J
JONJONAUG
The Onion still owns.
- Status
The Onion still owns.
I love the Onion.
P
Philosopher B.
Oh my stars, that whole thing was brilliant from beginning to end. I lol'd hard at the last line.
C
Chibibar
Jonjon... I love you. (none gay way ^_~)
S
Steven Soderburgin
Has anyone mentioned the White House's response to this decision yet?
"The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples." - David Axelrod
"The president does oppose same-sex marriage, but he supports equality for gay and lesbian couples." - David Axelrod
Just be happy that he does not have any control over the issue.
S
Steven Soderburgin
Well, he could be putting pressure on Congress to end DOMA like he promised in his campaign instead of doing nothing of the sort, but I guess I'd have to be on drugs to suggest something like that.
BUT THIS THREAD ISN'T ABOUT OBAMA SO I WILL STOP COMPLAINING in this thread.
Seriously though, Ted Olson and David Boies fucking rule. They destroyed the defense to the point where their own witnesses said that same-sex marriage was not harmful to children and did not hurt heterosexual marriage and that preventing gay couples from marriage was significantly harmful to them.
The defendants may decide not to appeal, though, because they are afraid of this actually going before the Supreme Court. Also, the 9th Circuit is trying to determine if they even have standing to appeal.
Also fuck anyone complaining about the judge, his decision is totally sound. This isn't legislating from the bench or creating new rights, it's pretty much exactly what the judicial branch is there to do.
C
Chibibar
Well, he could be putting pressure on Congress to end DOMA like he promised in his campaign instead of doing nothing of the sort, but I guess I'd have to be on drugs to suggest something like that.
BUT THIS THREAD ISN'T ABOUT OBAMA SO I WILL STOP COMPLAINING in this thread.
Seriously though, Ted Olson and David Boies fucking rule. They destroyed the defense to the point where their own witnesses said that same-sex marriage was not harmful to children and did not hurt heterosexual marriage and that preventing gay couples from marriage was significantly harmful to them.
The defendants may decide not to appeal, though, because they are afraid of this actually going before the Supreme Court. Also, the 9th Circuit is trying to determine if they even have standing to appeal.
Also fuck anyone complaining about the judge, his decision is totally sound. This isn't legislating from the bench or creating new rights, it's pretty much exactly what the judicial branch is there to do.[/QUOTE]
but the people voted on it........ *sarcasm*
Because black men ain't scared of nothing?
Very nice thanks.Covar, I got you something for those generalizations.
You shouldn't leave that stuff lying around.
I do what I can.
S
Steven Soderburgin
I don't think anyone was suggesting that.
However, Obama has reasons to not actively support gay marriage while giving lip service to gays beyond simply wanting to marginalize gay people. Those reasons are lack of political capital, a desire to avoid what he and his party feels are controversial issues, and political expediency. That is not to say that his reasons are any more respectable or defensible, but they don't speak to a desire to actively keep gays as second class citizens as much as they speak to a desire to remain in power and not anger the base by being perceived as too radical.
Your average internet poster against marriage equality doesn't have those reasons to be against marriage equality. The reasons that most people against marriage equality cite - marriage's religious connection, procreation, tradition, protecting children - crumble under even the slightest scrutiny. This is what we saw in the Prop 8 trial when the defense's witness ended up proving the prosecution's case. David Boies gave an interview where he discussed how this defense expert who had given many speeches about why gay marriage was bad ended up admitting that not only was gay marriage a bad thing at all and that any claims about the harm gay marriage would do were false, but that preventing gays from marrying was actively hurting them. I don't recall the exact quote, but it's something to the effect of "When you give a speech, no one cross examines you."
However, Obama has reasons to not actively support gay marriage while giving lip service to gays beyond simply wanting to marginalize gay people. Those reasons are lack of political capital, a desire to avoid what he and his party feels are controversial issues, and political expediency. That is not to say that his reasons are any more respectable or defensible, but they don't speak to a desire to actively keep gays as second class citizens as much as they speak to a desire to remain in power and not anger the base by being perceived as too radical.
Your average internet poster against marriage equality doesn't have those reasons to be against marriage equality. The reasons that most people against marriage equality cite - marriage's religious connection, procreation, tradition, protecting children - crumble under even the slightest scrutiny. This is what we saw in the Prop 8 trial when the defense's witness ended up proving the prosecution's case. David Boies gave an interview where he discussed how this defense expert who had given many speeches about why gay marriage was bad ended up admitting that not only was gay marriage a bad thing at all and that any claims about the harm gay marriage would do were false, but that preventing gays from marrying was actively hurting them. I don't recall the exact quote, but it's something to the effect of "When you give a speech, no one cross examines you."
GasBandit
Staff member
Kinda like how NOW just absolutely loved Bill Clinton, isn't it?
---------- Post added at 02:34 PM ---------- Previous post was at 02:30 PM ----------
I forget who it was who said it, but "There already is equal rights in marriage. Gay men have the exact same right to marry a woman that heterosexual men do. A heterosexual man doesn't have the right to marry a man either."
So you have to be careful with the "equality" terminology.
And I know the next step, the "gay people don't have the right to marry the person THEY LOVE" argument. For which the response is, "who says marriage has anything to do with love?"
GasBandit
Staff member
You don't really want us to start using the bible in United States Federal Law, do you?
You don't really want us to start using the bible in United States Federal Law, do you?[/QUOTE]
Not really. I find this whole argument pointless. If men can marry women, men should be able to marry men and women should be able to marry women. I don't understand why people find it so threatening.
Homosexuals being able to marry doesn't lessen the marriage of straight people. They are often successful doing that on their own.
GasBandit
Staff member
That's a completely reasonable assertion. I was referencing that the law is equal... and this would be equal too.
I think some of the problem does stem from the fact that "marriage" is a word for a religious sacrament that over the time became the word to use, whether being performed as a religious sacrament or not. People who might not be opposed to "gay rights" get pissed off that they are using the word marriage, with all the religious implications attached, even though the word applies to both religious circles and secular ones now.
C
Chibibar
Religiously speaking divorce is not allow in some religion but people still do that.......
So, using the religion "card" seems to only fit the "view" the religious people want to use it for.
So, using the religion "card" seems to only fit the "view" the religious people want to use it for.
D
Disconnected
fun fact: the white wedding dress began as a fashion statement not some divine wish or purity statement.
Can't marry who they love - Who says it has anything to do with love? What is love? don't hurt me.
who says this response? where did you regurgitate this little factoid to puff your chest with.
then it becomes, Can't marry who they choose - Who says it has anything to do with choice?
A straight guy can't marry another guy. boo hoo, the difference is he doesn't want to dumbass. So he can equally not get married just like a gay guy. equality would mean even he could have the freedom of choice to do so if he wanted. Semantics to scene bitches! But for you this is already done. "Oh it is equal see if you look at it this way it's equal, can't you see it? it's equal. Done over, next argument petty thinkers."
Is that not in your charter somewhere, freedom of choice? But then dogs and cats would start living together. equality means gay or straight you marry who you want, not the twisted logic you are displaying in that post.
what is the real argument against it, or do you have one? You're not good at arguments, you're just stubbon. go back to work and complain about pregnant women.
I propose the motion that no one (hetero, homo and in-between) should not be able to marry. Abolish marriage altogether. no common law either.
This is an incredibly lame excuse, and you use it all the goddamn time. How about you learn who said it otherwise your just hiding behind anonymous words to deflect to. oh it wasn't me, it was some dude.
Can't marry who they love - Who says it has anything to do with love? What is love? don't hurt me.
who says this response? where did you regurgitate this little factoid to puff your chest with.
then it becomes, Can't marry who they choose - Who says it has anything to do with choice?
A straight guy can't marry another guy. boo hoo, the difference is he doesn't want to dumbass. So he can equally not get married just like a gay guy. equality would mean even he could have the freedom of choice to do so if he wanted. Semantics to scene bitches! But for you this is already done. "Oh it is equal see if you look at it this way it's equal, can't you see it? it's equal. Done over, next argument petty thinkers."
Is that not in your charter somewhere, freedom of choice? But then dogs and cats would start living together. equality means gay or straight you marry who you want, not the twisted logic you are displaying in that post.
what is the real argument against it, or do you have one? You're not good at arguments, you're just stubbon. go back to work and complain about pregnant women.
I propose the motion that no one (hetero, homo and in-between) should not be able to marry. Abolish marriage altogether. no common law either.
J
JONJONAUG
I'm all for gay marriage but this is also pretty dumb.
It's all pretty simple: Two consenting adults have the right to be married. Denying it to people because they're of the same sex is discriminatory and unconstitutional under the 14th amendment. Civil Unions are not an acceptable substitute because "separate but equal" hasn't worked as an argument since Brown vs Board of Education. There is no logical argument to deny a couple the right to marry based on their gender.
I'm sorry, your general grammar was pretty bad throughout the whole post so I wasn't sure if you meant "everyone should be able to marry" or "abolish marriage altogether".Disconnected said:
D
Disconnected
it was not a serious proposal.
no one... not be able to marry.
no one... not be able to marry.
C
Chazwozel
Dude, that's pretty much what happens with every topic under the sun involving religion.
Cajungal
Staff member
Heard the stupidest argument about gay marriage at a party I went to. This guy starts loudly talking over everyone who's for it... "I just wanna play devil's advocate here... why are gays buying into marriage anyway? It's such a stupid sham. They should just be the bigger person and go off and do their own thing." His fiance was sitting right there. She bristled at the "buying into marriage" thing. :laugh:
...Really? Reminds me of how people used Christianity to manipulate slaves. 'Be obedient and God will reward you.' --just another way of saying "be the bigger person.' Let the bully win because the meek will inherit the earth.
...Really? Reminds me of how people used Christianity to manipulate slaves. 'Be obedient and God will reward you.' --just another way of saying "be the bigger person.' Let the bully win because the meek will inherit the earth.
No they won't.
C
Chibibar
Dude, that's pretty much what happens with every topic under the sun involving religion.[/QUOTE]
yea..... kinda sad huh?
Except when they do. Christianity didn't spread through the Roman Empire at the tip of a sword, it did it by appealing to the humanist values of the poor and unprivileged, and has managed to become the most popular religion in the world because of it.
What you need to remember is that that line was referring to Christians and their faith as a whole, not individuals, and it worked for the same reason Martin Luther King's marches and Gandhi's hunger strikes did: By not reacting with violence to the oppressive authorities, they drew a clear parallel between themselves and their oppressors, making it very clear to the public which was the more moral side to support. It's really hard to support a side that's busting heads in the streets if you don't see the people getting harmed doing anything to deserve it.
There was a little bit of sword pointing going on after the Emperors converted. It was both grass roots, and the law of the land.
True, but it really doesn't invalidate the original sentiment of the message, especially considering similar tactics have been used successfully since. Besides, the brutal tactics of the Vatican are one of the many reasons Christianity split into a billion different denominations over the years.
True, but it really doesn't invalidate the original sentiment of the message, especially considering similar tactics have been used successfully since. Besides, the brutal tactics of the Vatican are one of the many reasons Christianity split into a billion different denominations over the years.[/QUOTE]
That's cart before the horse. The Vatican got brutal after the split.
The split was about corruption, wealth and power. Everyone wanted a piece to the God Business.
GasBandit
Staff member
When have I ever?
A guy still can't stab another guy either, even if he doesn't want to. The two examples are extremely different but it still demonstrates the equality of the law.
Maybe you should do slightly less meth before you post, that way I might be more likely to follow your rambling, disjointed stream-of-consciousness rant.
I do, which you would know had you paid attention to my earlier missives on the topic. I believe that the legal definition of marriage should not take gender into account.
Let that sink in for a moment, Mon Frere. I support gay marriage.
What I was saying is, you have to be careful with the "equality" statement, because the law as it stands IS equal. Unfair, unjust maybe... but it is equal. The gay marriage issue isn't an issue of equality, it's an issue of definition.
When pursuing goals such as this, it's important to do it in a way that doesn't shoot your side in the foot. Gays were making great headway until they decided it wasn't coming fast enough and started pulling out the "we're here, we're queer, get used to it" placards again, and started making aggressive statements intimating that not only would they be getting married, they were going to force the law to let them get married in the churches where gay marriage opponents attended... just to rub it in the face of those nasty evil breeders. The result? Prop 8. A heartwrenching, albeit temporary setback for those who are personally and emotionally invested in the legalization of gay marriage.
So once again the narrative changed. The push for gay marriage once again returned to measured steps through the legal system and the media that emphasized commiseration, not confrontation. And lo and behold, it's working again. Prop 8 is going away. We look, for all intents and purposes, to be on the very threshold of the long awaited change to marriage law that makes gender irrelevant. And once a few states have made it so, the others are literally bound to follow via "full faith and credit."
That's how you win. You have to do it right. If you make "equality" the focus of your argument, you run the risk of a judge who is unsympathetic to the plight of gay couples looking at the law and saying "well, technically, it IS equal already. COURT ADJOURNED!"
Seriously, how high were you when you wrote this?
D
Disconnected
about 5'9
- Status