California Supreme Court votes 6-1 to uphold gay marriage ban

[drkaje]

Who are you to tell me I'm not?

My Asian ancestors migrated to Africa and humped themselves some local sapiens, so I got that. June-August brings out the pigment, and I like me a refreshing Fanta Purple from time to time.

Also, I call my girl "Boo."

Black, I say.

You're right!! I should be more sensitive and respect your inner black man.

Fight the power!!

[Tre]

It's really that ambiguous to you?

Ok, I hereby self-identify as an oppressed black man. Can you maybe help me score some Affirmative Action? 

There's a lotta 'black blood' out there...

[Tre]

Also, congrats to Drkaje for hitting the 10,000-post mark in the gay marriage thread. 

[drkaje]

Also, congrats to Drkaje for hitting the 10,000-post mark in the gay marriage thread. 

I didn't even know, LOL!

Apparently the 10,000th post was on the women's board but we'll never know because alphabet/sex board posts don't count.

[Tapeworm]

Not really. This group isn't being denied anything. Marriage is defined as a union between a man and a woman in all but four states. I'll use my home state (Florida), for example.

If you're a guy, you must bring a woman to the court or to the church to get hitched.

If gays dudes forfeit that, because they'd rather do the Brokeback, that's their problem, not that of the state or the country.

You can't claim that someone being denied something, until you CLEARLY DEFINE what that something is. And that's what's at stake: The definition of marriage, itself.

I question your logic and I even find it a little terrifying.  When they come to define citizenship, I just hope I meet their criteria.

[elite_lifter]

Blah, Blah, Blah 11 pages of gays crying over not being able to get married to one another blah, blah, blah, boo hoo.

[chaos]

Blah, Blah, Blah 11 pages of gays crying over not being able to get married to one another blah, blah, blah, boo hoo.

                                                   X2

[Sir Humphrey]

Gay marriage does not lead to procreation. Christian marriage preserves the genes for superstition, credulity, and stupidity in the gene pool.

I say if we have to ban one or the other, we should ban the latter. 

[chaos]

Gay marriage does not lead to procreation. Christian marriage preserves the genes for superstition, credulity, and stupidity in the gene pool.

I say if we have to ban one or the other, we should ban the latter. 

Outed.

[elite_lifter]

Outed.

Yup, I imagine lots of gays involved in this thread with a few exceptions.

[HTexan]

Outed.

haha

[MCWAY]

I question your logic and I even find it a little terrifying.  When they come to define citizenship, I just hope I meet their criteria.

Let me spell it out for you. Excluding a handful of states, marriage is CLEARLY defined as a union between one man and one woman.

Can gays participate in that institution? YES!

Do they want to do so? NO!

Why? Because the requirement demands that the spouse be of the OPPOSITE SEX.

Does their desire not to do so mean they're being deprived of the "right" to do so? NO!

Same goes for people who like polygamy.

Can they get participate in marriage? YES!

Do they want to do so? NO!

Why? Because the requirement demands only ONE spouse.

Does their desire for multiple spouses mean they're being deprived of the "right" to do so? NO!

If marriage were defined as "a union of two people who love each other" (or something along those lines) and gays were not being allowed to participate in marriage, THAT would be a denial of marriage "rights".

That's why I say: Gays are NOT being denied the right to marry. They are being DENIED the right to change the definition of marriage itself.

[Tre]

Let me spell it out for you. Excluding a handful of states, marriage is CLEARLY defined as a union between one man and one woman.

Can gays participate in that institution? YES!

Do they want to do so? NO!

Why? Because the requirement demands that the spouse be of the OPPOSITE SEX.

Does their desire not to do so mean they're being deprived of the "right" to do so? NO!

You still haven't resolved the case of the person who self-identifies as the opposite gender, which would allow him/her to usurp the existing legislation. 

[MCWAY]

You still haven't resolved the case of the person who self-identifies as the opposite gender, which would allow him/her to usurp the existing legislation. 

That case has as much merit as the Buffalo Bills, self-identifying as Super Bowl champions (although Drkaje's pancake analogy will also suffice).

[Tapeworm]

Let me spell it out for you. Excluding a handful of states, marriage is CLEARLY defined as a union between one man and one woman.

Can gays participate in that institution? YES!

Do they want to do so? NO!

Why? Because the requirement demands that the spouse be of the OPPOSITE SEX.

Does their desire not to do so mean they're being deprived of the "right" to do so? NO!

Same goes for people who like polygamy.

Can they get participate in marriage? YES!

Do they want to do so? NO!

Why? Because the requirement demands only ONE spouse.

Does their desire for multiple spouses mean they're being deprived of the "right" to do so? NO!

If marriage were defined as "a union of two people who love each other" (or something along those lines) and gays were not being allowed to participate in marriage, THAT would be a denial of marriage "rights".

That's why I say: Gays are NOT being denied the right to marry. They are being DENIED the right to change the definition of marriage itself.

Exclusion by virtue of definition is an argument from conclusion and seems like a fascist approach to me.  Why are you unwilling to disagree with what gays want to do but still support their right to do it?

Besides, it's odd that you would choose to hinge the entire case against gay marriage on something as precarious and capricious as the definition of a word.  Surely there is more substance to the argument against gay marriage.  Some observable reason or ethical grounding?

[Tre]

That case has as much merit as the Buffalo Bills, self-identifying as Super Bowl champions (although Drkaje's pancake analogy will also suffice).

I wouldn't be so certain.

After all, what is the state's current role in gender re-assignment cases? Can the state tell a person he/she is not allowed to pursue a gender transition?

[drkaje]

I wouldn't be so certain.

After all, what is the state's current role in gender re-assignment cases? Can the state tell a person he/she is not allowed to pursue a gender transition?

A simple DNA test will do the trick in tough cases.

[Tre]

A simple DNA test will do the trick in tough cases.

So, the DNA identifies a person as XY.  If he/she self-identifies as a woman and has done all the things up to and including surgery for gender transition, is he/she still a man as far as legal marriages are concerned?

Would he/she be allowed to re-classify himself as a male?  After all, he's got the XY chromosome.

[The Ugly]

So, the DNA identifies a person as XY.  If he/she self-identifies as a woman and has done all the things up to and including surgery for gender transition, is he/she still a man as far as legal marriages are concerned?

Would he/she be allowed to re-classify himself as a male?  After all, he's got the XY chromosome.

Why would anyone put so much thought into such a marginal issue? Freakishly marginal.

At this point, shouldn't we be discussing mental competence and legal consent?   

[MCWAY]

Gay marriage does not lead to procreation. Christian marriage preserves the genes for superstition, credulity, and stupidity in the gene pool.

I say if we have to ban one or the other, we should ban the latter. 

In other words, your parents are Christians.

[Tre]

Why would anyone put so much thought into such a marginal issue? Freakishly marginal.

At this point, shouldn't we be discussing mental competence and legal consent?   

Well, now that marriage has been defined as being between one man and one woman, it's now time to define 'man' and 'woman'. 

That's certainly a logical next point in the conversation, given how blurry the gender lines have become (and I'm not even speaking in bodybuilding terms). 

[drkaje]

Well, now that marriage has been defined as being between one man and one woman, it's now time to define 'man' and 'woman'. 

That's certainly a logical next point in the conversation, given how blurry the gender lines have become (and I'm not even speaking in bodybuilding terms). 

At some point the whole syrup/pancake thing will finally sink in and you're gonna feel very silly.

[Tre]

At some point the whole syrup/pancake thing will finally sink in and you're gonna feel very silly.

Not at all.

I mean, the pro-8 people in CA declared 'we saved marriage!' after the November election.

'Saved'?? 

Seems we put that proverbial syrup on a lot of shitty marriages, my friend. 

[drkaje]

Not at all.

I mean, the pro-8 people in CA declared 'we saved marriage!' after the November election.

'Saved'?? 

Seems we put that proverbial syrup on a lot of shitty marriages, my friend. 

I'm in favor of you having all the rights, just not redefining marriage.

[Cap]

I'm in favor of you having all the rights, just not redefining marriage.

Bingo!