So /baw/, who are you going to gay marry?

>>262985
More like who am I not going to gay marry.

>>262985

>>262985
Sup, Miley?

>>262985

Well, I could marry my gf, but since I'm legally a guy it'd be silly. Booyah! State and federal marriage benefits!

>>262985

Squid

DOPE!

LETS GETS SOME PRIDE UP IN DIS BITCH!

LEMME SEE YOUR RAINBOWS DAWG!

Yeah, I thought that law was pretty stupid.

Good on you, California.

Whenever anyone tries to paint gays as perverse deviants or people who are just trying to gain attention by joining an "alternative lifestyle", I want to show them pictures of the cute little old lesbian grannies. How can lesbian grannies cause society to collapse on itself? Are they the ancient masterminds behind the Gay Agenda? Do they look that different from anyone else's grandmothers?

>>263050
>LEMME SEE YOUR RAINBOWS DAWG!
IS THIS FABULOUS ENOUGH FOR YOU?

  obligatory

You never get gay married

>>263062
i never get any kind of married
because im bad at being with other people

Our state, and the other 4 where gay marriage is legal, have not collapsed in upon themselves. I don't know why California is so opposed to having fabulous interior decorating.

>>263073
you're leeching morality and blessings from the rest of the states, postponing your smiting, DUH

>>263075

Well... Nuh-uh!

I've long maintained the best way to solve the gay marriage issue is to stop calling all unions "marriages" in the US. Grandfather current marriages, giving them all state and federal benefits that apply. Future unions shall be called civil unions, with the same federal and state benefits. Marriages shall be issued by religious institutions.

Now, this won't work because too many people are hung up on the word marriage. But it would at least toss out the "definition of marriage" argument in terms of government involvement. And then we could sit back and mock the people who try to argue against same sex unions because THINK OF THE CHILDREN.

If I lived in California, I would be supporting the California Marriage Protection Act, which would place a ban on divorces. If people were really serious about protecting the sanctity of families and marriages....

Reminds me of the great Iowa Supreme Court decision. I look forward to seeing what the Supreme Court writes about it, as this whole situation of some marriages being legal in certain states but not others has been long overdue for judicial review.

>>263091
I agree, if solely to treat legal unions as the contracts they're meant to be. Marriage is about being together in front of god, legal unions are about who gets what and decide what between two people who can make their own decisions.

>>263091
>>a ban on divorces

And then it'll be like Marriage really is a huge trap!

Stop trying to ruin the sanctity of divorce, Dent. It's a proud institution that lets miserable people get away from the people get away from the people who make them miserable, and teaches their children important life lessons. I guarantee if you banned divorce, the murder rate would sky-rocket.

Wait, I forgot what this thread was about. Gay marriage in California!

Now we can actually pull in revenue from gay couples having big weddings! Hell yes.

Oh and, civil rights, blah blah blah.

>>263104
>get away from the people get away from the people

Reeeeemix

>>263109

Whoops, I accidentally typed that twice I guess.

This is so gay.

>>263130

That's not punny, mister.

BAN ALL MARRIGES!

What if I'm against marriage benefits in whole? What if I don't like discrimination against single people?

>>263148
when you learn how to reproduce asexually to spawn more soldiers and workers then you can get benefits AND NOT A MINUTE SOONER

I've got my all my George Takei guest spots on Howard Stern right here.

>>263148

The importance americans put on marriage in general is dumb and stupid!

There I said it!

>when you learn how to reproduce asexually to spawn more soldiers and workers then you can get benefits AND NOT A MINUTE SOONER
This is more of an argument against gay marriage...

>>263154

I AGREE VEHEMENTLY WITH THIS STATEMENT.

>>263155
lesbians can get sperm donors and gays could use a surrogate mother or conceptually adopt (putting a poor innocent child into the hands of sodomites!!!)

i wonder if its harder for a single male or for a gay male pair to adopt, the single id guess? depending on how rich everyone is and where this is taking place

>>263154
IT IS THE CORNERSTONE OF EXISTENCE AND DEVALUING IT IS DESTROYING THIS NATION

>>263104

Or have different levels of marriage. An "easy-in, easy-out, every keeps what they went into the marriage with and divides what they got during the marriage 50/50, no-fault" kind, and a "wait a year, intensive counseling and family-skill classes, can't divorce without a waiting period and counseling, or if minor children are present" kind. Because, really, my main problem with divorce is the kids. If there are no kids present, it's just an exceptionally-messy and involved breakup, but with kids, it's like their entire world is falling apart. Learning "mom and dad don't love each other" is the biggest bombshell you could possibly drop, and then there's the angry parents taking it out on the kids, the kids blaming themselves, vindictive exes poisoning the kids against the other parent to try and get full custody, etc. It's nasty, damaging shit.

>>263155

Science babies. And adoption.

>>263091
>>263148
>>263154
agreed.
still, my stance is that either marriage for gays and straights or marriage for none, because we're talking about a civil union. no one's putting a gun to a Church to make it do things it finds morally objectionable.

tl;dr, marriage is a bumblefuck institution and civil marriage should be fair

>>263157

And, in the near future, they'll be able to create "female sperm" from polar bodies or adult stem cells, creating offspring that are genetically the children of both partners! They could do the same for gay guys, but they'd still need a womb, unless they can make some artificial womb tank...dealie...

  >>263162
I know where this is going...

>>263148>>263154
I support gay marriage because as long as it is given these legal benefits, all humans (except for kid fuckers and non-human animal fuckers or those crazy bastards that marry inanimate objects) should have access to those benefits. But I agree with these posts entirely.

Benefits shouldn't be tied to marriage. I think there should be a legal partnership contract you can get to get the benefits, but I believe marriage should be separate from that. Marriage is supposed to be a religious ceremony, right? I say have a system so people can get partnership benefits, and marriage is something that has no legal power or recognition by the government. (Though people who have already gotten married, their marriage license will be converted to a partnership license.)

Then any church or non-government organization has a right to perform a marriage between anyone and there is no conflict with religion and everyone is happy.

>>263165
Oh hey I just realized I said exactly what some other people in this thread have.

Derp derp derp

YAY
VICTOLY FOR DE FAGS.

today, california

tomorrow
THE WOOORLLLDDDD

>>263158

Actually reproduction is the cornerstone of our species' continuation.

Marriage has nothing to do with it.

I support gay marriage as long as it isn't called marriage. That's an institution of the church, is wholly under their control and has no bearing on law.

Civil union is the legal term and the only thing this law can apply to.

>>263175
Family life during formative years and childhood shape people.

Anti-gayridge activists argue that gays would make bad parents.

>>263177
marriage wasn't invented by Christians.

Matrimonial bondage for homosexual couples for the purpose of legitimizing a minority life style to society = GOOD
Matrimonial bondage for heterosexual couples as a way of maintaining reasonable TFRs and adequate child supervision = BAD

>>263180
what is tfrs

>>263180
why does love need to be legitimized to society, mang

>>263177
No, that's still 'separate but equal'. That's still bad.
Call it marriage, but if churches don't want to want to marry a couple based on their religious beliefs, it's their right. A church should, on the ground of it's religion, be able to disallow any marriage from happening on it's grounds. There's a number of Catholic churchs that don't allow Protestants to marry under their roof for the same reason.
Since there's a billion ways to get married that don't involved churches, priest/pastor/reverands or the Bible, and there are also enough churches/demonimations out there that actually don't mind letting it happen, it shouldn't be a problem. And it should only apply to churchs, since they count as 'holy ground'. Dining halls owned by religious bigots don't apply.

>>263177
In the US, marriage is not a solely religious concept, but a legal one. There are differences between marriages and civil unions: http://lesbianlife.about.com/cs/wedding/a/unionvmarriage.htm

Perhaps the ideal situation would be one where marriage becomes completely removed from the legal world and everyone only has civil unions in the eyes of the law/state, but that's an unrealistic ideal in anything like the near future.

>>263185

He wasn't talking about Civil Unions as they stand now, but more along the line that Marriage is a religious thing, and the whole term of marriage as a legal term shouldn't exist.

Besides, you're in Canada, yours and Maya's marriage isn't even at risk.

>>263175
It's also going to be our eventual downfall.

Yay overpopulation.

>>263177
>Anti-gayridge activists argue that gays would make bad parents.

And they have pretty much no evidence to back their claims up.

Matrimonial bondage for homosexual couples for the purpose of halting discrimination against a minority = GOOD
Matrimonial bondage for heterosexual couples as an overblown institution of exaggerated importance = BAD

>>263189
I was under the impression that the actual word was the issue - a civil union is legally the exact same thing as a marriage, but under a different name because the Church has claimed 'marriage' as it's own. Since the two separate words for the same thing is still inequality, just use marriage, but allow for the personal definition and exclusive treatment the Church wants.

And dammit, we ain't married.

>>263178
>implying church means catholic church

>>263185
No, it's not separate but equal. Under the law it's perfectly equal and unseperate.

>>263186
Well the US is butts. In civilized countries actual "marriage" is performed in a church, by a priest. The shit that grants you rights under the law is basically a piece of paper two people sign.

The only argument I've heard against civil unions is that homosexuals don't feel that a civil union is binding. They want to walk down the aisle. Well guess where the aisle is, it isn't in the local K-Mart that's for damn sure.

Tough. You can't force the church to perform marriage (and essentially sin) as some people seem to be suggesting. That's downright evil.

>>263211
Because there's only one religion that performs marriages, right?

>>263212
PS. This thread is about gay marriage in the US where marriage is a legal term that doesn't fit your narrow definition hope this helps.

>>263211
>Tough. You can't force the church to perform marriage (and essentially sin) as some people seem to be suggesting. That's downright evil.
Well, then, you too can't also tell churches that are okay with it that it's not okay for them to do it either.

>>263215
Those aren't REAL churches, they are hollow and dead lies created by Satan to lure the faithful away from the true path.

>>263154
I am totally going to gay marry you. Then we'll get a gay divorce and I'll gay marry TMC.

>>263212
There are multiple religions but the American Gays don't want to get married in the fashion of the Sherpas of the Himalayas, they want to marry like what their parents have (which is usually Christianity).

And lets face it, other religions (such as Islam) aren't as tolerant of gays and will straight up murder the fuck out of them.

>>263214
What's with that snide tone? My "narrow" definition is the actual definition no matter how many times you hold Merriam-Webster at gunpoint to change the text.

>>263215
Of course not, I was merely pointing our there's separation between church and state in the developed nations.

>>263221
iseewhatyoudidthere.jpg

>>263225
There are Christian denominations that welcome gay marriage ceremonies. Just saying.

>>263227
See
>>263218

>>263228
I stand corrected. Have a .jpg

So how soon could we expect the Prop 8 issue to be brought before the Supreme Court? For that matter, isn't there another big gay marriage issue circulating through the courts, regarding federal benefits for state recognized marriages?

>>263225
It's not a religion thing, it's a culture thing. Turkey is a mostly Islamic nation, and homosexuality is mostly accepted. Homosexual couples will still face the struggles present in many western societies today, when it comes to equality though.

>>263239
um no all muslims will behead a gay with their scimitars on sight dont you read books???

>>263242

Or watch the news?!

if the supreme court buts in that's fine


its not like the government hasn't butt into states rights enough

>>263248
The government should butt in when a state allows legalized discrimination.

No one is proposing that churches be forced into marrying gays when they don't want to, but ones that want to should be allowed to. And as long as there are legal benefits attached to marriage, it is discrimination to keep gay couples from partaking it.

>>263227
Yes, I realize that. I responded to that comment with
>I was merely pointing our there's separation between church and state in the developed nations.

Learn to read.

For future reference this guy:
>>263218
>>263228
>>263242
Is a troll trying to paint my opinion as stupid with logical fallacies.

>>263239
Turkey is slightly more secular, and thus not an "Islamic nation" (one under various versions of Islamic law).
It's a religion thing where religion is prevalent, but in the west we have completely separated church and state.

>>263257
>is a troll
yah. i noticed. i figured u weren't dum.

>>263250
How about no? Nowhere in the constitution is the word marriage defined in any way and it's up to states to figure out what it means.

>>263250
ARIZONAAAAAAAAA!!!!

>>263257
>Is a troll trying to paint my opinion as stupid with logical fallacies.

is putting your opinions very bluntly to help illustrate how odious they are under the veil of proper punctuation and capitalization

>>263259
>implying restricting churches that want to marry gays isn't discriminating against that church
>implying that giving legal benefits to couples for being straight but not allowing couples to get those same benefits when they are gay isn't discriminatory

>>263266
>implying a religious marriage is legally binding
You know nothing about this do you? To marry people, there is a document churches apply to get from the government, anyone can get it.

No one is stopping you from getting it yourself and marrying gays, has nothing to do with what the state government recognizes as marriage.

I don't even want to react to that second >implying because I don't know where you pulled that out of.

>>263269
But there are state governments don't recognize marriages between same-sex couples.

>>263259
>Nowhere in the constitution is the word marriage defined in any way and it's up to states to figure out what it means.

The ruling is that it is unconstitutional to discriminate against gay people by banning marriage between them, not some kind of redefinition of marriage means, dumbass.

>>263271
The second just kind of follows logically from the first.

>>263259

>Nowhere in the constitution is the word marriage defined

Well that's because the constitution is a set of ideals, not a dictionary. The 14th Amendment gives the federal government the ability to enforce the substantive due process clause of the Constitution, which includes equal protection under the law, even against the states’ sovereign immunity. This prevents the Federal and State governments from discriminating based on race primarily, but it also has been found to cover gender and sexuality discrimination as well (see the cases where states attempted to pass laws that kept gays from adopting).

>>263192

I was under the impression he was talking about Civil Union as a theoretical term, not the actual legal term, which has different circumstances than legal marriage.

Such as they don't really move state to state.

What that other poster, I believe was suggesting that the term legal union should just be the term, legally, for Marriages in U.S., thus rectifying the problems we have over semantics.

>>263271
It's not banning marriage, it's defining it as a union between a man and a woman, which is what it means.

Gays tried to redefine it as a union between same sex couples and failed again and again. They weren't going for legal rights because if they did they would have settled for civil unions.

>>263270
Move to another state or vote/petition/raise awareness to have the law in your state changed.

>>263274
The fact that that amendment protects gays is retarded because there isn't any way to enforce it short of civil war at which point you're talking about killing people who disagree with you.

If a state doesn't recognize gay marriage, then that is the states right.

>>263277
>The fact that that amendment protects gays is retarded because I don't like them faggots.

>>263277
>Move to another state or vote/petition/raise awareness to have the law in your state changed.

So I guess you are opposed to the government stepping in and forcing states to recognize interracial couples?

>>263281
People can't help to be born a race, gays are just that way because they hate God.

>>263283

>>263283

>>263283
Don't forget that they also choose to be gay because they want to kill their mothers by breaking their hearts.

D----> I love being wrong.

>>263283

>>263287
I am waaay behind on Homestuck so I have no clue who this is.

>>263289

It's John's new best friend forever.

Disgusting liberals can't handle a differing opinion!

>>263277

>The fact that that amendment protects gays

First point, while a technicality, the amendment doesn't directly PROTECT gays. It prevents State and Federal governments from creating laws that infringe on your substantive and procedural due process rights, and one of those substantive rights is everyone's right to be treated equally under the law. The amendment isn't proactive protection, it's a restriction on what types of laws the government can create.

>is retarded because there isn't any way to enforce it short of civil war at which point you're talking about killing people who disagree with you.

There is no reason for anyone to agree with any of the court decisions. The judicial branch has no method of enforcing its judgements. Instead, it has to rely on the Executive branch. Typically this is local police, but when it's something particularly unpopular (like when a Southern mayor refused to allow black children into a public school) federal forces and the national guard may be involved. But more simply, we are a nation that values the rule of law, not the rule of force, so the majority will go along with a law and legally oppose it rather than resorting to mob violence. Those on the fringes who do oppose the law through violence are a minority and can be arrested.

>>263291

Stay gold, Anonymous.

>>263291

>>263280
>>263283
Troll trying to misrepresent my opinion, and you guys are falling for it.

What the hell, grow up and think more critically.

>>263281
No, because the 14th amendment protects them.

>>263297

Wrong. Nobody is falling for it. I am laughing, and I assume anyone with half a brain is also laughing at it. Unless they're a sensitive boy, like you, Tommy.

>>263296

I see what you're doing, good sir, and I love you for it.