http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2010/08/04/state/n181246D68.DTL&type=politicsI don't know about the rest of you, but I think this calls for a celebration.
So /baw/, who are you going to gay marry?
>>262985More like who am I not going to gay marry.
>>262985
>>262985Sup, Miley?
>>262985Well, I could marry my gf, but since I'm legally a guy it'd be silly. Booyah! State and federal marriage benefits!
>>262985Squid
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
>>263062i never get any kind of marriedbecause 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.
>>263073you're leeching morality and blessings from the rest of the states, postponing your smiting, DUH
>>263075Well... 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.
>>263091I 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 divorcesAnd 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 peopleReeeeemix
>>263109Whoops, I accidentally typed that twice I guess.
This is so gay.
>>263130That'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?
>>263148when 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.
>>263148The 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 SOONERThis is more of an argument against gay marriage...
>>263154I AGREE VEHEMENTLY WITH THIS STATEMENT.
>>263155lesbians 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
>>263154IT IS THE CORNERSTONE OF EXISTENCE AND DEVALUING IT IS DESTROYING THIS NATION
>>263104Or 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.>>263155Science babies. And adoption.
>>263091>>263148>>263154agreed. 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
>>263157And, 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...
>>263162I know where this is going...
>>263148>>263154I 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.
>>263165Oh hey I just realized I said exactly what some other people in this thread have.Derp derp derp
YAYVICTOLY FOR DE FAGS.today, californiatomorrowTHE WOOORLLLDDDD
>>263158Actually 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.>>263175Family life during formative years and childhood shape people.Anti-gayridge activists argue that gays would make bad parents.
>>263177marriage wasn't invented by Christians.
Matrimonial bondage for homosexual couples for the purpose of legitimizing a minority life style to society = GOODMatrimonial bondage for heterosexual couples as a way of maintaining reasonable TFRs and adequate child supervision = BAD
>>263180what is tfrs
>>263180why does love need to be legitimized to society, mang
>>263177No, 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.
>>263177In 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.htmPerhaps 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.
>>263185He 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.
>>263175It'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 = GOODMatrimonial bondage for heterosexual couples as an overblown institution of exaggerated importance = BAD
>>263189I 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
>>263185No, it's not separate but equal. Under the law it's perfectly equal and unseperate.>>263186Well 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.
>>263211Because there's only one religion that performs marriages, right?
>>263212PS. 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.
>>263215Those aren't REAL churches, they are hollow and dead lies created by Satan to lure the faithful away from the true path.
>>263154I am totally going to gay marry you. Then we'll get a gay divorce and I'll gay marry TMC.
>>263212There 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.>>263214What'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.>>263215Of course not, I was merely pointing our there's separation between church and state in the developed nations.
>>263221iseewhatyoudidthere.jpg
>>263225There are Christian denominations that welcome gay marriage ceremonies. Just saying.
>>263227See>>263218
>>263228I 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?
>>263225It'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.
>>263239um no all muslims will behead a gay with their scimitars on sight dont you read books???
>>263242Or watch the news?!
if the supreme court buts in that's fineits not like the government hasn't butt into states rights enough
>>263248The 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.
>>263227Yes, 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>>263242Is a troll trying to paint my opinion as stupid with logical fallacies.>>263239Turkey 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 trollyah. i noticed. i figured u weren't dum.
>>263250How 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 bindingYou 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.
>>263269But 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.
>>263271The second just kind of follows logically from the first.
>>263259>Nowhere in the constitution is the word marriage definedWell 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).
>>263192I 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.
>>263271It'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.>>263270Move to another state or vote/petition/raise awareness to have the law in your state changed.>>263274The 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?
>>263281People can't help to be born a race, gays are just that way because they hate God.
>>263283
>>263283Don'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.
>>263287I am waaay behind on Homestuck so I have no clue who this is.
>>263289It's John's new best friend forever.
Disgusting liberals can't handle a differing opinion!
>>263277>The fact that that amendment protects gaysFirst 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.
>>263291Stay gold, Anonymous.
>>263291
>>263280>>263283Troll trying to misrepresent my opinion, and you guys are falling for it. What the hell, grow up and think more critically.>>263281No, because the 14th amendment protects them.
>>263297Wrong. 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.>>263296I see what you're doing, good sir, and I love you for it.
>>263297So why shouldn't the 14th amendment protect gays? I doubt people are going to start killing people because gays are protected from discrimination.
>>263297>No, because the 14th amendment protects them.It's retarded that gays are protected by an amendment but it's not retarded for interracial couples to be protected by an amendment... because they're protected by an amendment? Are you feeling alright?
>>263300He is obviously jealous of how fabulous they are.
>the term legal union should just be the term, legally, for Marriages in U.S., thus rectifying the problems we have over semantics.This!
>>263299How is ruling marriage a union between a man and a woman in any way infringing on gay rights?
>>263303That whole equal treatment under the law business, maybe?
>>263303Because defining it, for use in legal situations, as only a man and a woman is exclusionary towards gay couples. And when marriage is recognized by the government, and given governmental benefits, excluding them is discrimination.
>>263304They are being equally treated under law.>>263305So the problem is special treatment of married people not discrimination.And as I said, the main goal here is not the same treatment under law because if it was, gays could pursue civil unions.
>>263306Civil Unions aren't legally the same and do not have all the same rights that Marriage does.
>>263306Civil unions are not legally the same as marriages, otherwise you'd be right.
>>263298
>>263305>>263307So what you're saying is that law is discriminating against single people and those in non-married relationships? Shouldn't single people be afforded the same benefits?
>>263303Because they are saying that a man can't marry another man, or a woman to another woman. This prevents two people who love each other from being married in the eyes of the LAW.Unfortunately, people tend to tie the legal issue with the religious issue, despite the fact that two should be independent from each other, one of the ideas our country was founded on.Civil Unions, which are only available in certain states, are restricted to simply the state they got it in, as in if a civil-union couple went from Vermont to Wyoming, they aren't considered to be legally together, or any of the rights (fewer than a legally married couple) that a civil union would grant them. A lot of legal issues tied into a marriage are unavailable to a gay couple. Like what happens to your significant other is in a coma, and the Doctors need a decision, and you can't say a thing, because you're not legally recognized as their significant other.You might as well have said "How does designating this school only for white students affect black students?"I hate making those comparisons, but it's really damn similar.
THIS SHOULD SORT YOU ALL OUT
>>263311If single people want to get married ain't nothin' stoppin' 'em?
>>263312>what happens to your significant other is in a coma, and the Doctors need a decisionYou can sign paperwork that makes them the person who makes those decisions.>You might as well have said "How does designating this school only for white students affect black students?"Don't... don't bring race into this. It demeans your entire argument to use suffering spanning hundreds of years as an arguing point.It is not similar in any way at all.A better comparison would be "How does designating this school for women only in any way harm men?".Oh wait, we have those.
>>263306The problem here is you're using the same logic of "Seperate but Equal" which isn't accepted by the courts.>>263311No, because Equal Protection only prevents the government from making laws that treat people differently based off Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation, not marital status.
>>263314Why should they have to get married to receive the same benefits? Don't they get the same rights as INDIVIDUALS (see 14th amendment)?
>>263316It isn't separate, civil unions apply to both gays and straights.>No, because Equal Protection only prevents the government from making laws that treat people differently based off Race, Gender, and Sexual Orientation, not marital status.Thank you for that.
>>263311Yes. Yes they should.In fact, I'm fine with just eliminating the benefits or marriage entirely and giving them to everyone.
>>263317So, hey, have any more retarded points to bring up?
>>263319>It isn't separate, civil unions apply to both gays and straights.Here is a school for white people and black people. Less resources are provided but anyone can go there. And here is a school that is for white people only and it has more resources.
>>263322ugh not everything is about race you know GAWD
>>263324Stanley, is that you?
>>263319>>263317>>263311If you want to fight for the right of single people and non-married couples to get the same benefits as married couples, then go right on ahead. But just because they don't have the same rights doesn't mean it's justified for gays not to either.
>>263306That assumes that civil unions provide the same benefits (they don't), and that the eventual goal of this isn't nationwide recognition of gay marriage. Even the officially married gay couples in CA, MA, VT, all the rest, don't get the *federal* marriage benefits that straight couples get. That's the goal of the piecemeal approach of going state-by-state, but now it's going to the Supremes (led by Chief Justice Diana Ross...lol jk, sorry). The Supreme Court is the uncertain variable here. The 9th Circuit is as liberal as can be, so they're all but a given, especially after the constitutional drumming Walker gave the defense. Boies and Olsen (the plaintiff's attorneys) have been before the Court before representing the different sides of the Bush/Gore recount case, and they've joked that they'll win over the five and four justices they had on their respective sides. Plus, we've got Kagan now, and her closet door is so wide open you can see the Christmas presents in back. She may be able to win over Kennedy, who's usually considered a swing vote. Alito, Scalia, and Roberts are the only ones I'm certain would vote no. Kennedy's usually a swing vote...we just need him, Breyer (a Clinton appointee), and the three lady Justices.
>>263328It's always a pleasure to watch you work, Mindwipe... even when it's frustrating and painful on your end. :\
>>263319 Marital status refers to whether the person is single or married BY CHOICE, idiot. >>263317 >Don't they get the same rights as INDIVIDUALS (see 14th amendment)? Again, whether you're married or single by choice isn't something that the government is prevented from passing legislation on.
I just imagined the first Lesbian Divorce.[Lawyer A] "As you can see, your honor, my client is clearly MORE of a mother to their children, therefore she gets the kids, the house, and her life partner must pay them child support plus standard of living."[Lawyer B] "Please disregard that last statement. My defendant is CLEARLY more the woman in this relationship and deserves the house, and is accustomed to a certain standard of living her lifepartner should continue to finance beyond the separation."Determining who gets raped in the custody and alimony battle will be less a predictable joke now!Hahahaha! Awlf. I made myself sad.
The argument that single people and non-married couples don't have the same rights as married couples is a bullshit argument. It's just an attempt to make gay rights supporters look like hypocrites, and in no way justifies gay marriage being banned. If you are going to argue that then you either need to believeA) Everyone should get the benefits, single, married, couple that isn't married, gay, straight, black, white. Anyone. OrB) The benefits given to marriage need to be eliminated.
>>263315The point I was making is that it isn't right to exclude the rights of some people based on sexual orientation, because it is wrong to do the same based on their race. Or religion. Or their politically beliefs. There IS a similarity. How about this "Only straight people can drink from this fountain, and homosexuals can drink from this one, which isn't as well maintained or clean".And the argument about how everyone can get a civil union is rather... Stupid, to be honest.What straight couple would get a civil union when they have the option to get legally married, which affords them more rights and privileges than a Civil Union. An option that gay people don't get. This is probably the second worst argument I've heard on this issue. The first being "Well straight people can't get married to people of the same sex either".Let me clarify something for all of you that don't understand.MARRIAGE IS LEGALLY DEFINED AS AN ENTIRELY DIFFERENT THING THAN A CIVIL UNION. IT HAS MORE RIGHTS, AND APPLIES NO MATTER WHERE YOU GO. CIVIL UNIONS AFFORD YOU LESS AND ONLY APPLY TO THE STATE YOU GOT IT. Clear enough for you?
but what if single people ~cant help~ being single u guys, heck isnt everyone born single, this is the most widespread discrimination ive seen!!!
>>263335save it for valentine's day.
>>263335Hahaha, you almost got me there.
>>263331>Marital status refers to whether the person is single or married BY CHOICE, idiot. Not everyone is single by choice.Some are lonely virgins with rage. I'm sorry it was too easy.
>>263315>It is not similar in any way at all. Discriminating against -these- people for no good reason is in no way similar to discriminating against -these other people- for no good reason! Yes. Utterly different.
>>263335>heck isnt everyone born single>arranged marriages.
>>263335
>>263315>A better comparison would be "How does designating this school for women only in any way harm men?".>Oh wait, we have those.People CHOOSE to send their kids to women only schools which are PRIVATELY owned.
keep reachin for that star
>>263191Actually, I think bondage usually = good. Especially homosexual bondage and both chicks are wicked hot.>>263283If we're talking the megalomaniac that committed global genocide, yeah I'm not too pleased with the prick, and I'm straight. In the end: Who gives a shit? I tell you who oughtn't give a shit; the government. It's none of the government's business what goes on in the bedroom or what gender you prefer. So good, prop 8 over turned. I honestly don't think it should be celebrated. This shouldn't have happened to begin with.It should be left up to the individual church to decide whether or not they want to marry homosexual couples. Call me a nutty libertarian, but when it comes to social issues I am usually "Government get the fuck out."
It's hard as hell to have a discussion on baw without being heckled by trolls (who are probably OP). I wish /baw/ wasn't such a shit fest for every meaningful discussion, it's like we can only talk civilly about inane bullshit.
>>263364I read it in James Woods' voice. :x>>263383Hey, /baw/ is incredibly civil, as far as discussing srs issues with strangers online goes. By all accounts, this thread is nowhere near as hostile as the health care thread. I guess it's the whole "Young people being more favorable towards teh gay, regardless of religion or other political stances".
I hate fags...because they stink & I don't smoke.
>>263385I hate puns... because they're base and I think.
Oh, what fun! I didn't think we'd have a ye olde gay rights debate goin' on here! I'm 90% certain, though, that the person protesting is just a troll or maybe really is one of those homophobic tards that has yet to die out yet.>>263185 This, this, fucking THIS! The argument that gays can have whatever rights they want as long as they don't call it "marriage" is ridiculous, and unfortunately I've argued with one of my own relatives over it. You want to call it something different? Fine, call it "GAY marriage", there ya go. I know it isn't the word itself they really care about (well, maybe some do) but they keep bringing it up anyway and it's stupid.>>263315>Don't... don't bring race into this. It demeans your entire argument to use suffering spanning hundreds of years as an arguing point. >It is not similar in any way at all.Yeah, it's not 100% the same, but there are enough similarities. Many of the same arguments made against interracial marriages are being made against gay marriages. Oh, and MLK Jr.'s wife supports gay marriage. Supporting equality means supporting equality, whether it's gender, sexual orientation, race, religion, or anything else.>A better comparison would be "How does designating this school for women only in any way harm men?". >Oh wait, we have thoseThe difference is the segregation there is voluntary. A better comparison would be saying men can go to school, but women can't.>>263383>It's hard as hell to have a discussion on baw without being heckled by trolls (who are probably OP)NO U. I'm OP and I'm not the troll. >:(
>>263394Using racial plight to influence opinions on other topics is equivalent to pic. Just don't sink that low bro.
>>263399No, no, fuck you, man. No one's ever been discriminated from work or housing, or killed for being a furry. No one's ever been sent to a reeducation camp to "pray the furry away", or been sent to prison, or given hormones, or "correctively raped"! Furries weren't even around fifty years ago!
>>263400You've been sent to a reeducation camp?
>>263394I'll have to disagree on it having any real similarity, or any similarity to a degree worth comparing it to the plight of gays. They're an entirely different issue as gender preference transcends race. It's kind of a cop out and, while not as silly as, is similar to invoking Godwin's Law. And you don't seem like an idiot. You seem more than capable of coming up with decent responses.
>>263400This. When furries are rounded up and put in gas chambers, or raped or beaten but the other person is excused 'cause it was just 'furry panic', then they can pull that shit.But until then no fucking no.
>>263403No one likes the self-aggrandizing dickhead furries. Not even other furries, I suspect.
>>263400>>263403So we agree not to use the plight of other people to frame an argument?
>>263403Oh, and I'm not saying the plight of homosexuals throughout history is the same as that of marginalized or enslaved races, but yeah.
>>263402The entire gay rights movement doesn't compare to the civil rights movement, but there are a lot of parallels between the arguments against gay marriage and the arguments against interracial marriage.Like the fact that neither was based on logic.
we should also be able to marry nine year olds and other animals
>>263409Why?
>>263409
>>263409Because just like gay dudes they can totally consent amiritewaitnoiamwrong
>>263405Indeed.>>263407Well, almost everything about love and affection is illogical. When you boil away the romantic bullshit, marriage is a financial solution and nothing more. If a homosexual pays taxes, I see nothing different about him than a heterosexual of equal status in this regard.It probably costs the state more dealing with ACLU lawyers lodging complaints with the state about discrimination against homosexual couples. It doesn't make sense. You pay tax on everything the state does for you. This would just be more income for roads, municipal services, and fueling up B-52's to set Islamic extremists on fire from 50,000 feet up.
>>263410>>263412why notif two guys can mary then i should be abel to mary my dog
>>263409>>263415
>>263415>>263409
So I am impressed with the judge's wording! He's pretty much trapped the naysayers into a corner where the only way they can argue against it is by asserting that religion > law. To which I can only imagine lawmakers will respond with "lolno".Clever girl.
>>263415Because, there's a difference between a human adult and child or animal, at least in legal terms?
>>263421legal terms which can be changed like this lawits a question of my rights granted to me by my constitution
>>263425But this isn't a question of major change, it's mostly about rewording a contract between two people of opposite gender so that gender becomes a non-issue.
>>263425If you can get your dog to consent in English (no ONE BARK FUR YES TWO BARKS FOR NO) and have him write a written letter (with witnesses) that he is of sound mind and body then you will still be arrested that is just gross man ewww
Seriously guys. You should know better.
>>263427>so that species becomes a non-issue
>>263432I know it's a troll. It knows we know it's a troll.But it's fun.
>>263433When animals have the same rights as human beings, we'll cross the bridge. Together <3
>>263434>implying i don't really want to marry an underaged dog
>>263437>implying you aren't a furry
>>263437Did my sister put our dog in a tutu?
ppl bring out the who pedophile/bestiality thing irl when they start getting desperate for counterarguments tho n its kinda sad :[
>>263441All girly dogs look the same.
>>263446derp i think poking man in ass is more natural than poking dog in vagina durrrridiot(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)
>>263465I think jumping sexes is less unnatural than jumping species.
>>263465
>>263409Marriage is considered a contract, which denotes a voluntary participation between both parties. A dog and children cannot enter into a contract because they lack the faculties to properly consent. Dogs are animals, and whatever cognitive functions they posses is dubious at best. As for children, they are on the whole much more susceptible to influence from adults, and research shows that children suffer severe mental and physical damage when they enter into a sexual relationship (one of the primary components of the marriage "contract").This is why it is illogical and insulting to say allowing gays (two consenting adults) to marry is just one step closer to allowing people to marry pets, children, objects, and 2-D waifus.>>263383>I wish /baw/ wasn't such a shit fest for every meaningful discussionI'd like to think that this conversation has been incredibly civil given the inflammatory nature of the subject (and I hope that I have, barring the one post where I called someone an idiot, presented a logical argument in a polite but firm manner). Even close-knit families will get into rows if they have differing opinions on politics, so naturally a loosely defined internet community will squabble when presented with the same issues. I haven't seen any death threats or defamatory racist epithets, so at least we're better than /n/.
>>263465>(USER WAS BANNED FOR THIS POST)Owned. Obligatory MODS = GODS>>263473>at least we're better than /n/You say that like that's a hard thing to do. But yeah, other than the b& troll, this has been a pretty civil discussion. We're all bros here, we don't need to tear each other's heads off if we disagree. And I feel +4 is a fairly tolerant place, thankfully, or I wouldn't have stuck around as long as I have.
>>263475My name is plus4 and I hate fun wahh.
>>263476wut
>>263481That guy was hilarious.
>>263483I've seen better trolls.
>>263485Troll nothing, he was being funny.
>>263485If you got trolled by that, you deserve to be euthanized.
>>263487Haha, wow, this thread sure took a turn for the worse now, didn't it? I never said I was trolled, I said that person was attempting to troll. If you think he was just making "funny" jokes, apparently your sense of humor involves bestiality and is a lot different than mine.
>>263493"I have no sense of humor."
>>263494"I like sophomoric and tasteless jokes involving dog vaginas."Whatever, I'm done here.
>>263493Oh, so now you're the king of what's funny?Fuck you, kid.
>>263496I don't see what's wrong with joking about dog vaginas.
can you all just stop this crap right now.one of the pillars of liberal thinking is that anything that does not interfere with someone else or someone Else's property is considered OK. they also have a high sensitivity for what they consider inequality be it true inequality or their own definition which tends to differ from the true meaning.this is why they consider gay as something that is OK.most of the liberals and conservatives agree that bestiality is usually cruelty to the animal getting fucked. this is why they view bestiality as wrong even though that to the conservative thinker it might seem on par.conservatives on the other hand have a certain set of moral laws. even though some conservatives might agree that no one is getting hurt by a single couple having gay sex they believe a public acceptance of gay sex will lead to deterioration in one of their moral pillars and in turn to a deterioration in all of them. hence the "today it's gay sex tomorrow it's pedophilia" mentality.there is also the conservative belief in a family, a structure of a father a mother and children, that comes into question here. they do not want anyone in their community to move away from their way of life.the only solutions therefor are:1) abandoning some of your beliefs for the sake of unity2) segregation.it is the basis of democracy that the losing side respects the will of the majority, something neither side appears to be willing to do here.
>>263501The fuck are you even talking about?
>>263506why conservatives and liberals disagree.
>>263506I'm reading it as basically1) Conservative and liberal thought approach this concept in entirely different ways due to the way they work2) Their different approaches explains why their opinions on the topic are also vehemently different3) Both sides need to shut up and realize that they can't always get their way in a democracy
>>263501>conservatives on the other hand have a certain set of moral laws.First, these nebulous "moral laws" don't trump the Constitution of the United States. The country is not set up as a straight democracy because in a straight democracy, the majority can oppress a minority. The Constitution is about preventing certain people from using the government as a way to take rights away from others.Second, this statement implies that there are no moral laws for liberals, which is untrue. Conservatives and Liberals both have moral laws, they just value different things.>they believe a public acceptance of gay sex will lead to deterioration in one of their moral pillars and in turn to a deterioration in all of them.The judges decision exposes this lie for what it is. There is not legitimate reason to suggest that the public acceptance gay marriage will somehow stop heterosexuals from marrying.One of the great hypocrisies of the current conservative movement that disgusts me right now is this line of rhetoric that apparently conservatives are for more freedom for individuals, but then use the government to oppress the freedoms of people that are different from them.
>>263514there's poo poo on his pee pee
does anyone else find dividing people into "conservatives" and "liberals" hilariously lame?
>>263517is "assholes" and "douchebags" better?
gas thread ban op
>>263501lol dis thread
>>263519It is a constitutional mixed democracy with a bill of rights.>constitutionalThere are limits to what the government can and cannot do, and a clearly-described structure for said government>mixed democracyPeople elect officials who vote, debate, and make laws for them, so we are, in that sense, a republic. Some states also have a referendum process, which is a feature of direct democracy, although we sadly do not have one on a national scale. >Bill of RightsThis is key. There are rights that every citizen has, and they can't be taken away or infringed upon by the government. These rights should never be up for a vote by the public or by the Congress, and if they are, such vote ought to be invalidated. Imagine if they held a nationwide vote on outlawing Islam after 9/11, or a vote banning all civilian firearm ownership after the Columbine shooting? Basic rights should not be up to the public to decide, because they are *inherent* and *essential* rights.
>>263527Unless, of course, you could get enough representatives to add an amendment to the constitution, which is why the idea for an amendment banning Gay Marraige was being kicked around. However, amendments are notoriously hard to add, especially if they're an amendment that doesn't limit the power of the government, but instead the freedom of individual citizens.
>>263537Exactly, and the difficulty of Amending the Constitution is deliberate. It's hard to have a foundation for a government if said foundation is always shifting with fads and popular fancies. It's easier to "change" the constitution through the courts, by changing the precedents and way rules are interpreted and applied (see "Commerce Clause").
>this thread>no fun>no discussion>all of you shut upSomebody call the whaaaambulance
>This thread
Here's what I'd like to see...>Government out of marriage entirely>Civil unions with the same benefits as marriage allowed for gays>Tax code rewritten to respect union contracts, be they marital or civilOne judge making a highly controversial decision isn't the way to bring about social change to get gays the same treatment as straights. I supported Prop 8, but I'd rather it didn't need to be written at all.
>>263698>Supported Prop 8>Wants government out of marriageBut Prop 8 was Government interference in marriage.
>>263701not interference in REAL marriages
>>263701Government was already infringing in marriage. Prop 8 was the backlash of people not liking the fact that the very idea of marriage was being redefined as a union between any two consenting adults rather than a union between one man and one woman.I didn't want the government to redefine such an important social construct, so I supported legislation that cemented its definition. But I'd rather it remain outside the government's control entirely. The third option is definitely preferable in my book.
>>263702That's entirely subjective.
>>263704You act like marriage was always specifically defined as being between only one man and one woman. (it wasn't) And even if it did, how the hell would redefining it from one man and one woman to two consenting adults hurt anything?>I didn't want the government to redefine such an important social construct, so I supported legislation that cemented its definition.I mean seriously. Please explain this. I want to understand why "redefining marriage" to allow homosexuals to get hitched is such a bad thing.
I want to kiss you. I couldn't care less about prop 8.
>>263716...That's weird. I was thinking about that incident just tonight.
>>263709If the government can redefine marriage to allow gays to do it who knows what else they'll be redefining! Freedom = Slavery! 1984!!!
>>263704Prop 8 was never about protecting marriage as a social construct. The real intention of Prop 8 was in the prevention of validating gay marriage, which while technically never intended...anyway. Convincing the population that they were somehow protecting marriage by invalidating gay marriage was what Prop 8 was all about, and it was paid for and campaigned for primarily by Mormons, who had their own agenda. A religious one, if you can believe that.Any stance that they had for invalidating gay marriage has gone out the window with the big, bleeding hole in the federal Defense of Marriage Act. The part that defined marriage as between a man and a woman was deemed invalid and thrown out. Prop 8 was peanuts compared to the hole now gaping in DoMA.
To tell the truth, I could care less.About anything ever.Especially with Cali.Fuck that state.
>>263729
>>263751what did cali ever do to you?
>>263709>You act like marriage was always specifically defined as being between only one man and one woman. (it wasn't)>I want to understand why "redefining marriage" to allow homosexuals to get hitched is such a bad thing.Make up your mind. Does marriage already include homosexuals or doesn't it?I say it doesn't, but that's beside the point. Whether it does or doesn't shouldn't be the government's call. I mean, if they can redefine marriage without the people's approval, what else can they redefine?
>>263819That's the thing: people have different definitions! We're in a period of cultural flux, and the old people, Catholics, Evangelicals, Mormons, and self-hating, closeted homophobes are trying to stop a tidal wave. It won't work, but they won't stop trying, and will hurt a lot of people in the meantime. "Marriage does include homosexuals" in the sense that there are legally-recognized gay couples, people who believe that marriage merely requires two consenting adults of any sex, and that, even before the the first country recognized gay marriages, there were queer couples who'd loved each other and been together for decades.
>>263825Funny how you only feel like arguing about the parts of my post that I say aren't significant. I'm not going to debate whether or not the "cultural tidal wave" you describe is happening or not. I know there are people who want marriage redefined, and maybe it will be. I don't like it, but it's possible. My point is that it shouldn't be up to the law makers and the judges. It's a social issue. Let's let society work it out and allow people to live the way in which they want to live.
>>263829But the problem with this is the legal definition of marriage, not the social one. People can say they're married all they want, and society can accept that. But without a signed piece of paper, neither side has spousal privileges. Also, social stability can go fuck itself if it tries to stop social justice. But that last bit is pretty subjective.
>>263829As long as we have state-recognized straight marriage, we need state-recognized gay marriage. Either abolish it or expand it.
>>263830>the legal definition of marriage>a signed piece of paperBingo. All marriage should be to the government is a contract between two adults. Two men can sign a contract as easily as a man and a woman. Rewrite the tax code and whatever else you need to so it respects any union contracts equally. Gay couples can call themselves married if that's what they want to do. Again, that's not the issue at hand.
I love you, dawg.I love you too, bro.Let's buttsex, dawg.Alright bro, let's buttsex.Ugh.
>>264096Did you just 'ugh' your own comment? Because I don't find fratboys very attractive either.
>Fox: What you've done is moved it to the federal courts, rather than letting the states decide.>Ted Olson: Well, would you like it if people put Fox New's right to free speech up to a vote, and started censoring it till all the other states voted?I love this man.
>>264178 You mean, like things were prior to Incorporation?
Ugh
>>263834I don't quite follow your line of thinking. Most people when they protest the definition of marriage don't think that homosexuals should get the legal benefits provided by marriage. Or the recognition as a married couple. If you want, call them Gay Married. Marriage as an institution has existed since man first married, and then married the other man. It has been defined, redefined, co-defined and reconciled across definitions since antiquity. The definition of marriage in America has remained the same, albeit with a stipulation against polygamy, since the start. The TRADITION that thought that homosexual marriage was invalid was based on a tradition and a line of thought. It was wrong. Not specifically wrong in the sense denying civil rights is wrong, but wrong in that it was>implying marriage is between a man and a woman only.Nothing is being redefined here. The redefinement came with the Defense of Marriage act that forbade the possibility of same sex marriage, which was based on a convenient misinterpretation. There's nothing specifically forbidding it from happening.Like it or not, it's marriage as marriage has been defined since the beginning of time. And I'm pretty certain those wiley bastards intended it to be this way since the beginning, or they would have said something against it.
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-0813-gay-marriage-california-20100813,0,5087660.story