Being unwilling to endorse a sexually deviant lifestyle has nothing to do with fear, rather conscience.

You’re free to not endorse it all you want.  You’re free to be an ignorant bigot all you want.  The government isn’t.

What is your criteria for calling it sexually deviant?  It better not be religion.  That violates the very reasons we founded this nation.  FREEDOM.\r
\r
And I don’t care WHAT you endorse, *MY* government does not have the right to prevent this.

If this were being done by voter mandate, I wouldn’t have a problem with it, but in one instance we have a State Supreme Court ordering the writing of specific legislation (which violates the concept of “separation of powers"), and a City Mayor, who took an oath to uphold the laws of the City and State, instead choosing to ignore those very same laws.\r
\r
That is NOT how you enact social change in this country. I have no problem with any two people choosing to spend their lives together, because happiness is in short supply, but the ends do NOT justify the means.\r
\r
Just my $0.02

What exactly is marriage,\r
I mean is it a social construct to have men and women come together to procreate. I mean I think we can all agree God, Nature, Whoever put man and woman on this earth to procreate.  I would say Marriage is a simple social construct to keep the race going.  I have no problem with a legal union so that gay people may enjoy the advantages the legal system provides, but lets not call it a marriage.\r
\r
I dont know, Im just thinking out loud here because this is a very interesting issue.  Im just worried what will everyone say when a man wants to marry his goat or his horse.  Hey, this is how these things get started. 

Would the libs be so deliriously happy if the Mayor of San Francisco were handing out gun/CCW licenses in violation of State Law?

Not to mention that gays have the same rights and privileges that heterosexuals do and are denied the same things straight people are - straight people can’t marry people of their own gender, and neither can gays. What they want is to define “marriage” to suit their own agenda(s), and the vast majority of Americans don’t want this to happen. Everytime it has come to a vote, gays have lost the issue. So they cheat and go outside the system, hoping that they can get away with it, and (if they cannot) making plans to portray themselves as “martyrs” when they get thrown in jail for violating the laws.

Richard:  Other than semantics, what do you see as the difference between “civil unions” and “marriage”?  It isn’t religion, since non-religious people get married.  It isn’t benefits, since you say that gay “unioned” people would get the same benefits that straight married people get. .. So.. .what is the difference?

Drum: I’ve read some ridiculous things from you in the past, but this “Not to mention that gays have the same rights and privileges that heterosexuals do and are denied the same things straight people are - straight people can’t marry people of their own gender, and neither can gays.” has got to take the cake. Impressive even for you.

A simple definition of any 2 unrelated, adult people joined in the eyes of the law, allowing them shared property, the right to make medical, and legal decisions for the other in case of incapacitation, and the right to count on financial support as needed, i.e. alimony, widow/widowers benefits, can not possibly damage the sanctity of marriage. At least, not any more than quickie divorces and “Las Vegas” marriages already have.\r
Aside from red herrings like beastiality, incest and pedophilia, which the above definition precludes, what real objection exists to allowing two people to decide to share thier lives?

Richard, if being a Republican means being involved in a hive mind, I’m glad I’m not a Republican, and I’m sure Jim wouldn’t be either, if that were the case. The fact is, different people in the party have different views on things. You have views on things such as marriage that are apparently so tenuous and weak that, should other people be legally allowed to view it as something else, it would apparently destroy your own view of it utterly. Jim is obviously secure enough in his views on marriage that he doesn’t feel that if gay marriage were allowed, he’d suddenly look over at his wife and say “Well, people of the same gender are getting married, guess we’re over, I’ll see you when we sign the papers.”

Let’s put Drum’s statement in some historical context… Let’s think back to the Golden years of racism… the distant 1950’s...\r
\r
“Not to mention that blacks have the same rights and privileges that whites do and are denied the same things white people are - white people can’t marry people not of their own race, and neither can blacks."\r
\r
And in addition (probably going back much father, but I can’t say for sure)..\r
\r
“Not to mention that jews have the same rights and privileges that christians do and are denied the same things christian people are - jewish people can’t marry people not of their own religion, and neither can christians."\r
\r
I assume that no one here would agree that the above is even remotely the way society should operate, and that anyone expressing a similar view would be considered an ignorant bigot?  Can we at least agree on that?

Jim, looks like you need to stop taking the Seratonin Reuptake Inhibitors and switch to anti-psychotics, because you’re displaying split-personality disorder.  There must be a liberal dupe inside your wannabe Republican facade that’s just dying to get out, or something, because it appears that you mindlessly bounce back-and-forth between disparate stands on the issues.  Listen, you cannot be a born-again, TEXAS-SIZED, Mr. Macho, secretive, anti-intellectual reformed coke-head, jingoistic Bush following Republican, and support the movement for gay civil unions.  I’ll try back under a different moniker when you’ve come out of the Paxil haze.  I know how it is, I’ve been there.

Aaaaaaaaand thus is revealed the whole thing about SRIs he posted earlier… it was just a setup for the next time he posted to something like this.

Sean, please show me the link to where it says that marriage is a right. That shouldn’t be hard for someone of your alleged skills...\r
\r
Should it?

Please excuse me Mr. Galbraith, but are you comparing the current ‘marriage rights’ issue with the gassing of the Jews by Hitler’s Nazi Germany and the lynching of blacks by the KKK?\r
\r
How sad that you can actually rationalize making that comparison. By doing so, you spit in the face of every Jew on the European continent before and during WWII and every black American who had to suffer under Jim Crow.\r
\r
It sounds as if you are over-dramatizing the pro-gay marriage side of the argument to absurd levels. I have read your comments here and over at Lee’s place. I have not known you to play drama queen before.\r
\r
And making that comparison makes as much sense and carries as much weight as someone who compares Bush to Hitler.

The problem most people have with homosexuality is that it is clearly spoken against in their religion.  That’s not to say it’s right or wrong, but it is treading into very touchy territory.  Marriage, not the civil unions that I hear about so much on TV and video games, are a religious ceremony.  So, something that goes against the religion taking part in that religion’s ceremonies is going to look like an insult to that religion.  Considering how spiritually and socially important religion is to people, you can understand why they wouldn’t want that.  At least, I presume you can.\r
\r
It’s going to take a very, VERY long time for them to change their minds about this, if their minds CAN be changed.  And, you sure as Hell can’t force them to change their minds, considering the subject at hand.  You try to force them to accept this through laws, it will only make them fight it more, and it will only make things more difficult.\r
\r
So, uh, good luck, I guess.

OK, let’s all step back and realize marriage is NOT a religious institution in this country.  Vegas, courthouse wedding, my own COMPLETELY religion-free ceremony...they are ALL marriages.\r
\r
That argument hasn’t held water since about 1950.\r
\r
And if one more dumbass talks about the sheep/animal thing, I swear I’m going on a killing spree.  It makes you sound retarded.  No one is taking that seriously, and it’s the fastest way to change fence-sitter’s minds...but not in the way you want.\r
\r
Wait.  In fact, forget I said anything.  Keep saying it.  It’s *so* intelligent and well thought out.

Hey, Drumwaster, if marriage isn’t a right, you wouldn’t mind if you were forbidden from marrying, of course...? Since it’s not a right and all, and obviously gay people don’t need it, and OF COURSE you’re not a bigot, what you’re saying is that no one at all should be married, right?

How sad that you can actually rationalize making that comparison. By doing so, you spit in the face of every Jew on the European continent before and during WWII and every black American who had to suffer under Jim Crow.\r
\r
wow.\r
\r
such overwhelming ignorance.

And if one more dumbass talks about the sheep/animal thing, I swear I’m going on a killing spree. It makes you sound retarded. No one is taking that seriously, and it’s the fastest way to change fence-sitter’s minds...but not in the way you want.\r
\r
We went from suing tobacco companies for getting sick to suing mcdonalds for getting fat.  This is how those things start.  Deconstructed from the top down.  I dont think the sheep thing is all that likely, but definite thought to the future and how this whole thing would or could play out I think needs to be taken into deep consideration. 

right now anyway, a gay guy has the same right as I do, we can both get married to a woman. 

analog kid: You ignorance and illiteracy is only surpassed by Drumwaster’s arrogance, not that that is particularly saying much. 

{quoting ‘logic’)Just because homosexuality has become “accepted” by the media does not mean its not a perverted act.

When you open the door to “marraige rights”, you must give ANYONE the right to marry. Including men with multiple wives, or men in love with their sheep!

I find each of these perversions equally disgusting. But maybe I am one of few left with morals.{end quote}

so your morals and judgements are the right ones? because you find homosexuality immoral and perverted, those who practice it shouldn’t have the same rights you do? and if you believe that homosexuals might not feel the same way on polygamy and bestiality, let me say that they might and a lot of them probably do.

Logic

If you honestly believe what you just said you are as stupid as you are ignorant.  Comparing a goat loving a human with how a human can love another human is the most absurd thing I have ever heard.  Don�t you think it�s time you got fitted for your white hood and sheet?

Logic (oh sweet irony): Assuming that you aren’t just being a troll, your ludicrous posting seems to assume that basic hetero/homo sexuality has a moral component. If I’m correct in my reading of what you wrote, I would like to see how you could back up that claim (if you’re going to resort to a religious arguement, don’t bother). 

And I have yet to see a gay-rights advocate use the ridiculous “who is it hurting?” counter-arguement. A more correct one would be neither is “moral” and neither is “immoral”.

Alrighty then Mr. Galbaith, please show me the error in my argument instead of joing jo-jo in using the ignorance card. Or maybe it is that you cannot do so ethically and are pissed that you were caught in overstating your cause in order to vie for the sympathy vote.\r
\r
Neither of you have any examples of where anyone in the GLBTSTG community is being shipped off in a cattle car to be gassed for wanting to get married, nor can you come up with an example of where anyone is being lynched, set on fire or run down by bigots in trucks because of the current debate.\r
\r
Apparently, both of you seem to think that if the ‘rght to marry’ isn’t granted to homosexuals they will all suffer such torments that have never been seen on the planet before.\r
\r
What a crock of shit.\r
\r
Get off your high horses and prove your statements or take them off the table. Where exactly is the GLBTSTG community suffereing? Where are they being made to die for what they want?

Tell me why I should give a shit about gays hooking up.\r
\r
If you want to preserve the sanctity of marriage in this country, start by explaining the brutal ‘marriage penalty tax’. Then tell me what the current divorce rate is. Then explain to me why Britney Spears wasn’t treated like a fucking pariah for her idiotic 55-hour ‘marriage’.\r
\r
Stop looking for fights when your own house is on fire.\r
\r
--Toasty

I know I probably should beat up on the obviously mentally retarded anymore than I have already, but what the hell.. slow work day...\r
\r
analog kid: I have nothing to rebut because you made no arguement. Your obvious inability to actually comprehend what I said makes you look like a fool, and I’m sorry that my words obviously confused you to such a degree as to make you post the inane drivel you provided above. You asked me if I was making those ridiculous arguements and I said I wasn’t. You make an attempt to paint my comments into something they, to anyone with a 5th grade education, were most obviously not. Please try again when you get your next 1000 Free Hours cd.

Toasty: Well put.

Homosexuality is to bestiality what stealing a Jolly Rancher from 7-11 is to the great Lufthansa Heist of 1978.  Just like stealing a piece of candy will not turn you into Robert De Niro, accepting homosexuality as a valid and acceptable form of human affection will not lead to folks seeing no problem with giving Phar Lap a proper rogering in his race hole.\r
\r
Having a good knowledge of history provides you with the opportunity to go beyond the simple “YOU = KLANSMAN OR NAZI” response.  Learning if fun.  Knowledge is power.  Drugs are bad.

I would ask the question, and Im just throwing it out there, whats then to stop a 12 year old girl or 12 year old boy from then asking to be married and when being denied that chance, proclaiming that their rights are being trampled as a young person?  There are a lot of ugly paths to this that could start, and I hope they dont, but you never know.\r
\r
Maybe there is a difference Im not seeing, so Im open for any discussion or POV.  Thats why I like these blogs.

Frank: those arguments could be made to ake away gun rights, or the right to vote, etc.  Slippery slope stuff doesn’t wash when you;re talking *rights*.\r
\r
See, my opinion is as follows, and this is for a LOT of issues: If you cannot demonstrate to me specifically and precisely how this is going to be harmful...not the possibility of potentially maybe being harmful if three other things happen, but RIGHT NOW and sticking to the one subject...if you can’t show me how it harms another, then the government should allow it.  Period.  If we are overrun by men wanting to marry sheep, we’ll deal witht that when the time comes.\r
\r
FREEDOM.  It’s never easy, and it’s never free.\r
\r
BTW: Holy shit, John posted!  Rock!  Well said, my bro.

What?\r
\r
Ask yourself this, then:  What are the odds, in modern American society (and the society of most industrialized nations, now that I think about it) that something will happen to cause children to be given the right to marry?  You are talking about two mature adults (of any sexual inclination) deciding to marry, and two children stating they want to take part in a union they probably don’t understand the implications and obligations of.  There is a huge, gigantic, unstoppable, world-shattering difference between the two.\r
\r
That difference is named Unicron, and your puny weapons are of no use against him.\r
\r
Yeah, there are a couple of bad paths this could start, but the odds of those paths starting are too damned slim to give any serious thought to.  ESPECIALLY if one of those paths is kids marrying each other.

New Mexico gets in on the fabulousness

Well, excuuuuuse me, Mr. Galbraith.\r
\r
Exactly how were you not making the comparison?\r
\r
When you take a comment about G/L marriage, and then insert racial and/or religious comments inside that comment, you are effectively making the comparison.\r
\r
What may or may not be happening in your mind is of no matter.\r
\r
I have the same right to be displease/offended by your statement that you do to be offended by the ignorant statements of those who oppose gay marriage.\r
\r
Also, nowhere in you first response to me did you say you weren’t making the comparison.\r
\r
“You ignorance and illiteracy is only surpassed by Drumwaster’s arrogance, not that that is particularly saying much.”\r
\r
Exactly where is your denial in that statement?\r
\r
Your proper response is to apologize for possibly inferring the comparison, not to call the person who does not have the ability to read your mind ignorant.\r
\r
It is called civility. Stop lashing out and crying in your wine and try learning something about it. Or is calling people names all you have left?\r
\r
Now, if you’ll excuse me, I have to talk to Snoop Dogg about another one of those AOL CD’s.

Hey, Drumwaster, if marriage isn’t a right, you wouldn’t mind if you were forbidden from marrying, of course...? Since it’s not a right and all, and obviously gay people don’t need it, and OF COURSE you’re not a bigot, what you’re saying is that no one at all should be married, right?\r
\r
Not at all. I can get married whether or not the state says I can. But I DON’T have the right to force the state to recognize that marriage. The state gets to set the standards for the recognition of any religious rite, and either punish or ignore those who don’t follow their rules.\r
\r
California has chosen to recognize only marriage between a man and a woman. That mayor has chosen to defy the law. The Chief of Police has chosen to be an accessory after the fact, by refusing to arrest a felon, who is in the process of committing multiple felonies. The judge who refused to issue a TRO is aiding and abetting in the commission of multiple felonies. Will any of them be arrested? Probably not.\r
\r
As such, it is a defacto right of people to chose the person they are going to become married to and the state is simply there to be a witness to the contract being signed.\r
\r
Not true. The contract (if that’s how you want to describe it) isn’t being “witnessed” by the state, it’s being “recognized” by the state. Such recognition requires that you fulfill the state’s requirements. Since those requirements include the proviso that the marriage be between one man and one woman. All else is excluded from recognition, and is therefore invalid. But nice try, loser...\r
\r
Oh, and you apparently haven’t gotten over being proved wrong, yet again, because I have the law (both State and Federal) on my side, and you just want to see as many gays get married as possible. Those marriages will be illegal and invalid, and I have to wonder why you (and the mayor of SF) hate gays so much. Don’t you realize that your heroes are going to have their hearts broken once a sane judge sets you all straight (oops, I realize you don’t like using that word, so let’s use “back on the right track”, shall we?)\r
\r
A ban on gay marriage is a direct violation of a homosexuals unalienable right of pursuit of happiness.\r
\r
John, no one is stopping them from getting married (assuming they can find someone to perform the ceremony). What they are NOT going to get is State recognition of that event. They cannot force the state to recognize any act that violates the laws of that state.\r
\r
Exactly where is your denial in that statement?\r
\r
Sean doesn’t bother to actually issue denials using real evidence, just lots of insultingly rude behavior, and other semantic nulls. I wouldn’t take him so seriously. No one else does. Why, he actually thinks someone who has committed thousands of felonies shouldn’t be arrested! Good thing he can’t vote anywhere that matters.

Drum: You are completely missing the point. A law designed to treat any member of our society inequitably (due to race, religion, sexuality, etc.) should NOT be followed. Rosa Parks violated Alabama state law by refusing to give her bus seat up to a white person, but few would argue that she was wrong to do so. This is the essence of civil disobedience, and is the correct way to effect change in this country. To not allow homosexual couples to marry is to treat them as second class citizens. Couples of different races can marry (despite past laws prohibiting this as well), couples of different religions can marry, and couples who do not plan to procreate or that are infertile can marry; why shouldn’t homosexual couples be able to? Do they love each other less? Do they have some basic inability to provide and care for each other? Where is the problem?\r
\r
While I’m posting, the bestiality/child marriage argument needs to end. The parties involved in those scenarios are either not capaple of making/comprehending such a decision or are not mature enough to make such a decision.

So then Bush pushes his Christian base away or into a corner over this ONE issue, then what? Would it be worth it? 

Steve: Yes.  I’m sorry, but it’s wrong.  It goes against the very concepts of freedom this country was founded on. It goes against common sense.  So yes, if that means some Christians get pissed off because they can’t oppress people based on a religion that IS NOT SHARED BY EVERYONE, then so be it.\r
\r
There’s a hell of a lot of difference between crushing someone’s rights and being mad because you diagree with someone *having* their rights.

Jim K: I hate to say it, but “Y’all better fucking pray that Nader decides to run, because if the GOP pushes this gay marriage issue to the forefront, it will backfire like a ‘68 Newport with water in the tank.” is incorrect, I think. I think the Republican base would LOVE Bush to come out and make this an issue… and if this election is as close as recent polls suggest (insert usual “still a long way to go” caveat here), then the base will be vital.

Hey everyone.\r
\r
For those of you who don’t know me, I’m gay.  Been with my partner for over five years now.\r
\r
I don’t really feel that expecting my government to give us the same rights as straight people-- with the same name-- is a bad thing.\r
\r
First off, you have to understand that being gay isn’t a choice.  If you think it is, then let me just tell you: you’re wrong.  Sexual orientation is something hard-wired in people, you can’t change it any more than you can change your hair color or if you like pistachio ice cream over vanilla.\r
\r
So, if we all agree and understand that being gay isn’t a choice, and that there are a substantial percentage of humans (somewhere between 5 and 8 percent) that are born gay (much like most mammals), aside from passing laws to limit our rights to commit to each other and flailing your arms about calling us all sorts of judgmental names, what exactly is the problem with giving us equal rights?\r
\r
Anyhow, I’m not going to answer every comment on here.  I’m not even inclined to check back later today.  I have stuff to do-- got to shower, do my taxes, get a bite to eat.  You know, typical assaulting decent society stuff.  Actually it’s more like living my life.\r
\r
I’m aware that there are a lot of people who will just not get it.  They don’t want to believe that there are just gay people, and always have been, and this isn’t something that one can change, it just is.  There’s no judgment involved.  We’re just people.  But I’ll be damned if I’m going to settle for anything less than equality, and the freedom to live my life in the open.\r
\r
I’d really like to marry my partner.  We wear rings already.  I really don’t understand why so many people-- even in this forum-- have such a vested interest in preventing that.  But basically, the onus is on those people to open your eyes and wake up.  Because gay people aren’t going anywhere.

And by the way, yes Sean, Bush will try to make this an issue, and yes, Jim, it will utterly backfire.

Thanks, QueenBead!\r
\r
What I wish we could work out in this country is a way to separate the religious aspect of marriage from the purely civic/legal aspect, as is the case in many European countries.  To be considered married over there, you have to go through a civil ceremony, which is usually pretty low-key and usually involves signing documents and such to indicate that you are indeed a lawfully wedded couple; in addition, people who want a bigger bash, or who are believers in a particular religion, will also hold a religious ceremony as well.  For the most part, in this country the typical marriage ceremony, whether performed by a justice of the peace or a spiritual guide of some sort, combines both aspects into one service, but I’m assuming that according to the law, it’s the signing of the documents in front of witnesses that makes the marriage legally binding & all that; so it’s not really that farfetched an idea.  Various religious groups could decide on their own what the grounds for having a religious ceremony would be (which they already do in a sense, i.e., divorced Catholics not being allowed to remarry in the Church) and stick to them, but either way any given pair of consenting adults could be legally married, whether or not they chose to also have a religious service.  (Is any of this making sense? I’m awfully tired right now...) I’m thinking back to hearing about the first time Princess Caroline of Monaco got married--they had the civil service on one day, and then the huge ceremonial religious hoo-ha the next--and I’m sure plenty of other people have done something similar.  (I’m also glad you mentioned polyamory, as I have a LOT of friends around here who are poly to one degree or another--I know that whole subjects opens up a whole ‘nother can of worms, but it may well need to be dealt with somewhere down the road.)\r
\r
I don’t really want to get any further wrapped up in this debate, as I’ve pretty much said my piece and don’t plan on being convinced to change my mind any time soon. :-) Now, if you’ll excuse me, I should probably pick up my soapbox and head on home for supper…

thanks robin!  (boy, all this mutual congratulation, tee hee)\r
\r
Yes, I agree whole heartilly with the system you just layed out.  I’d almost go one step further in removing the ceremony aspect of the civil portion, unless you wanted that (i.e. you were not having a religious ceremony).  I know that I would rather show up, sign the documents and be off, leaving the ceremony part for my religious institution.\r
\r
*laugh* yeah, I know several members of the poly community.  It’s not a lifestyle I understand, I’m too selfish to share, but I whole heartilly support their decision to live that lifestyle.  Plus I give poly-units major kudos if they can make it work, because I know it must take a lot of work.\r
\r
Oy, I’m going to follow your lead and take my soapbox and be off.  I’ve got dinner to eat and a movie to watch!\r
\r
~S

John Cross??\r
\r
Whoa!  That rocked.\r
\r
Bullseye.

you were making a claim that the Mayor had violated the Oath of Office when you had never READ the oath of office.\r
\r
However, that didn’t prevent me from being right about it, as I proved to you later (and to which you still have not bothered to respond, but you can fuck off).\r
\r
As the expert said, the Mayor has broken no law.\r
\r
I’ve pointed out all three of the laws he has broken (and continues to break, with you continuing to egg him on), and provided not only the specific quotes, but links, so that you can read them for yourself. But some out-of-work judge says he couldn’t find anything (even though others could - and did), so the mayor is innocent in your eyes, and shouldn’t be arrested.\r
\r
One more time, fuckface, er, Sean, CALIFORNIA PENAL CODE 115 SAYS:\r
\r
115. (a) Every person who knowingly procures or offers any false or forged instrument to be filed, registered, or recorded in any public office within this state, which instrument, if genuine, might be filed, registered, or recorded under any law of this state or of the United States, is guilty of a felony.\r
\r
(b) Each instrument which is procured or offered to be filed, registered, or recorded in violation of subdivision (a) shall constitute a separate violation of this section.\r
\r
(c) Except in unusual cases where the interests of justice would best be served if probation is granted, probation shall not be granted to, nor shall the execution or imposition of sentence be suspended for, any of the following persons:\r
\r
(1) Any person with a prior conviction under this section who is again convicted of a violation of this section in a separate proceeding.\r
\r
(2) Any person who is convicted of more than one violation of this section in a single proceeding, with intent to defraud another, and where the violations resulted in a cumulative financial loss exceeding one hundred thousand dollars ($100,000).\r
\r
(d) For purposes of prosecution under this section, each act of procurement or of offering a false or forged instrument to be filed, registered, or recorded shall be considered a separately punishable offense.\r
\r
***\r
\r
For your further edification, dickhead, Proposition 22 (passed four years ago) says (in simple enough language for even a Canuckistanian to understand) marriage is defined as being between one man and one woman.\r
\r
And finally, the Federal Defense of Marriage Act, passed by Clinton (when he could tear himself away from his walking humidor), says: “No State, territory, or possession of the United States, or Indian tribe, shall be required to give effect to any public act, record, or judicial proceeding of any other State, territory, possession, or tribe respecting a relationship between persons of the same sex that is treated as a marriage under the laws of such other State, territory, possession, or tribe, or a right or claim arising from such relationship."\r
\r
Section 3\r
\r
“In determining the meaning of any Act of Congress, or of any ruling, regulation, or interpretation of the various administrative bureaus and agencies of the United States, <b>the word ‘marriage’ means only a legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife, and the word ‘spouse’ refers only to a person of the opposite sex who is a husband or a wife."\r
\r
Now, which do you believe, an expert who says he couldn’t find anything (with no explanation as to how hard he looked, or failed to look)? Or the black and white text of the very laws that are being broken? I may not be an expert in the law, but I managed to find the specific text.\r
\r
Of course, since you are plainly suffering from a recto-cranial inversion, that’s a rhetorical question, and you would still stick with your expert, while utterly ignoring the facts. That’s your right (as is the rest of your stupidity), but you won’t get any respect by sticking your head in the sand.\r
\r
Sean, let me be blunt. You are as stupid an individual (I refuse to call you a “man”, since you aren’t one by any definition in use in the real world today) as it has ever been my misfortune to run across. Your predispositions and biases work against you, because that very same stupidity prevents you from seeing past them. You have clearly swallowed the Kool-Aid of the Loony Liberal Left, and you need to pull your head out of your sphincter before you start mouthing off about subjects beyond your ken (which includes most of the known world).\r
\r
The mayor of San Francisco has broken the law - plain and simple - and all of your cheerleading isn’t going to change that fact. However, because dumb fucks like you have mouthed off, and issued opinions (which is all they are), and in your ignorance, politicians are actually afraid of enforcing the law, because it might make them look bad in the eyes of asshats like you, despite the fact that most of them don’t bother voting, and losers like you, who can’t vote, but still like to pretend that their opinions are in any way important.\r
\r
The people who actually matter have decided. Your opinion is worthless, and you have already lost.

Drumwaster...\r
insults truly display your state of enlightenment.

Chosesinconnues:  Analog Kid may have taken my analogies to extremes that are far exceeding the point of being absurd, but he is no homophobe.  He supports the issue, but not the methodology.  I’d say that I trust you can apprecaite the difference, but I have long since given up on people’s ability to appreciate subtlty in issues.

To wit, you all can piss off. I plan on sitting back and laughing at you both until I see another analogy of the likes of yours.\r
\r
Enjoy and keep the Pepto handy.\r
\r
Let me know when you all have it sorted out. In case you forgot, we have some Islamofascists to kill yet. \r
\r
Why did you feel it was necessary to say goodbye three times in a row?  Any one of those three would have been fine on their own, and yet you chose to use three different parting shots at once.\r
\r
If I may ask, why?

Heinrich??\r
\r
We all know you’re too elevated to involve yourself in the hands-on of the skirmish but those of us who are willing will kindly ask you to STFU.\r
\r
Take your meds and keep still since you have nothing of value to add.

Heinrich??\r
\r
Mia culpa.\r
\r
Just reread several of yours. Concise and pointed.  My last critique was undeserved and too hastily posted.  Apologies.

Chosesinconnues on Feb 21, 04 | 10:42 pm:\r
\r
John Cross??\r
\r
Whoa! That rocked.\r
\r
Bullseye.\r
\r
*nod* that’s exactly why i married him ;)… even if it does make jimk my brother-in-law too… *grin*

Logic?\r
\r
You’re illogical.\r
\r
\r
jo-jo?  Nice work!! ;-)

What’s funny is that gay marriage advocates freeze and insult people because they have no valid points to back their arguments!

Logic: For me, hetero/homosexuality is as moral issue an issue to me as my hair color is. 

Just so there is no confusion, I wasn’t saying that homosexuality is a genetic trait (though, I think in part it is), such as hair color. I am saying it has no moral component.  It is not moral, nor immoral.\r
\r
All things being equal, which is the tough part to achieve, I have no inherent problem with polygamy. It too is not a moral issue in my books.\r
\r
Of course, morals and laws are two different things.

We’re rife with “arguements” logic. Read above.\r
\r
We simply realize they’re wasted on a dunce who regurgitates the same tired Christian rhetoric.\r
\r
If you’d take the time to read and attempt to comprehend John Cross’s post you’d get a clue. I couldn’t begin to say it any better than he has.\r
\r
What I find immensely immoral “logic” is the brand of morality the segregates those who do not meet your imagined standard.  Now that’s immoral.\r
\r

Furthermore.. stop citing extremes to support your prejudice and paranoia.  No one here, from what I’ve read appears to want to fuck his dog.\r
\r
Jesus man.  Get your mind out of the gutter.

you guys are funny...\r
\r
<img src="http://www.rancidkoolaid.com/images/arguing.jpg">\r
\r
keep this in mind at all times… and don’t forget your helmet.

or you can just cut and paste that :(

Drum: “Speaking of pompous, my poor Sean, I never said I knew more about the law. What I said was that I have quoted the specirfic laws to you. Are you saying that the California Penal Code doesn’t exist? Or that that section doesn’t say that? BECAUSE, DUMBASS, I HAVE QUOTED IT TO YOU!"\r
\r
To use a patented Drumwaster dodgeing technique, you never said THOSE WORDS SPECIFICALLY, however, you were obviously IMPLYING that you did because you’re OBVIOUSLY assuming that the former judge missed the laws your so easily found.  I mean, he must be an idiot if someone as ignorant about California law could have found it.. right?  (You’re right, we were speaking about pompous arrogance and how you keep proving me right.  Thanks again!).  I mean, if YOU say that the easily found laws apply in this given situation (based on your vast legal training and lifelong experience as a judge), then OBVIOUSLY the judge must be an idiot either for not finding the laws or using his obviously inferior experience to determine that for whatever reason they do not apply in the context of the Major, right Drum ol chum, ol pal?  If the choice is to pick between you and your presentation of the laws and a paid consultant on Fox News who used to be a judge… I’m going to side with the judge. 

Logic--\r
\r
I’m gay.  I was born this way.  This isn’t about morals.  You’re just simply wrong about this being some sort of choice.  I’m not addressing the other stuff, but you should examine why you cling to the belief, which virtually any gay person would tell you is bullshit, that this isn’t a hardwired genetic thing.\r
\r
I could be totally celibate, but I couldn’t change to whom I’m attracted, nor can you, nor can anybody.  This stuff is hardwired.\r
\r
If you want to learn about this instead of making declarative statements based on no first-hand knowledge (I’m assuming), then engage in a dialogue with a gay person about why, or what “makes” them gay.  Then listen.

Analog Kid wrote:\r
\r
“Please excuse me Mr. Galbraith, but are you comparing the current ‘marriagerights’ issue with the gassing of the Jews by Hitler’s Nazi Germany and the lynching of blacks by the KKK?\r
\r
How sad that you can actually rationalize making that comparison. By doing so, you spit in the face of every Jew on the European continent before and during WWII and every black American who had to suffer under Jim Crow.\r
\r
It sounds as if you are over-dramatizing the pro-gay marriage side of the argument to absurd levels. I have read your comments here and over at Lee’s place. I have not known you to play drama queen before.\r
\r
And making that comparison makes as much sense and carries as much weight as someone who compares Bush to Hitler."\r
\r
Sorry man, Sean is right.  You took what he was saying, twisted and detoured it to a totally different direction.  Consider this hypothetical thread...\r
\r
SG: Saying that <some group> can’t congregate together is like saying Christians aren’t allowed to congregate and have mass.\r
\r
AK: SG, are you actually comparing <some group>’s restricted abililty to congregate with Christians having to endure being burned alive or eaten alive by wild animals?  That’s a sick comparison.\r
\r
Yours is a classic Straw Man argument, though you don’t seem to realize you’ve made one.  You took what he said and extrapolated a different meaning, then attacked that different meaning that you invented.  Sean never made ANY comparison to lynchings, you did.  Sean only made a comparison about RIGHTS and nothing else.  You are the one who changed the entire meaning of his post to be one of CONSEQUENCES and PUNISHMENT, and not RIGHTS.  Then when he called you on your illogical rebuttal, you change your tact yet again and engage in topic switching.  You proceed to debate on whether or not Sean in fact made references to laws that happened during the historical periods of Jim Crow and Nazi Germany.  You then *somewhat* nail him on ignorance that he was speaking about those particular historical periods and call it a day.  But again, this has nothing to do with the fact that the historical period in which these things happen is completely IRRELEVANT to the point he was making.\r
\r
http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/

C’mon, I know we can do it! Be like the ancient Greeks!\r
\r
Wait, that sounds bad when we’re talking gay marriage. ;)\r
\r
Well I think we all knew someone was going to say it… ;)\r
\r
And I’m beginning to feel like Al Pacino here, everytime I think I’m out, I get pulled back in.\r
\r
I’ve been known (over at Lee’s and other sites) as someone who cuts through all the bullshit to gets down to the bottom line.  It is really rather simple, does the State (or federal government) have the legal authority to mandate what constitutes a marriage?  Laws aside here, ask yourself that question.\r
\r
I agree Newsom broke the law in doing what he did, but the fact remains he did it.  What’s next?  He, by way of his actions, has put a human face on this issue.  It is no longer just an abstract concept, homosexuals getting married is now, for all intents and purposes, a reality.  Whether those marriages are “real” or not is really irrelevant at this point.  They happened, and can anyone really say their lives changed?  Mine didn’t, did yours?\r
\r
Oh and Sean?  Is Skinner v. Oklahoma another miscegenation case?  Because I must have missed that one.

Actually, it was about (from a website I found):\r
\r
“Oklahoma’s Criminal Sterilization Act allowed the state to sterilize a person who had been convicted three or more times of crimes “amounting to felonies involving moral turpitude."”

after checking my law school notes (sorry i didn’t have this handy at my fingertips, but these are not issues that typically come up in my land use and environmental law practice), the right to marry someone who wants to marry you (and to divorce them) is in fact a fundamental constitutional right.\r
\r
i don’t have case law handy, but can certainly, at minimum, go back to my textbook, if not westlaw, for some citations if there is doubt (though sean has already cited to U.S. Sup. Ct. cases)

I trust that we are all in agreement now that marriage is a right and not a privledge? 

Religion started a lot of things.  And we left England because we didn’t agree with religion running things without any checks and/or balances.\r
\r
You are clearly not a fan of freedom, Logic.  That’s too bad.  I hope someday that the government comes after something *you* hold dear, so you can know how it feels.\r
\r
Separate but equal is bigotry.

100th Post

Logic?\r
\r
Shut the fuck up you bigot.\r
\r
Talk all you want.  You are a first class homophobe and paranoic.\r
\r
Simple enough??\r
\r
You think something’s being “intruded” on you?  Try walking a mile in another’s shoes you moron before you decide what’s intrusive.  I’ve watched your version of reality my whole life and it’s some sick shit.\r
\r
So ya know what?  Shut the fuck up.  We’ll prevail whether you and the other bigots like it or not.  You’re the type that instigates militancy. 

Marriage has no sanctity except that which you place on it through YOUR religious beliefs.  Which I, and many others, do not share.  The beauty of this country is supposed to be that we can be different, and yet all be Americans.\r
\r
You have no right to impose your religion on others.  You are not in favor of freedom, you’re in favor of bigotry.  You are advocating that gay people are somehow worth less than you, that their unions and their relationships, when committed enough to desire marriage, aren’t worth protecting.\r
\r
You’re advocating a seperate but equal system.  Your own words confirm this.  And seperate but equal means Jim Crow laws.\r
\r
Gay people being married has NO effect on you whatsoever, but by preventing them from getting married, you are encroaching on their freedom.  That makes YOUR stance immoral, in my opinion.  And I will do everything I can to fight it, short of voting for Kerry, that is.

Personally, right now as a simple compromise I would say civil unions are a rational alternative.  Merely because the vast majority of Americans are dead set against SSM, for whatever reasons.  I AM NOT ONE OF THEM, just so we are clear.\r
\r
That said?  Freedom means having to put up with things you do not agree with or like.  And personally I don’t care if gays and lesbians wish to get married with all the attendant headaches that entails. aside: well I do care, but I care for what my gay and lesbian friends are going through, the issue for me is secondary\r
\r
“HONEY, YOUR MOM AND DAD ARE HERE!” Ugg, in-laws.  Since my myriad gay and lesbian friends already have those by default, I really feel sorry for them, the whole “when are you going to give us grandkids” thing is a real landmine for most of them.\r
\r
Just trying to interject a little humor into this discussion thread, because sometimes you have to laugh at a serious subject.

Yeah Logic...\r
\r
I have heterosexual friends too.\r
\r
**yawn**\r
\r
I suspect most of your purported “gay friends” are spineless invertebrates.\r
\r
I’ve read every blessed word you’ve written.  It’s simply that I don’t “buy it” or you for that matter.

I will, Logic, be “growing up” for the rest of my days ideally.\r
\r
In the interim may I respectfully suggest you start??  What’s truly IMMORAL is your two sets of standards.  One for the “chosen” heterosexuals and one for those you’d deem “immoral”.\r
\r
If my 9 year monogomous relationship with my boyfriend doesn’t constitute ‘moral’ then all I can say is fuck you.  We pay our freaking taxes, we pay our bills, we eat and deficate.... you get the picture.\r
\r
What’s TRULY immoral is the undercurrent in this society (one which you appear to embody) that touts itself as ‘moral’ when all the while taking dead aim at decent law-abiding citizens simply for what they do between the sheets.  You needn’t look any further than your next door neighbors bedroom (you know the hetersexuals next door??) to find the very phemonenon you’d like to lay at the feet of the “deviate” homosexual.\r
\r
I think you may well need a hobby.

Logic,

I think I understand evolution just fine. Thanks.

In fact my novice conjecture has even been supported by professors of biology (gasp!) Read here for a short interesting article about homosexuality in animals and its possible biological purpose...low and behold to curb population growth!!!

BTW, you never answered my question about how can it be a choice given the hardship a gay person must deal with…

American is for God’s people.  Everyone else can leave.  America is not a melting pot.  bush actually is not going far enough.  gays are terrorists.  vote for buchannon.

American is for God’s people. Everyone else can leave. America is not a melting pot. bush actually is not going far enough. gays are terrorists. vote for buchannon.\r
\r
Oh for the love of…

Let Humpty Dumpty explain it to you:\r
\r
http://www.ornery.org/essays/warwatch/2004-02-15-1.html\r
\r
\r
----------------------------------\r
http://www.lyingliar.com\r
http://www.bowlingfortruth.com\r
\r

In truth Sean I suspect there is no absolute definition.

Kevin??\r
\r
Allow me to finish your sentiment:\r
\r
Oh for the love of Adam and Steve.

Please check out this post. There’s another angle on this situation that none of us have thought of.

Kevin??\r
\r
Allow me to finish your sentiment:\r
\r
Oh for the love of Adam and Steve.\r
\r
Heh.  I actually had no finish for my eariler statement, hence the three ...\r
\r
Yours will suffice nicely though.  Thanks :)

Logic--\r
\r
I checked back, you know, to check in, and have to say that you don’t seem to be too up on current theory in this regard.  Actually there is research that would seem to indicate homosexuality is a genetic trait, or at the very least genetic predispositions with environmental triggers (early in development).  Either way, people don’t “choose” it.\r
\r
Secondly, you’re utterly wrong about the humans being the only species with homosexuality thing.  Do some research.\r
\r
Thirdly, I’m gay, you’re (apparently) not.  So the onus isn’t on me to prove to you that it’s genetic.  The onus is on YOU to prove to ME (me being gay, remember, and knowing better than you) that it’s not.\r
\r
Fourthly, why should I lie to you, anyway?  Do we all have meetings where we invent this stuff?  Believe me, we’re not that organized.  Most of us can’t show up to a dinner party on time.  In order to believe that all gay people are lying about it not being a choice, you’d have to believe we were a part of a vast conspiracy or something, and if you’re that paranoid, just do us all a favor and pack it in and go work for Gary Bauer or something.\r
\r
(I’m not offended by your beliefs, but you should realize that they’re based on ignorance.  You can either accept it and investigate further, or cling to them in the face of other evidence.  It’s up to you, just like it’s up to everyone whether one wants to learn or stick one’s head in the sand.  I personally choose to listen and learn.  You can choose whatever you want.)

Chosesinconnues-- you rock.

Logic-- don’t know about your gay friends, but feel free to ask them if it’s a choice.  If they say no, will you admit you may not know what you’re talking about?

Logic--\r
\r
Back to basics here.\r
\r
I’m gay.  I’m saying it’s not a choice.  It’s up to you whether or not to deal with that (and that almost any other gay person would tell you the same) or convince yourself we’re all lying or something.

Logic: You’ve never seen Ally McBeal have you?  They have unisex bathrooms.  So, in fact, your analogy is perfect!  Marriage should include a unisex option.  Thanks for agreeing with me.  (also, a device has been invented to allow women to pee in a urinal standing up without doing acrobatics)\r
\r
As for the rest of your post, you were argueing “separate but equal” ... do you realize that? 

Logic- Your Darwinian interpretation, while it has some merit in a purely theoretical sense, is completely removed from reality. Your argument completely ignores that the constraints and stigma that society and religion have placed on homosexuals for thousands of years. For your argument to hold up, homosexuals could never be involved in a child-bearing relationship, which is definitely not the case. Homosexuals have reproduced and will continue to do so. They just don’t need a spouse of the opposite sex as cover now.

You should also note that although Darwinian theory works very well for most animal species in nature over a long period of time, it does not work especially well when applied to recent (6000+ years) human history. Higher social order makes “the fittest” vary wildly from what would be considered so in nature.

Backatcha Kittredge.  Fucking ridiculous huh??\r
\r
(truth be told half of those most contrary have had a same-sex experience at some point in their history.. but OH NOOOOOOOO shhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!  Don’t let ANYONE find out.  Freaking hypocrites!!)\r
\r
You’d think, Dave, the sheer need of explaining himself away would give ol’ “logic” (or the lack thereof) a clue that he’s riddled with issues.\r
\r
\r
\r
\r
“Physician heal thyself”

I think that it is none of the governments buisness of who gets married to who, if they dont like it, thats there personal problem. They shouldn’t make it so that the gay people has to unhappy. Whatever happened to the United States of America, doesn’t that mean FREEDOM!!!!!!!!!

Gay marriages, Who said it’s wrong? The government and those who are so stuck up in their own opinions did.  How is it wrong to marry the person you love?  They only want to prove their commitments just like any other couple does but, their segregated just like the blacks were during slavery.  I hear and see people every day who are so afraid of differences that they would rather break “all men are equal” then see gay couples on the street or unite themselves in marriage.  Yes, I’d say I myself think it looks somewhat groose BUT, it is not my opinion that matters if they love eachother that much.\r

> Yes, I’d say I myself think it looks somewhat groose BUT

Not as GROSS as some motherfucking fat assed religious zealot with 12 children and no scruples trying to dictate right and wrong to the world.

You might find gay sex to be unappealing, but it’s no more unappealing than the lard-assed families going into MickyDs, eating too much, pro-creating, and then repeating the cycle!

Who cares if people want to get married and they’re the same sex? Who cares if they suck each other off or whatever? Who cares what your bible says? The world doesn’t conform to any one point of view. Never has, never will.

Thank the infinite wisdom of cosmic justice for that!  ;)

There are some huge fallacies circulating on this issue… first of all, that it is the “government” oppressing gays and restricting their rights. Polls have shown again and again that the majority of people in this country do not endorse gay marriage. And I would bet that most who DO believe that gays should be married have been brainwashed by the all-to-obvious-except-to-complete-morons socially liberal stranglehold in the media of our country and Britain. Secondly, arguing that gay right should be extended because our system of marriage is already failing (ie, “obese Mcdonalds eating families procreating” or whatever, or the high divorce rate) is a complete fallacy. How can anyone but a complete moron espouse this view? That’s like saying “the plague is getting out of control, so let’s just start killing healthy people”. The truth is, the forces that are pushing gay rights so heavily in this country are the same people taking away the basic freedoms of our country, mutilating our constitution, and spreading the mental disease that is political correctness. Anyone who bases their argument on the bible is an idiot, as is anyone who bases ANY argument on what the bible says. However, this country was founded on certain moral values, and one of those which flows DEEPLY in the heart of our nation is healthy relationships between a female and a male to create strong, vital, productive children. Strong men with the will to work, learn, and fight if necessary, and equally strong and healthy women who are NOT decadent wanton sluts (as the media is pushing on young women, WAKE UP it’s all the same conspiracy), but instead intelligent, productive women who can become a healthy parent in a healthy marriage, if she so chooses. Whether you choose to believe it, that was one of the core values of our country, until about the 1960’s when television became God and a subversive thought-minority commandeered our media and our schools. So go ahead, support gay marriage if you really feel it won’t tear away EVEN MORE from this nation’s moral fabric. But make sure it’s your thought, because I’ll bet my left testicle to a bucket of shit that you’re nothing but a sheep.

One last thought… I was reading through previous posts again, and the only counter arguments I see are the “bigot” comment (pervasive in liberal arguments, always bringing every issue back to “remember racism?” as if every issue can be boiled down to the exact same frame), and then an argument that said something like “well honey, gay marriage is legal now, I guess you and me are through.” Yes, someone actually wrote that, and may I just say that that is the stupidest, MOST moronic thing that I have EVER seen in my life. It doesn’t address a single argument made by the opposing side, and it’s seriously scary that some people are that stupid. People that oppose gay marriage are not secretly homosexual and aren’t just trying to get the law to restrain them from acting on their suppressed homosexual instincts. Or whatever your pathetic argument is, which has also been handed to you by modern popular culture (THINK about where you got the opinion that anti-gays are really gay). How can you fault someone for wanting to raise children in a non-subversive environment, and create a healthy happy family, instead of the BULLSHIT that is forced on families today? Yes, a lot of it is the parents… but look at what they’re up against. And by the way, I’m a 22 year old, not a jaded conservative, but I have enough sense to see the truth. Wake up before our country goes the way of decadent Rome. We’re on the EXACT path right now. Worthless leaders and wanton sexual practices. (And I swear, if I get one response that isn’t a well thought out argument, I will find your house and strangle your dog).

Ah, but I finally found an argument worth discussing… as for the “gayness is not a choice,” I am up on the current theory and yes, that’s correct. It probably isn’t a choice. BUT I’m not arguing against “gayness,” nor are most people. In fact, most people that push the “gay agenda” aren’t gay. Gays should be accorded the same financial rights and allowed to live their lives unmolested. But that doesn’t include the heading of marriage. If they can get all the same rights (which is what gays supposedly want) then why does the definition of marriage have to be changed? What’s the real agenda?

I agree with Philmanx. Why do we need a decision on the definition of marriage?  Why can’t we change the wording on all policies (401k, life ins., hospital forms...etc) to list who you want in charge instead of the current spouse or blood family member?

There’s a lot of speculation going around to determine what each side of the spectrum wants.  Personally, I think the definition should remain focused around a man and a woman because I view “marriage” as the title that belongs to a couple who is naturally capable (more on this later) of passing on their genetic codes to the next generation.  It’s not about me stomping on a gay person’s right… WHAT RIGHT am I stomping on?  Their right to define the word “marriage” in a way that is friendly to their homosexual agenda?  This is not “seperate but equal” because anyone who views homosexual couples as EQUAL to heterosexual couples is ignoring one key fact: they are not the same!  Gays can not create offspring; they have never been able to be, they won’t be able to be, and history and science tells us that it is physically impossible for ANY and EVERY MAN to pass on his genes thru ANOTHER MAN (same goes for women).  That is the truth.  The fact that some heterosexual couples may be sterile does not undermine the entire mindset that marriage is popularly viewed as an establishment of couples who “fit” together (for lack of better words… sorry!) - they are the exception to the rule, and not the rule.  So, is the title of marriage a Constitutional right?  Or is it a gender specific title?  I think it’s gender specific.  I’m not going to babble on about how gays are evil, or how their children will not get a father and mother figure.  How their children turn out is not my concern; the couple is to be held accountable for any path the child takes in life - that is true for heterosexual couples, as well.  I’m not even approaching this from a Biblical perspective.  It’s just a definition.  My definition of marriage is not simply “union between two people who love each other” - it’s more specific than that; my definition looks to the tradition of human procreation.  I support the same rights to gays as I would to straight people.  If gays can not be unified in a court, and if they are not getting the same rights as heterosexuals, then the laws should change to accommodate them.  As for changing the definition of marriage, I don’t support that.  My perspective of marriage would be this: look at a yin yang.  I’d say it’s marriage if it’s a yin and yang.  I’d say it’s NOT if it’s a yin and yin or yang and yang.  Marriage = penis and vagina.  Marriage does not = penis and butthole (and yes I am aware that heterosexual couples are capable of anal sex, but that’s WAAAYYY beside the point!).  That’s just how I see it.  As for transexuals, I guess that depends on what they are classified as at birth.  To determine that, look at its sex cells.  If it has female sex cells, then it’s a female… if it doesn’t, then it’s a male.

they have the power in their hands what can i say ...

It’s not about fear it’s about different social values. Don’t expect a republican to understand social values. They have their own definition.