Proposition 8 declared unconstitutional

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Should barren heterosexual couples be allowed to marry?

Yes, because many people who are declared "barren" subsequently concieve. Including the wife of our much-missed Tribesman.

Also, there is a difference between a medical disability and a sexual preference; some homosexuals choose to marry in order to have children in a regularised environment. There is a Roman Catholic who did just that, he writes for the Daily Telegraph I believe.

[Hosakawa Tito]

So you're saying that procreation is a necessary goal of marriage and the traditional notions of marriage justify discrimination against same-sex marriages?

I don't agree.

Gender roles in opposite-sex marriages have changed dramatically over the last few decades. All marriages are now unions of equals. Are you saying that equality should be restricted to straight couples only?

The 14th Admendment guarantees rights to equal protection and due process of law. Prop 8 violates those rights.

[PanzerJaeger]

Yes, because many people who are declared "barren" subsequently concieve. Including the wife of our much-missed Tribesman.

Also, there is a difference between a medical disability and a sexual preference; some homosexuals choose to marry in order to have children in a regularised environment. There is a Roman Catholic who did just that, he writes for the Daily Telegraph I believe.

And what about couples who choose not to have children? Should they be allowed to marry?

Edit: Or women who have had hysterectomies? No chance for kids there.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yes, because many people who are declared "barren" subsequently concieve. Including the wife of our much-missed Tribesman.

I think I know where he is hiding out. Have you seen the Hotel Inspector show on Channel 5 recently?

My youtube searches haven't provided anything, but there was one old eccentric hotel owner who kept saying "bollox" like Gordon Ramsay with his f-word...

[Rhyfelwyr]

The 14th Admendment guarantees rights to equal protection and due process of law. Prop 8 violates those rights.

State-recognised marriage violates those rights.

Once again, what of the asexuals?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

And what about couples who choose not to have children? Should they be allowed to marry?

They might choose differently later, and allowing them to marry seems to encourage that.

Edit: Or women who have had hysterectomies? No chance for kids there.

Physical disability might be a mitigation, but I'm inclined to say "no" actually.

Of course, none of this prevents you from getting a Civil Partnership.

[PanzerJaeger]

Physical disability might be a mitigation, but I'm inclined to say "no" actually.

So the logical hopscotch that has to be played in order to justify keeping gays from marrying leads us to an outcome where women who have had hysterectomies are disallowed from marriage?

It all seems a bit convoluted to me and I'm having a hard time seeing how any of it helps children (as opposed to gay adoption which has been a Godsend, pardon the pun, for children abandoned by their straight parents), but I respect your commitment.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

So the logical hopscotch that has to be played in order to justify keeping gays from marrying leads us to an outcome where women who have had hysterectomies are disallowed from marriage?

It all seems a bit convoluted to me and I'm having a hard time seeing how any of it helps children, but I respect your commitment.

I have to say that the cultural and logical hopscotch that ries to make homosexual relationships exactly the same as heterosexual ones is worse.

It's simple: Marriage is about creating a legal bond between the parents of a child (preferably before they are born), that is why marriage was for so long considered dissoluable, because the couple are blood-bound by their children.

What the "gay-marriage" movement wants to do is fundamentally redefine an institutions whose basic purpose and composition has been the same for all of recorded history.

[PanzerJaeger]

I have to say that the cultural and logical hopscotch that ries to make homosexual relationships exactly the same as heterosexual ones is worse.

I'm sorry to keep pushing the issue, but how? How is it worse? How does gay marriage hurt children?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm sorry to keep pushing the issue, but how? How is it worse? How does gay marriage hurt children?

I didn't say gay marriage hurt children, I said that the cultural and logical hopscotch was worse. I.e., the case for change is not very strong, at all. It essentially boils down to "not every heterosexual couple that marries has children, so homosexual couples should be allowed to marry too."

Highlighting the problems in heterosexual marriages doesn't equate to an argument for extending the institution.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Do people really care that much whether homosexuals can marry?

Homosexuals care, because it's really obscene that other people are allowed to vote on whether or not they have a right to marry. Kind of like when some people said black people couldn't marry whites.... or each other. Some heterosexuals care, because they can't imagine why it would possibly harm society, or why treating gay people as inferior is warranted. Or popular, for that matter. Some people care because they don't like to picture gay people together. Some people care because they are worried their god will spank them if they don't object to it. And of course, there's macho peer pressure to hate on those in the minority and unlike themselves.


And if you'll permit me, I'm about to describe my thoughts (rant) on this issue to no one in particular.


I note that some people seem to get all indignant and object, saying that comparing "what those gays do" to traditional marriage is insulting. Which I have to ask; what is it that they do that is so different? Do they kiss each other? Spend time together? Raise a family together? Worry about stress at work together? Care for their community together? Grow old together? Sounds pretty normal to me. I actually am kind of offended at some of the definitions of marriage proposed now, for the specific purpose of preventing gay rights and "protecting" something that wouldn't be protected, but rather banned, by Prop 8.

For example, I note that some people describe the purpose of marriage as to have children; which seems rather strange to me. Some people get married and are still undecided as to whether they want to have children or not. My father recently got re-married, to his long time sweetheart. They are too old to have children. Is their marriage a sham? What about those who can't have kids or choose not to? Is their marriage a sham? I also note that people often have children out of wedlock. Especially in the case of another "traditional values" favorite, keeping the child a rapist forcibly implants in your body. Seems to me that child was born out of wedlock, and for good reason. But I suppose since there was no marriage there, that child doesn't exist? When parents divorce, do they saw the child in half? I don't think so. When gay people have children, and many, many of them do (and no one seems to dispute that they have a right to do so... which makes it awfully suspect when they object to their right to get married) those children wish to grow up in stable homes. Why would marriage between their parents harm these children? So it's utterly baffling how having children should affect the rights of gays in negative fashion. In fact, under this metric, it would seem to be anti-family to deny the right of gay parents with children, or who want to have children, to wed each other.

If the implication is that gay people can't/shouldn't have children, I would like people with such an opinion to go up to a child with gay parents and tell them that their parents are different and inferior to you and your spouse, and that your children are better off than the child of a gay couple, and that there is something totally wrong with that family, and they should be broken up and not allowed to raise their kids and not allowed to have more. I guarantee you, even the most hardened anti-gay person out there will have difficulty with that. And if you could actually go through with it, I'd like to reverse that challenge, because I'd really rather not subject that child to more bigotry than they will already be exposed to in their life. Especially coming from an adult that supposedly is looking out for their best interest. How is a child supposed to view a world that hates them before they even meet them? Or hates their parents before they even meet them? Or believes that their parents have no right to raise them? Or believes that their parents might love each other, but it isn't the real, true love that other people have, it's a different, inferior kind of love, that should be opposed and shunned.

I can't imagine how pro-family a person has to be, before they are that anti-family.

So if we divorce ourselves from the silly notion that marriage is necessarily about children (where you automatically lose, because gays have a right to have children and raise them together, and straight couples don't necessarily have children) then you have to focus on the other aspects of marriage.

Love: It's amazing that in a nation with drive-through wedding chapels and divorce lawyers in every town and television shows based entirely on how much married couples cheat on one another, that one thinks they have the moral authority to question how "in love" other people are, and must be, before they get married. This sacred institution, as some have called it, has been made less sacred not by the gays, but by irresponsible and disingenuous people of all orientations, mostly straight in this case, obviously. I challenge someone to go up to a gay couple that has spent 10 years together and suggest that they know, for a fact, that this couple doesn't really love each other. It's just a phase that they will grow out of. Their feelings aren't real; it's all a charade. The purpose of which, of course, is to be a big drama queen and rub in the faces of the establishment how rebellious they are. Surely that must be the reason. I would apologize for using a straw man argument, if only that were the case. I truly wish that were the case. Sadly, this absurd notion is actually considered to be why gay people stay together, by some "traditional" people. Not all believe it, maybe not a majority, but this sad excuse for a rational reason is believed by far too many people.

"It's not real, it's just a phase. They don't really love each other." It is remarkable that one can say that without even meeting said couples.

Religion: Another reason given for why gays cannot get married. It's insulting to the religions who do not accept homosexuality.

Well, that assumes that all religions denounce homosexuality, or that you have to be religious to get married. Aren't I, a non-religious person, allowed to be wed? Well if I am, doesn't that mean I don't have to accept the tenets of some popular religion to get married? That I am allowed to have a secular service and still call it marriage? If that is the case, then why is religion being touted as a reason gays can't get married? Last I checked, there was a separation of church and state. The state recognizing marriage between same-sex partners is not the same as your church recognizing it. Though, if you live in this state, you have to recognize that the state considers it marriage. What a shame. Don't worry, you can still harbor your dislike and prejudice in your heart; the state can't stop you from doing that.

Legal rights: Very few people are arguing that gays shouldn't be able to see each other in the hospital, or be afforded other rights that married people have. They simply object to calling it "marriage". I don't care if you call it banana creme pie in your own household, but if your only sticking point with marriage between gays is that it is called marriage, then you have your priorities backward.

If you agree that:

• Gay people aren't sick and don't need to be cured of "the gay", they are ordinary people like you and me, allowed to live and be gay (not like they have a choice)
• Gay people have a right to be with one another in a relationship, and that what they do in the bedroom is none of your business (emphatically so, it seems)
• Gay people have children, and this is just a fact you can't really argue with (and they have these kids with or without your approval, as if they needed it)
• Gay people are allowed to raise their own children (Who else is going to raise them, the TV machine?)
• Gay people don't have to be religious to get married (Seems kinda obvious...)
• Gay people should otherwise be treated equally in every respect (sure, you can see your partner in the hospital... just don't call it marriage, call it a civil union)

Then it seems as though you approve of (or do not wish to oppose) EVERY.... SINGLE.... ASPECT..... of homosexual pair bonding. The only hang-up you have is the word marriage.

Sure, being gay, living in a gay relationship, having relations, having legal rights that pertain to their partner, having and raising children, that's all okay. But the word marriage is just wrong to apply to gays, you say? What else do you want to call it? You don't care as long as it isn't the word 'marriage'?

Fine, they will call it "marriage", using the traditional gay spelling with the silent and invisible letter T. It's a different kind of marriage with a different definition, just spelled exactly the same (if you overlook the invisible letter T) and treated exactly the same by society and the state. Problem solved.

I would admire the principled stance against gay marriage, if only there were some principles involved.

[Askthepizzaguy]

One part of the judge's ruling was that gender is no longer a defining part of marriage.

A relief, considering that some people are born intersexed and have genetic aspects of one gender (or both, or even other combinations) while having the physiological aspects of another. If a person found out his wife was sterile because she was born with a genetic difference that made her that way, and is in all other respects female, but her genetics are atypical and not technically female, I would object to someone suggesting that their marriage should be made null and void.

Clearly if gender shouldn't be a defining part of marriage, then... it shouldn't be a defining part of marriage.

Some with ambiguous genders ask for or are given gender assignment surgery. Gender is clearly not binary concept, nor is it always a clear concept. Of course, these concepts are usually uncomfortable for people to talk about, and the people affected are a very small minority. In my view, the numbers don't matter, and democracy isn't always correct. Popular opinion does not always make right. To be consistent, we cannot suggest that gender is an absolute, defining aspect of marriage. Nor should genetics be.

What makes him better able to decide that then the millions of voters who voted to pass prop 8?

If he had made a ruling more in line with your viewpoint, I doubt you'd be suggesting he had no authority here. The role of a judge is not to rule in favor of whatever is popular.

What might make him better to decide Constitutional matters than the voting public, is that certain Constitutional rights CANNOT be infringed by the vote. It says so right in the Constitution itself. That means that certain unalienable rights cannot be taken away by the vote, and can be protected by those whose training and qualifications and held offices qualify them to rule on matters of constitutionality. If a voting majority passed a proposition stating that women didn't have a right to own cars, a judge could overturn that by ruling it unconstitutional, because of this matter of settled Constitutional law:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fourtee...s_Constitution

Specifically:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Equal_Protection_Clause

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

So when people make law by the vote which abridges the privileges of citizens of the United States, depriving them of due process, and equal protection and treatment under the law, that means they've made a bad, unconstitutional law. The judge in this case was upholding a key principle of the Constitution, that all men are created equal, and they deserve equal treatment, even if the majority does not agree.



Like I said, if the judge ruled in a different manner, favoring the other side, I would not be hearing one peep about whether or not he had the right and duty to rule on this matter.

[Rhyfelwyr]

ATPG, nobody here even used most of those arguments.

Can you give me one good reason why the government should grant legal/tax privileges to two men for living together in a sexual relationship?

At least with heterosexual couples, there were reasons to encourage the development of nuclear families, with the men going to work, the woman taking care of the home/children etc. The family was the basic social unit, not the individual. Of course not every couple would produce children, but there was a general social advantage in promoting the old nuclear family.

But this is history, move on, there's no need to start pretending that homosexual couples ever had such a value. And don't discriminate against single people, the consequences of this discrimination are very real.

[PanzerJaeger]

I didn't say gay marriage hurt children, I said that the cultural and logical hopscotch was worse. I.e., the case for change is not very strong, at all. It essentially boils down to "not every heterosexual couple that marries has children, so homosexual couples should be allowed to marry too."

That isn't the case for change. That was me pushing your logical framework to its extremes.

My argument for gay marriage essentially boils down to 'why not'? A statistically relevant proportion of the population wants it, and its implementation hurts no one. That is natural, healthy social progress. I'm a strong believer in tradition, but that tradition has to have some value. There is no value preserved in keeping gay people from marrying; and not doing so causes a great number of them to feel like second class citizens.

Highlighting the problems in heterosexual marriages doesn't equate to an argument for extending the institution.

Can anyone highlight any problems caused by homosexual marriage? The inability to do so would seem to be an argument in itself.

[Xiahou]

Scientific research has not proved this interpretation any more than it has proved that being "gay" is a state into which one is born genetically. I would be THRILLED if definitive research would establish this one way or the other.

You keep saying this... but what would it solve, really? Homosexuality's defining characteristic is a certain behavior. Whether it's something innate or acquired, what changes?

--------

Here are some pertinent questions we were kicking around the office today:

Is discrimination permissable if a majority of voters approve it?

Can fundamental rights be submitted to a vote?

Do domestic partnerships confer second-class status?

Is the discrimination inherent in that second-class status harmful to gay men & women?

Is there a compelling state interest in banning same-sex marriage?

1) Of course it is- that's what laws do. We discriminate against people who speed. We descriminate against people in certain income brackets, ect. Almost all law is about treating people who meet certain conditions differently. Certain basic rights are supposed to be beyond the reach of government, but even these are not without limit.

2) Here I would say no.

3) Does being single confer a second-class status? Does being married confer a first-class status? On all of these, I would say no.

4)N/A. See #3.

5) You're asking the wrong question. I think you should ask instead 'What is the state's purpose in granting special recognition to married couples?'. The state shouldn't be in the business of granting bennies to people because they're in love- that's pointless. Streamlining legal processes to make for a stable environment to rear children, simplify inheritance, ect could be valid reasons.

My conclusion: Considering government recognition of marriage as a fundamental right is a flawed premise. People are free to fall in love with whoever they want, have sex and children with whoever they want- government recognition neither allows or prevents that. This is where the debate so often goes wrong. We're talking about extending government recognition and certain benefits to couples that match set criteria. People can make the argument that it's to the benefit of society for same-sex couples for get such recognition and if they can convince enough people, they'll get it. Personally, I don't see the need for it, and am therefore not agitating for same-sex marriage. However, if it comes to pass it's not going to be the end of the world either. I do admit that I get a little annoyed in the aggressive manner that proponents choose to shove it down our throats.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Considering government recognition of marriage as a fundamental right is a flawed premise.

Just thought I would highlight this, since it is at the heart of what I am saying.

[Sasaki Kojiro]

So the logical hopscotch that has to be played in order to justify keeping gays from marrying leads us to an outcome where women who have had hysterectomies are disallowed from marriage?

Great phrasing

Considering government recognition of marriage as a fundamental right is a flawed premise.

If it was called civil unions in the law, I don't think there would be a movement to make it legally called gay marriage. The issue is that it shouldn't be called one thing for straight people and another thing for gay people.

[Askthepizzaguy]

ATPG, nobody here even used most of those arguments.

No, some of them used far less rational ones, I'm afraid.

Some people care about marriage, a union between a man and a woman, why do gays demand something they don't really care about in the first place? Marriage is also a promise of bloodline, ah well just adopt a child it's almost real! I am not against it but I do question their motivations, they want what they can't have and demand we all act as if they do. Nothing was ever born out of an anus.

Can you give me one good reason why the government should grant legal/tax privileges to two men for living together in a sexual relationship?

Why should they give such privileges to two people of opposite gender? Same reasons apply, in every case.

At least with heterosexual couples, there were reasons to encourage the development of nuclear families, with the men going to work, the woman taking care of the home/children etc.

Oh. Well, that's archaic, outdated, and irrelevant. I think you'll agree that standard doesn't apply to heterosexuals, and isn't an argument against gay marriage either.

The family was the basic social unit, not the individual. Of course not every couple would produce children, but there was a general social advantage in promoting the old nuclear family.

Good, so you agree that when gay people raise children, it is advantageous that they are married and more closely resemble a nuclear family.

Thank you for supporting gay equality.

But this is history, move on, there's no need to start pretending that homosexual couples ever had such a value.

Well, sounds like you've met every homosexual couple and successfully concluded they don't have such values. I bet that took a long time, you must be exhausted.

I have to say that the cultural and logical hopscotch that ries to make homosexual relationships exactly the same as heterosexual ones is worse.

And yet, other than appeals to how it's been done in the past, I hear no reasons. Appeal to tradition isn't technically a reason. Appeal to change isn't the reason being put forward by gay marriage proponents, so opposing advocates can surely do better.

It's simple: Marriage is about creating a legal bond between the parents of a child (preferably before they are born), that is why marriage was for so long considered dissoluable, because the couple are blood-bound by their children.

I guess adoptive parents aren't really parents then?

Surely not even close to an argument against gay marriage.

What the "gay-marriage" movement wants to do is fundamentally redefine an institutions whose basic purpose and composition has been the same for all of recorded history.

Recorded history is full of intolerance, ignorance and injustice. Some aim to record some history that is slightly less intolerant, and more just.

Appeal to tradition is not only bad logic, it's a bad thing to hold up as virtuous. Thank goodness some people suggested that the traditional role of women could be changed from a non-voting non-citizen with very few rights to full equals, no matter how it had been done in the past.

Change isn't wrong because it is change, you have to demonstrate why the change is wrong. That has some very shaky ground in this instance, particularly given the ABSURD arguments proposed by those supporting Prop 8 in a courtroom. These are supposed to be the professionals who know what they are talking about. What they argued in court was beyond laughable, it was shameful.

I truly believe that someone here could argue their case better, but so far the only thing I've seen that's close to reasonable is that supporting traditional marriage via tax breaks is unjust in and of itself. Which I may or may not agree with, but at least that's a reason.... for something. And yet, it still has nothing to do with why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married.

The gay movement is the single dumbest movement in the history of mankind. You can stick your willies wherever you want already. Besides, "gay" is a made-up animal anyway. We're all just heterosexual people, a small few of us stick our willies in other places, as well.

This is not too far off what they argued in court, and it's no wonder why it didn't cut any mustard with the judge. It doesn't really explain any reason why gays are different and not entitled to the right to marry. It also isn't backed up by anything, it is just a stated opinion, not to mention that it seems obviously wrong.

BTW 52% for Prop 8 doesn't mean that 48% are in favor of gay marriage in that state. That merely means that 48% don't want a constitutional amendment. We all know people who use the arguement "I am against gay marriage, but I am also against a constitutional amendment agaisnt gay marriage". Throw people a straightforward poll - yes or no to gay marriage - and I suspect that you will see a much bigger divide.

And it would be as relevant as a poll that asked people whether they preferred Coke or Pepsi.

Reason why gays shouldn't get married: poll says people don't like the idea!

That's not a reason why gays shouldn't get married.

The mere fact that they got 52% of the vote to constitutionally solidify traditional marriage says quite a bit more than the opponents wish it did.

It says so much, that people still struggle to explain why they voted that way, or why they hold such beliefs.

It says so much, that lies, stereotypes, and rumor are the most substantive arguments put forward against it.

It also says that you don't need to know what is constitutional to vote on what laws there should be.

It also says that the constitution is really the last, best defense against the irrational views of the majority, whose sole arguments against it are that it hasn't been done that way before, and lots of people agree that it hasn't been done that way before.

[Hosakawa Tito]

State-recognised marriage violates those rights.

I don't follow your logic that state recognized marriage violates 14th Admendment rights. Care to explain?

You keep saying this... but what would it solve, really? Homosexuality's defining characteristic is a certain behavior. Whether it's something innate or acquired, what changes?

--------

1) Of course it is- that's what laws do. We discriminate against people who speed. We descriminate against people in certain income brackets, ect. Almost all law is about treating people who meet certain conditions differently. Certain basic rights are supposed to be beyond the reach of government, but even these are not without limit.

2) Here I would say no.

3) Does being single confer a second-class status? Does being married confer a first-class status? On all of these, I would say no.

4)N/A. See #3.

5) You're asking the wrong question. I think you should ask instead 'What is the state's purpose in granting special recognition to married couples?'. The state shouldn't be in the business of granting bennies to people because they're in love- that's pointless. Streamlining legal processes to make for a stable environment to rear children, simplify inheritance, ect could be valid reasons.

My conclusion: Considering government recognition of marriage as a fundamental right is a flawed premise. People are free to fall in love with whoever they want, have sex and children with whoever they want- government recognition neither allows or prevents that. This is where the debate so often goes wrong. We're talking about extending government recognition and certain benefits to couples that match set criteria. People can make the argument that it's to the benefit of society for same-sex couples for get such recognition and if they can convince enough people, they'll get it. Personally, I don't see the need for it, and am therefore not agitating for same-sex marriage. However, if it comes to pass it's not going to be the end of the world either. I do admit that I get a little annoyed in the aggressive manner that proponents choose to shove it down our throats.

1) Discriminating against people who speed, progressive taxation on higher income, etc... have been deemed to be a benefit to society. The arguements against gay marriage being detrimental to society have no validity.

Giving same sex couples the same legal rights/benefits/recognition as opposite sex couples has no detrimental effects upon my marriage, your marriage, anyone elses marriage. Gay marriage doesn't cheapen the institution, though the 50 percent heterosexual divorce rate sure does.

[Fragony]

I'm sorry to keep pushing the issue, but how? How is it worse? How does gay marriage hurt children?

PJ I don't know you as someone deliberately missing the point, not that I disagree with you, but it isn't about the specifics but the institution itself. If you have a certain outlook on it, the centuries old one, then how is it not a perversion of that institution. It's an empty word for me, but can those who care keep it real? Why can't they have that? How much value will a gay marriage have for the gays once I can marry my cat anyway, really love my cat.

[a completely inoffensive name]

See, I don't care if they're true or not- it's irrelevant. Nor do I care if homosexual couples are capable of falling in love the same way as heterosexual couples. None of that should matter when determining how people can enter into a government recognized contractual relationship.

The question is whether the government can extend recognition to certain people based on their behavior. I didn't see that addressed anywhere- which is why I think this will probably be reversed when it gets to the SCOTUS.

You don't even understand the question. The question is whether the government can deny recognition to certain people based upon their behavior. This judge says no, under the 14th Amendment's Equal Protection Clause. Maybe that's why you are lost and don't understand what the 138 page document is about.

[a completely inoffensive name]

5) You're asking the wrong question. I think you should ask instead 'What is the state's purpose in granting special recognition to married couples?'. The state shouldn't be in the business of granting bennies to people because they're in love- that's pointless. Streamlining legal processes to make for a stable environment to rear children, simplify inheritance, ect could be valid reasons.

My conclusion: Considering government recognition of marriage as a fundamental right is a flawed premise. People are free to fall in love with whoever they want, have sex and children with whoever they want- government recognition neither allows or prevents that. This is where the debate so often goes wrong. We're talking about extending government recognition and certain benefits to couples that match set criteria. People can make the argument that it's to the benefit of society for same-sex couples for get such recognition and if they can convince enough people, they'll get it. Personally, I don't see the need for it, and am therefore not agitating for same-sex marriage. However, if it comes to pass it's not going to be the end of the world either. I do admit that I get a little annoyed in the aggressive manner that proponents choose to shove it down our throats.

It is not a flawed premise. Without government involvement in the declaration of unity and love between multiple individuals, the responsibility is snatched by the Churches who discriminate and declares that the love between people of differing lifestyles is invalid and immoral. This why the government recognition of marriage must be universal and spread to homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals and heterosexuals and anything else I'm missing. Because only by having the right to be recognized as married officially by the government for everyone, will all love be equal. I can't think of anything more evil then declaring and thinking that one group's love is in anyway better or superior to another group's love. This is why every single person who is in favor of Prop 8 instantly loses my respect and is a bigot in my eyes.

The set criteria as shown in the 138 page document I posted, shows that government's only requirement for marriage is love. That is less requirements then any church or religion out there.

EDIT: Also, everything ATPG said.

[Fragony]

Cool, so can I marry my cat now, and please don't say that's something different, for me he's really a person.

[miotas]

This why the government recognition of marriage must be universal and spread to homosexuals, bisexuals, asexuals and heterosexuals and anything else I'm missing.

I think that's the wrong way of looking at it, it should just be any two people, homosexual, asexual, heterosexual or any other -sexual shouldn't even be considered.

Cool, so can I marry my cat now, and please don't say that's something different, for me he's really a person.

1) An animal is not considered equal to a human, whereas any two humans are considered equal and 2) how will the cat say "I do"?

[Fragony]

I1) An animal is not considered equal to a human, whereas any two humans are considered equal and 2) how will the cat say "I do"?

me ow.

What's it to you anyway. I really want this.

[a completely inoffensive name]

I think that's the wrong way of looking at it, it should just be any two people, homosexual, asexual, heterosexual or any other -sexual shouldn't even be considered

Well, yeah that was kind of my point. I tried to list off all the different categories you could think of so that it listed that anybody could marry anyone they want. Like one of the quotes from the 138 page court document I posted said, the "-sexual" based terms didn't come about until the 18th-19th century, but we all use them for whatever reason. I meant what you said when I said "universal".

[Fragony]

Well, yeah that was kind of my point. I tried to list off all the different categories you could think of so that it listed that anybody could marry anyone they want. Like one of the quotes from the 138 page court document I posted said, the "-sexual" based terms didn't come about until the 18th-19th century, but we all use them for whatever reason. I meant what you said when I said "universal".

Scrap sexual and replace with reproduction, that is what marriage traditionally is about, bloodline. Times change of course, kindly let it.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I'm going to vulgarise at this point:

If it ain't broke don't fix it.

The burden of proof lies with those whishing to change the law, otherwise the status quo can stand.

ATPG's basic argument is that traditional marriage is broken and no longer matters, so we should extend the institution.

Heaven forfend we try to fix out systemic social problems; rather than waste to time on this pointless exercise.

[miotas]

It is the most simple of actions to allow same sex marriages and remove discrimination. In Australia for example all it would require is to change the passage in the marriage act from '...the union of a man and a woman...' to something like '...the union of two people...'

[Fragony]

It is the most simple of actions to allow same sex marriages and remove discrimination. In Australia for example all it would require is to change the passage in the marriage act from '...the union of a man and a woman...' to something like '...the union of two people...'

What discrimination, a civil union grants the same rights. No matter how hard they pump butt or rub fleshwounds nature simply thinks otherwise. Can't help it, it's not possible. Gays are a flaw of nature, they are human beings and should be treated likewise, but they can't have eveything and shouldn't want it.