Once again....I'm not denying you equality under the law. You are the one that is constructing this barrier to happiness - not me. Why is it is important to you that you be considered "married"? Why are you so obsessed with the term? Why is that term the thing that is blocking your happiness? You're getting the legal and financial benefits of marriage. .

Once again, the issue boils down to my wanting of something that matters to me, and you thinking you should have the right to deny me that something for no reason other than wanting to remain "above" or "different" than me.

I've explained quite clearly the term "marriage" is irrelevant. What matters is the government using a single term for all unions it recognizes.

The issue matters to me directly. The issue does not matter to you directly. You are not gay, and therefore have no reason to care what gay people are allowed to do. The only reason you care is because of a wanting to deny homosexuals something you think they shouldn't have: being able to be called married.

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

Once again...I think you should have complete equality too. I just think it would be nice if you would respect the fact that marriage is between a man and a woman. You can have all the legal and financial benefits a straight person can - anything less would be wrong. I'm really not fighting for anything and Ill get into my reasoning later.
.

Marriage is only between a man and a woman because of your personal belief systems based on religion. As I've said, if you want to go to church and say "gays aren't REALLY married" that's fine. But in terms of our country and our government, you are fighting for discrimination.

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

Dont you think youre being just a bit melodramatic here? I mean seriously dude. I dont want gays to marry (but allow them all the rights associated with such status) because i refuse to relinquish my power to deny people things? You really think I'm some sort of megalomaniacle sadist? lol. Duude..

Yes I do. I think you want to deny homosexuals the term "marriage" because you think homosexual love and companionship is less than heterosexual companionship. You need to have control, so you think you should be able to dictate the terms for those who are "less" than you in society.

I don't think you're a sadist, I think you're an egocentric prick .

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

So gays reinforce that being gay is okay (I agree) by acting ridiculous and extreme? They try to prove theyre just like straight people by acting abnormal? Makes a ton of sense..

Abnormal according to you. Once again, you fail to see how your personal perspective and judgement are clouding an issue.

Homosexuals want to be considered equal. Homosexuals are NOT "just like" straight people. They are attracted to the same sex. But they are "just as good" and "just as valid" as straight people.

You're twisting terms here. Black people fought to be considered "just like" white people in ways that mattered, and different in ways that mattered.

The goal of civil rights movements is to allow differences to exist without using them to discriminate. Black people don't have to bleach their skin to be "just like white people" do they? Of course not. They have their differences, but they are not to be used to discriminate against them.

You're painting this issue under completely false terminology.

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

I dont see how I'm standing in the way of equality. You guys deserve the tax breaks and legal rights and living wills and whatnot. .

If you don't see how denying homosexual couples the right to MARRY as you standing in the way of EQUALITY, then I don't know what to say.

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

Here is the deal. The whole "seperate-but-equal" argument is bogus. First of all, were not talking about facilities that local governments can underfund to screw over the gays like they did black people. Under a Civil Union law, gay couples can get identical benefits as the straight couples. These are legal and federal benefits that would not be able to be abused the way segregation laws were. Second of all, we live in such a litigious and PC and media hungry society that the abominations that happened under segregation would never fly..

No, it's not a bogus argument. You're defining "seperate-but-equal" in terms of the segregation movement by the ways in which it was abused. By your logic, nothing would be wrong with seperate-but-equal laws in terms of race is everything was funded equally.

Seperate-but-equal is wrong in PRINCIPLE as well as practice. As is using "civil union" for homosexual marriage and "marriage" for heterosexual marriage.

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

Its a totally bullshit argument. Just because its not called marriage does not relegate gays to second class citizenry. Thats a construct of your own mind and issues. .

If it doesn't, you have no reason to oppose it. If "civil union" for you means the same thing as "marriage," then there is absolutely no reason to deny homosexuals the right to be married. The only reason is because you think marriage is somehow "special" and only for heterosexuals. Which is discriminatory, whether you want to admit it or not.

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

I think you are wrong. There is nothing different between black males and white males besides aesthetics. There are however distinct physiological differences between males and females. Men and woman are different aesthetically, physically, and mentally. Its a biological fact. Women have more natural body fat than men. Men have better hand eye coordination. The body and brains of men and women develop differently. Hormones are different. Now these are all biological differences, but they lead to psychological and social differences between the sexes. A relationship between a man and a woman is inherently different than between a man and a man or a woman and a woman. No better or worse. Just different.
.

le sigh...

Lets take this one by one. You are making the argument that the relationship between 2 men is different than the relationship between a man and a woman. And this difference is based on the aesthetic, physical, and mental differences between men and women.

An african american is black because of physical differences. So physicality cannot be the excuse for seeing homosexual unions as "extra" different to warrant "civil union" instead of marriage.

Aesthetics is irrelevant because of the argument I made in the original post you replied to. So aesthetics cannot be the excuse for seeing homosexual unions as "extra" different to warrant "civil union" instead of marriage.

Mentally retarded people can get MARRIED. A genius can marry someone of normal IQ. A woman who dresses like a man can marry a man who dresses like a girl. So mentality cannot be the the excuse for seeing homosexual unions as "extra" different to warrant "civil union" instead of marriage.

Try again?

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

Like I said before, marriage transcends state and religion. It was around long before either were developed. Marriage is one of the most basic social institutions around. It has a specific purpose - the continuation of the human species. It really has nothing to do with values or religion. Marriage = man and woman. .

I don't need to repeat the infertile couple argument yet again. Now you're just grasping and trying to redefine marriage yourself in order to provide a compelling defense against homosexual marriage.
Marriage transcends state and religion? What are you talking about?

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

My justification is that marriage is one of the most basic human institutions. I hate PC bullshit. I think its absurd to change the whole friggin nature of marriage for no good reason. You're getting all the benefits and legal rights. I remember that used to be the big issue. That you couldnt have control over your spouses legal stuff and or realize the financial benefits. You suddenly dont hear so much about that anymore because most rational people understand that gay people should get those things. Why is that not good enough? You're not being relegated to second class citizenry. You seem to want your cake and eat it too..

....of course I want my cake and eat it too. Who the hell are you to deny me my cake and the ability to eat it?

No one is changing "the whole friggin nature of marriage for no good reason." There is a very good reason for expanding the definition of marriage: the happiness of millions of other completely sentient beings just as alive and human as you are.

As soon as people like you run out of logical reasoning to defend your indefensible position on this, you suddenly get woo-woo when defining marriage. Suddenly it takes on this ethereal amazing quality like God. An untouchable issue. Why does this happen? Because it allows you to regress to the most basic (and absurd) of defenses: well this is what I think, and you can't change that.

Originally Posted by DubStyle311

I have no idea and this is a bit off topic but I feel like some gay people are just so used to playing the victim that they have begun to enjoy the role and nothing will ever be good enough.

Besides unconsciously trying to make yourself the victim by saying this, homosexuals ARE the victim until things like having to fight for basic shit like this aren't battles anymore.

Let gay people marry, adopt children, and granted all the rights of heterosexual couples and that will be good enough for me! So there's a "good enough." You just won't let it happen.