NationStates Jolt Archive

Calif. gay marriage foes want donors anonymous (http://news.lp.findlaw.com/ap/other/1110/01-09-2009/20090109030507_14.html)
By STEVE LAWRENCE Associated Press Writer
SACRAMENTO, Calif. (AP) - Supporters of the ballot measure that banned gay marriage in California have filed a lawsuit seeking to block their campaign finance records from public view, saying the reports have led to the harassment of donors.

"No one should have to worry about getting a death threat because of the way he or she votes," said James Bopp Jr., an attorney representing two groups that supported Proposition 8, Protect Marriage.com and the National Organization for Marriage California. "This lawsuit will protect the right of all people to help support causes they agree with, without having to worry about harassment or threats."

The lawsuit, filed Wednesday in federal court in Sacramento, asks the court to order the secretary of state's office to remove all donations for the proposition from its Web site.

It also asks the court to relieve the two groups and "all similarly situated persons" from having to meet the state's campaign disclosure requirements. That would include having to file a final report on Proposition 8 contributions at the end of January, as well as reports for any future campaigns the groups undertake.

Proposition 8, approved by 52.3 percent of California voters on Nov. 4, reversed a state Supreme Court decision allowing gay marriage. The measure's opponents have asked the Supreme Court to overturn it.

The lawsuit filed Wednesday cites a series of incidents in which those who gave money to support Proposition 8 received threatening phone calls, e-mails and postcards. One woman claims she was told: "If I had a gun, I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter."

Another donor reported a broken window, one said a flier calling him a bigot was distributed around his hometown and others received envelopes containing suspicious white power, according to the lawsuit.

Businesses employing people who contributed to the Proposition 8 campaign have been threatened with boycotts, the suit said.

Supporters of the gay marriage ban fear the donor backlash will hurt their efforts to raise money in the future, perhaps to fight an initiative seeking to overturn the ban.

"Several donors have indicated that they will not contribute to committee plaintiffs or similar organizations in the future because of the threats and harassment directed at them as a result of their contributions ... and the public disclosure of that fact," the lawsuit said.

The suit said courts have held that laws requiring disclosure of campaign contributions can be overturned or restricted if a group can make "an uncontroverted showing" that identifying its members can result in economic reprisals or threats of physical coercion.

California's Political Reform Act, which voters approved in 1974, established disclosure requirements for candidates and campaign committees.

The secretary of state's office and another defendant, the state's Fair Political Practices Commission, declined to comment Thursday on the lawsuit.

But Geoff Kors, executive director of Equality California, the gay rights group that led the campaign against Proposition 8, called it hypocritical for supporters of the measure to try to overturn voter-approved campaign finance laws.

He said Proposition 8 supporters used campaign finance records during the campaign to threaten gay rights supporters.

"They've used these records to attack corporations, to attack individuals," Kors said.

Peter Scheer, executive director of the First Amendment Coalition, which supports public access to government records and meetings, said the lawsuit is likely to be unsuccessful. But he also said the plaintiffs' arguments are not trivial.

"The problem with their argument, of course, is that campaign finance laws, both at the state and federal level, have been litigated endlessly now since Watergate and the argument has, in one form or another, been rejected," Scheer said.

He said courts have consistently failed to agree that contributors have a right to donate directly and anonymously to a candidate or campaign. He said some states have less restrictive reporting requirements, but they always include disclosure of donors.
(emphasis added)

No doubt this will devolve into another Prop. 8 debate, but I have several thoughts about this matter distinct from the Prop. 8 merits.

1. Campaign finance laws are neutral and should be enforced. Period.

2. Although boycotts and protests of donors are to be expected (and in my view encouraged regarding Prop. 8 supports), threats, harassment, violence, etc. are not acceptable and should be roundly condemned.

3. The convience of asking to be exempt from campaign finance laws at a time when donors to Prop. 8 are being investigated for violating those laws is more than a bit suspicious.

What thoughts do you have, NSG?

Laws against death threats should be enforced, not just "condemned".

Proposition 8 Proponents Challenge Campaign Finance Reporting Rules That Have Resulted in Rampant Harassment of Prop 8 Supporters (http://www.protectmarriage.com/article/proposition-8-proponents-challenge-campaign-finance-reporting-rules-that-have-resulted-in-rampant-harassment-of-prop-8-supporters)
January 08, 2009
Contact: Ron Prentice

Sacramento – Acting on behalf of hundreds of supporters of Proposition 8 who have experienced various acts of harassment including death threats at the hands of opponents, the ProtectMarriage.com – Yes on 8 committee today filed a challenge in US federal court to the constitutionality of California’s campaign finance laws that compel disclosure of personal information of Prop 8 donors.

“There has been a systematic attempt to intimidate, threaten and harass donors to the Proposition 8 campaign,” said Ron Prentice, Chairman of ProtectMarriage.com. “This harassment is made possible because of California’s unconstitutional campaign finance disclosure rules as applied to ballot measure committees where even donors of as little as $100 must have their names, home addresses and employers listed on public documents. These disclosure rules violate the US constitution in numerous ways. We are standing up for our contributors to ensure that the harassment stops.”

The suit notes that groups such as Californians Against Hate (www.californiansagainsthate.com) exist for the primary purpose of identifying and taking action against supporters of Proposition 8. The suit cited numerous examples of threatening and harassing emails, phone calls and postcards suffered by supporters of Proposition 8, including:


“Burn in hell.”


“Consider yourself lucky. If I had a gun I would have gunned you down along with each and every other supporter.”


“I just wanted to call and let you know what a great picture that was of you and the other Nazi’s [sic] in the newspaper….Don’t worry though, we have plans for you and your friends.”

The lawsuit also detailed acts of vandalism, property destruction, distribution of harassing flyers, and threats to ruin businesses employing donors to the Prop 8 campaign.

“The United States Supreme Court has ruled that campaign disclosure laws can be invalidated if it subjects supporters to threats, harassment or reprisals from government, or private parties,” Prentice said. “That is exactly what has happened with supporters of Proposition 8.”

The suit alleges that California’s Political Reform Act is unconstitutional on numerous grounds:


The right of contributors to exercise their First Amendment rights free from threats, harassment and reprisals outweighs the state’s interest in compelled disclosure;


The Act’s requirements that committees report all contributors of $100 or more is unconstitutionally overbroad in violation of the First Amendment because it is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.


The Act’s requirement for ballot measure committees to file any reports after the election is unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it is not narrowly tailored to serve a compelling government interest.


The Act is unconstitutional under the First Amendment because it does not contain a mechanism for purging all reports related to a ballot measure after the election has occurred.

It's a major hypocrisy. Religious groups go after companies for supporting gay issues or having a "gay day" ala Disney parks.

Companies (I might argue organized religion is a company) should be known for it's donations.

I have a right to know as if it's important to me, I should have a right to stop buying from them if I want to protest.

Laws against death threats should be enforced, not just "condemned".

Fully agreed. As should any other crimes committed, whether they be against Prop. 8 supporters, opponents, or bystanders.

I didn't mean to imply otherwise.

Laws against death threats should be enforced, not just "condemned".

Laws against discrimination should be enforced, not just put in a constitution for show.

It is also worth noting that, until relatively recently, the Yes on 8 website (http://www.protectmarriage.com/)proudly proclaimed a list of donors to their cause.

If political contributions are like "speech", this is the equivalent of protesting in masks. Because of the KKK, laws were enacted against that long ago.

It is also worth noting that, until relatively recently, the Yes on 8 website (http://www.protectmarriage.com/)proudly proclaimed a list of donors to their cause.

I'm all for making donors public.

The only political act that should be secret is voting. Ballots should be secret (which is why I am against the union card-check).

If you're for a political cause enough to want to give money, then your name should be on a public list.

Way to waste resources and abuse the system with frivolous lawsuits and silly propositions.

I'm all for making donors public.

The only political act that should be secret is voting. Ballots should be secret (which is why I am against the union card-check).

If you're for a political cause enough to want to give money, then your name should be on a public list.

I must be in bizarro world. I agree with you on that.

Well. I want all the donors to drop dead. Just goes to show you don't get what you always want. I hope this request by the creators and supporters of Proposition H8 is thrown out. These idiots have without any reason but prejudice restricted the liberty of a harmless minority group. They deserve to have their liberty restricted by intimidation and threats in return. I know thats not very liberal and that they haven't by law done anything wrong, but thats how I feel. These people are sickening.

...others received envelopes containing suspicious white power...

What thoughts do you have, NSG?


Well heck, I never knew white power was suspicious. I mean, I know the KKK and whatnot are hate groups but...:p

In all seriousness, it's so hilarious to watch bigots demand privacy while denying the object of their loathing the same respect. Being a bigot is fine if it's anonymous, yet who you love isn't. It's almost fascinating, like a train wreck.

I must be in bizarro world. I agree with you on that.

Love your profile pic.

I had a black cat that did that all the time! :)

While I agree the death threats are over the top, BUT, these people already went over the top with Proposition 8; now they want to take things even further over the top and deny people's right to know who they are?

There is an old poverb that fits this just perfectly, "If you can't take it; don't dish it out."

Making death threats and the like is reprehensible, no matter who is doing it.

But boycotts? Sorry, but businesses don't have a right to keep customers. If their actions make a lot of people no longer want to do business with them, looks like it's time for a new plan (or to go out of business).

What thoughts do you have, NSG?
I've always felt that any INDIVIDUAL donation should have the option of being made public (or kept private), but Corporations and Groups should be public knowledge.

That being said. I don't believe their lawsuit will win due to...
It is also worth noting that, until relatively recently, the Yes on 8 website (http://www.protectmarriage.com/)proudly proclaimed a list of donors to their cause.
^ this ^

as long as those individuals were stupid enough to have their names posted on a public access website... then they bascially gave their consent to have their names known.

but I agree, threats and what not outside of Boycotting and public censure of those companies and groups should not be permitted by either side. this is the first time I heard of threats against those "no on 8" supporters.

What thoughts do you have, NSG?

It's disingenuous to say that this about being persecuted for one's political views. A person's vote and a person's opinion should be kept private except insofar as that person chooses to express them publicly, but at issue here is not either the vote nor the opinion but donating money.

This is rightfully a category in itself, for one simple reason: if I buy a good or service from a company that funds a political cause I oppose, I am indirectly furthering that political cause. I have a legitimate interest in not doing so, while I would not have a legitimate interest in, say, boycotting a company so that its owner votes the way I would prefer.

Whether this outweighs the value of the privacy of donors is, admittedly, not so clear. Though I have a difficult time feeling sorry for Prop. 8 supporters.

The Supreme Court has repeatedly found that political donations are a form of protected speech.

While a level of anonymity on boards such as this one is viable, once people are giving their "words" to the support of a political cause, they have to expect others to judge them by their "speech".

Laws against discrimination should be enforced, not just put in a constitution for show.

True, but if that little one-liner is meant to justify death threats, or say that until gays can marry death threats against Prop 8 supporters should not be dealt with, then you are a fool at best. My point being that whatever the Prop 8 supporters have done or weather anti-discrimination laws are being enforced should have no bearing on weather laws against death threats should be enforced. One injustice does not justify another.

What thoughts do you have, NSG?

Isn't this the same group that was threaning anti-prop 8 donors with public exposure unless they also gave money to the pro-prop 8 fund?

Isn't this the same group that was threaning anti-prop 8 donors with public exposure unless they also gave money to the pro-prop 8 fund?

IIRC it was "some people" who threatened to picket certain businesses whom they had identified as Prop 8 donors unless they now gave money to anti-Prop 8 funds.

In other words, extortion. But extortion in this case appears to have gone uninvestigated and unenforced.

Picket if you must, but don't threaten to picket "unless you hand over the money to our cause".

Well. I want all the donors to drop dead. Just goes to show you don't get what you always want. I hope this request by the creators and supporters of Proposition H8 is thrown out. These idiots have without any reason but prejudice restricted the liberty of a harmless minority group. They deserve to have their liberty restricted by intimidation and threats in return. I know thats not very liberal and that they haven't by law done anything wrong, but thats how I feel. These people are sickening.

Um, yeah. Now pause, take a deep breath, and start using your brain. The ends do not justify the means, and the fact that someone holds a political opinion you find offensive does not make them fair game for illegal means of supression. If you really give a damn about concepts like rights and liberty, you should recognize that freedom goes both ways, and that if you demand certain rights, you must also accept that those rights apply to people you don't like.

I would also add that radicalism and the advocation of illegal or unethical tactics does a disservice to the gay rights movement, by allowing its opponents grounds on which to paint it as radical and threatening. Also, you sacrifice much of your claim to the moral high ground when you advocate such tactics.

From an individuals standpoint, I see this as a violation of privacy.

What if things were reversed? What if anti-gay organizations used the financial supporter lists of Anti-Prop 8 groups as a starting point for lawsuits/prosecution/persecution against those who legally married prior to its passing?

From an individuals standpoint, I see this as a violation of privacy.

What if things were reversed? What if anti-gay organizations used the financial supporter lists of Anti-Prop 8 groups as a starting point for lawsuits/prosecution/persecution against those who legally married prior to its passing?

Most likely the same people who are justifying death threats against Prop 8 supporters now would be outraged to hear about such a thing, and rightly so. The problem is that some people, in their anger, seem to be following the belief that rights and justice need only apply for your side.

What if anti-gay organizations used the financial supporter lists of Anti-Prop 8 groups as a starting point for lawsuits/prosecution/persecution against those who legally married prior to its passing?

ummmmm....they already did that. In fact a lawsuit has already been filed to request the court nullify all same sex marriages that occured.

That's...sorta already going on.

as for my personal take on this..crime, any crime, regardless of the perpetrator or the victim, needs to be handled. Death threats, harassment, and all that are illegal, and should be dealt with as justice demands.

That being said however, your right to donate your money to whatever campaign you wish doesn't also grant you the right to be immunized from criticism of your choice. You don't like the fact that people are boycotting your business because you donated in a certain way? Tough shit, should have considered the rammifications of your actions.

From an individuals standpoint, I see this as a violation of privacy.

What if things were reversed? What if anti-gay organizations used the financial supporter lists of Anti-Prop 8 groups as a starting point for lawsuits/prosecution/persecution against those who legally married prior to its passing?

Making donations to political organisations private open the door for shady dealings.

ummmmm....they already did that. In fact a lawsuit has already been filed to request the court nullify all same sex marriages that occured.

That's...sorta already going on.

Yeah OK, bad example.

My point was that individuals donating to an organization promoting a specific cause, should be guaranteed a certain amount of privacy in order to prevent reprisals for their stance. McCarthy/Hollywood Blacklist/"Red Scare" comes to mind.

Yeah OK, bad example.

My point was that individuals donating to an organization promoting a specific cause, should be guaranteed a certain amount of privacy in order to prevent reprisals for their stance. McCarthy/Hollywood Blacklist/"Red Scare" comes to mind.

why not simply...enforce the laws that protect them against illegal activity?

From an individuals standpoint, I see this as a violation of privacy.

So if a person running for office is painting himself as a great humanitarian, would you not want to know if he was donating money to hate groups?

why not simply...enforce the laws that protect them against illegal activity?

In an ideal world, absolutely--in 100% agreement. But I have found that the law rarely "protects", and more often only serves to punish those who actually get caught. However, if there is not enough information/means for a criminal to execute an illegal impulse, the crime may never occur.

So if a person running for office is painting himself as a great humanitarian, would you not want to know if he was donating money to hate groups?

If he is running for public office, he is giving up a lot of his/her rights to privacy and a greater degree of disclosure should be expected.

If he is running for public office, he is giving up a lot of his/her rights to privacy and a greater degree of disclosure should be expected.

So is that different form donating to a political issue which affects people?

No doubt this will devolve into another Prop. 8 debate, but I have several thoughts about this matter distinct from the Prop. 8 merits.

1. Campaign finance laws are neutral and should be enforced. Period.
I agree.

2. Although boycotts and protests of donors are to be expected (and in my view encouraged regarding Prop. 8 supports), threats, harassment, violence, etc. are not acceptable and should be roundly condemned.
I agree.

3. The convience of asking to be exempt from campaign finance laws at a time when donors to Prop. 8 are being investigated for violating those laws is more than a bit suspicious.
I agree.

What thoughts do you have, NSG?
While any threats of violence against people must be treated as the crime it is, the other complaints sound a lot to me like thoughtless, self-centered people suddenly waking up to a world that doesn't respond to everything they do with total acceptance and crying, "Wah! No fair! Blowback sucks!"

If people are threatening violence against them and harrassing individuals, let those people be prosecuted under the law.

But as for the rest, actions have consequences, bitches, deal with it. Have at least that much "courage of your convictions." If people don't want to be your friend/customer/whatever because you really, seriously pissed them off, don't come crying to us about it. If it really is all that important to you to make sure gays can't get married, I would think you'd be willing to sacrifice your business to protect the minds/souls/lives/whatever of "the children".

So is that different form donating to a political issue which affects people?

Umm, yes. The organization is usually pretty clear about what they are promoting.

These organizations exist in order to promote some kind of change, and the debate should be about the issue at hand, not about who the individuals are that are supporting it.

However, for the record, I do believe that other organizations, associations, unions, corporations, etc. should have to disclose.

Umm, yes. The organization is usually pretty clear about what they are promoting.

These organizations exist in order to promote some kind of change, and the debate should be about the issue at hand, not about who the individuals are that are supporting it.

However, for the record, I do believe that other organizations, associations, unions, corporations, etc. should have to disclose.
Except, of course, that the law is the law for everyone, and it was the law before they got themselves into this mess, so they really have no excuse for complaining about public disclosure of political donors now. It's only the harsh reality of what others think of their position that's shocking them now, because I guess it never occurred to them that other people might not approve of something wonderful they chose to do.

From an individuals standpoint, I see this as a violation of privacy.

I don't. I've rarely given to political campaigns or causes, but I don't have a problem with my name being public when I do. In fact, the third link to come up on a google search of my name right now is a list of donors to Obama's campaign. That link could cause problems for me, particularly in my family. But I knew that when I chose to donate.

What if things were reversed? What if anti-gay organizations used the financial supporter lists of Anti-Prop 8 groups as a starting point for lawsuits/prosecution/persecution against those who legally married prior to its passing?

If Prop 8 supporters want to boycott the businesses of those who were vocally opposed (including giving money to the cause), that is their prerogative.

As for targeting those who happened to get married for any type of reprisal, you're talking about an entirely different subject. Getting married is a matter of one's personal life - not a political statement.

Except, of course, that the law is the law for everyone, and it was the law before they got themselves into this mess, so they really have no excuse for complaining about public disclosure of political donors now. It's only the harsh reality of what others think of their position that's shocking them now, because I guess it never occurred to them that other people might not approve of something wonderful they chose to do.

Very true. But my experience has been that the law is only as good as the lawyers who argue for/against it in court.

As for targeting those who happened to get married for any type of reprisal, you're talking about an entirely different subject. Getting married is a matter of one's personal life - not a political statement.

You're right in that I was talking about something else. I was addressing the fact that a donation list could be used by others for purposes other than curiosity (and not debating marriage) and should therefore be kept private.

It's a major hypocrisy. Religious groups go after companies for supporting gay issues or having a "gay day" ala Disney parks.

Companies (I might argue organized religion is a company) should be known for it's donations.

I have a right to know as if it's important to me, I should have a right to stop buying from them if I want to protest.

Yes you do have the right to boycott them. But you do not have the right to threaten to blow up their homes or shoot them. You do not have the right to threaten their family members.

You do not have the right to mail them white powder in suspicious envelopes.

and when you are boycotting, you have the right to stand on a public sidewalk and urge people not to patronize their business. But you do not have any right to block the entrance to the business nor do you have the right to block traffic or the pedestrian right of way on the sidewalk.

Laws against discrimination should be enforced, not just put in a constitution for show.

Except that gays do not constitute either a cultural, ethnic, or skin color group. The fact that they oppose gay marrage does not make them racist.
What the gay activists are demanding at gunpoint is a total redefinition of marriage. The voters in California said they were not ready for that yet. The gays have responded by saying they are going to kill everyone who voted for Prop 8.
Such behavior is not conducive to their cause.

Yes you do have the right to boycott them. But you do not have the right to threaten to blow up their homes or shoot them. You do not have the right to threaten their family members.

You do not have the right to mail them white powder in suspicious envelopes.

and when you are boycotting, you have the right to stand on a public sidewalk and urge people not to patronize their business. But you do not have any right to block the entrance to the business nor do you have the right to block traffic or the pedestrian right of way on the sidewalk.

Cool! Let's go get those anti-abortion protesters!

The fact that they oppose gay marrage does not make them racist.

No, it makes them sexist.

What the gay activists are demanding at gunpoint is a total redefinition of marriage.

Not at all. Just equal application of the one that already exists.

The voters in California said they were not ready for that yet.

Then they shouldn't marry members of the same sex.

The gays have responded by saying they are going to kill everyone who voted for Prop 8.

No. A few people have made a few threats. It hasn't been widespread.

Such behavior is not conducive to their cause.

Indeed.

If political contributions are like "speech", this is the equivalent of protesting in masks. Because of the KKK, laws were enacted against that long ago.

Red Herring. The KKK laws were only meant to protect people from being threatened or lynched on the basis of their skin color. Not because of their gender. Further, saying gay people can't marry, is the same as saying men can't bear children. It's a biological impossible under the current definition of marriage which has been around since marriage was invented back hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Further, saying gay people can't marry, is the same as saying men can't bear children.

Hardly.

It's a biological impossible under the current definition of marriage which has been around since marriage was invented back hundreds of thousands of years ago.

Marriage is not a biological construct, it is a legal one. Thus, it is ridiculous to claim that any version of marriage is biologically impossible.

And there is no single definition that has been around since marriage was "invented". There have been many definitions in many different cultures and during many different time periods.

Except that gays do not constitute either a cultural, ethnic, or skin color group.

I'm glad to see you still think of them as a unified hive-minded collective consciousness and don't believe in the concept of personal identity (or by extension personal responsibility)


What the gay activists are demanding at gunpoint

Tee-hee! Let's be melodramatic, just so we can look even MORE alarmist and paranoid!

is a total redefinition of marriage. The voters in California said they were not ready for that yet.

No, the voters in California said "Proposition 8 will protect Our Children against The Gays. VOTE YES ON 8!"

I know because I saw the ads and I live in California. You don't by the way.

Discrimination against homosexuality - and outright scaremongering lies - were the basis of the proposition and for much of the support it received.

The gays have responded by saying they are going to kill everyone who voted for Prop 8.

More evidence of the Homosexual Hive Mind Borg Collective. What an interesting fairy fantasyland you live in.

Isn't this the same group that was threaning anti-prop 8 donors with public exposure unless they also gave money to the pro-prop 8 fund?

If they were, you would be very happy to drop to their level??

I don't think what they did equaled what is happening now. They threatened to expose those who opposed Prop 8, they didn't threaten to kill them. One is legal the other has never been legal.

I'm glad to see you still think of them as a unified hive-minded collective consciousness and don't believe in the concept of personal identity (or by extension personal responsibility)

Tee-hee! Let's be melodramatic, just so we can look even MORE alarmist and paranoid!

No, the voters in California said "Proposition 8 will protect Our Children against The Gays. VOTE YES ON 8!"

I know because I saw the ads and I live in California. You don't by the way.

Discrimination against homosexuality - and outright scaremongering lies - were the basis of the proposition and for much of the support it received.

More evidence of the Homosexual Hive Mind Borg Collective. What an interesting fairy fantasyland you live in.

:eek:

Can I become gay by talking over issues?

:eek:

Can I become gay by talking over issues?

Depends on how long your exposure to gaydiation lasts. If you're lucky, you might just have an uncontrollable urge to solicit anonymous sex in an airport men's room. *nod*

Further, saying gay people can't marry, is the same as saying men can't bear children. It's a biological impossible under the current definition of marriage which has been around since marriage was invented back hundreds of thousands of years ago.

where's that "aww geez, not this shit again" guy when you need him?

I don't think what they did equaled what is happening now. They threatened to expose those who opposed Prop 8, they didn't threaten to kill them. One is legal the other has never been legal.

(a) No one is condoning threats of violence here.

(b) The "threats" that are being supported are those for boycotts, not violence. That is hardly more of a problem than being "exposed".

(c) Members of the LGBT community have been both threatened and attacked by some of the same people that supported Prop 8 for decades. So let's not pretend it's one-sided, kk?

Depends on how long your exposure to gaydiation lasts. If you're lucky, you might just have an uncontrollable urge to solicit anonymous sex in an airport men's room. *nod*

What about running around central park with drugs and a rope tied around my genitals?

I don't think what they did equaled what is happening now.

Wait..seriously? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard)

Yeah OK, bad example.

My point was that individuals donating to an organization promoting a specific cause, should be guaranteed a certain amount of privacy in order to prevent reprisals for their stance. McCarthy/Hollywood Blacklist/"Red Scare" comes to mind.

Donors only have to be listed if they give over a certain amount. I forgot what the threshold amount is in California. But below the threshold, people have a reasonable right to expect they won't be listed without their consent.

IE: If you donate $5 to $50 to a cause, they don't have to list you. But if you donate $50,000 you will be on the list of donors.

If he is running for public office, he is giving up a lot of his/her rights to privacy and a greater degree of disclosure should be expected.

They give up their privacy only to an extent. The same laws that apply to them apply to everyone else as well. They don't give up all privacy rights.

You're right in that I was talking about something else. I was addressing the fact that a donation list could be used by others for purposes other than curiosity (and not debating marriage) and should therefore be kept private.

There is already a law about that in California. You can only use the list to campaign for or against a proposition. I don't think you are legally allowed to use to intimidate people after the proposition has already passed or failed.

The fact that this is happening might result in a dramatic change to finance reporting laws to make special exemptions to limit how such lists can be used and to increase the penalty for misuse of such lists.

where's that "aww geez, not this shit again" guy when you need him?

http://i108.photobucket.com/albums/n30/shadowyinzer/aw_jeez_not_this_shit_again2.jpg

And you're welcome.

There is already a law about that in California. You can only use the list to campaign for or against a proposition. I don't think you are legally allowed to use to intimidate people after the proposition has already passed or failed.

The fact that this is happening might result in a dramatic change to finance reporting laws to make special exemptions to limit how such lists can be used and to increase the penalty for misuse of such lists.

Or, maybe, they'll just be enforced as is.

Cool! Let's go get those anti-abortion protesters!

IF they are threatening to blow people up, blocking clinic entrances, or blocking the public right of way they need to go jail. The laws apply to everyone equally. I know of the right of way only because back in my college days I organized a couple of protests and we had to make sure we allowed pedestrians a right of way through our protest or around it. Also you have to stay off the private property of the business you are boycotting.
If the sidewalk was so blocked that people could not pass without crossing to the other side of the street, the police could break up the protest and arrest everyone for public nuisance.

No, it makes them sexist.



Not at all. Just equal application of the one that already exists.



Then they shouldn't marry members of the same sex.



No. A few people have made a few threats. It hasn't been widespread.



Indeed.

Perhaps.

It was not the voters who married them. It was the public officials and courts who decided they had a right to change the constitution.

Changes to the constitution require a public plebiscite in California.

As per the definition, marriage has for millenia been a relationship between men and women. It has never been about relationships between men and men or women and women. Reason being that marriage has always been about the woman's ability to bear children by having sex with the man. The State Court said it had the right to redefine marriage. The voters came in and said no you don't.

The debate right now has to be about how to define marriage. That is where the first step toward gay marriage has to be taken. Not by going around threatening to blow up homes, kidnap children, or shoot people. That is the tactics of the KKK and the Nazi's.
If the cause is really just, why stoop to those levels. If you stick to what is right and legal, you will win in the end.

Red Herring. The KKK laws were only meant to protect people from being threatened or lynched on the basis of their skin color. Not because of their gender. Further, saying gay people can't marry, is the same as saying men can't bear children. It's a biological impossible under the current definition of marriage which has been around since marriage was invented back hundreds of thousands of years ago.

actually lynchings against anyone are illegal regardless of what the reason is.

As per the definition, marriage has for millenia been a relationship between men and women.

Words change. Get over it.

It has never been about relationships between men and men or women and women. Reason being that marriage has always been about the woman's ability to bear children

Yeah we should make it illegal for women who can't conceive to get married. Otherwise we'd have to accept that a word can change OHNOES!

Hardly.



Marriage is not a biological construct, it is a legal one. Thus, it is ridiculous to claim that any version of marriage is biologically impossible.

And there is no single definition that has been around since marriage was "invented". There have been many definitions in many different cultures and during many different time periods.

You have to accept the definition as used by dominant culture, which in this case is western culture.

For tens of thousands of years, marriage has only been a relationship between man and women.
In much of the world you had polygamy where the relationship was between one man and 20 women. In the west, since the dawn of christianity, marriage has been one man and one woman. That is currently the dominant culture.

To make it one man and one man, you have to redefine what marriage is. It's never been about love. It's always been about baby making so the country can have soldiers for its military to go around invading other countries.

It was not the voters who married them. It was the public officials and courts who decided they had a right to change the constitution.

Not change it. Enforce it.

As per the definition, marriage has for millenia been a relationship between men and women. It has never been about relationships between men and men or women and women.

Depends on the culture. There is historical precedence for unions between same-sex couples being recognized, just as there is historical precedence for transgendered persons being recognized as their gender, rather than their sex.

Reason being that marriage has always been about the woman's ability to bear children by having sex with the man.

Marriage has not "always" been about anything. At one time, in many cultures, it was essentially a way to transfer ownership of a woman from her father to her new husband. These days, the legal protections that surround marriage really have little to do with child-bearing.

The State Court said it had the right to redefine marriage. The voters came in and said no you don't.

The state court said no such thing. What it did say is that the CA state constitution requires equal protection under the law. The voters came back and said they didn't want to see such protection provided.

I'm glad to see you still think of them as a unified hive-minded collective consciousness and don't believe in the concept of personal identity (or by extension personal responsibility)



Tee-hee! Let's be melodramatic, just so we can look even MORE alarmist and paranoid!



No, the voters in California said "Proposition 8 will protect Our Children against The Gays. VOTE YES ON 8!"

I know because I saw the ads and I live in California. You don't by the way.

Discrimination against homosexuality - and outright scaremongering lies - were the basis of the proposition and for much of the support it received.



More evidence of the Homosexual Hive Mind Borg Collective. What an interesting fairy fantasyland you live in.

and how exactly is that you know for a fact that I don't live in California? How do you know i have never seen a Prop 8 ad??

That's a lot of presumption there don't you think.

and how exactly is that you know for a fact that I don't live in California?

I believe you've stated otherwise in previous threads. By all means correct me if I'm wrong but I find it very telling that that's the only part of my post you feel competent to respond to.

How do you know i have never seen a Prop 8 ad??

If you had, you wouldn't have made such ignorant statements about what Proposition 8 or its supporters were about. Or perhaps you just did and it didn't register. *shrug*

(a) No one is condoning threats of violence here.

(b) The "threats" that are being supported are those for boycotts, not violence. That is hardly more of a problem than being "exposed".

(c) Members of the LGBT community have been both threatened and attacked by some of the same people that supported Prop 8 for decades. So let's not pretend it's one-sided, kk?

a. I was not saying they were.

b. Boycotts are one thing, but threatening violence is something else entirely.
If either side threatened violence during the campaign they will be held to account by the legal system.

c. So we go back to my question, will they now stoop to the level of those who have engaged in such tactics against them? Or will they take the high road?

I believe you've stated otherwise in previous threads. By all means correct me if I'm wrong but I find it very telling that that's the only part of my post you feel competent to respond to.

If you had, you wouldn't have made such ignorant statements about what Proposition 8 or its supporters were about. Or perhaps you just did and it didn't register. *shrug*

:eek: What? You mean to say the ads about kids having to learn about gay marriage were not true?!?!?!?!?!?

where's that "aww geez, not this shit again" guy when you need him?

I know. It's messy and I generally prefer to avoid such discussions because they go no where but in some cases how can you avoid it?

It like two kids arguing over an object. One says its an orange and the other says its an apple and they threaten and bully each other. No matter what anyone says they simply refuse to agree and continue to bully each other.

Unless they are seperated but you can't do that with gays and people who hate gays. It's almost impossible without court restraints naming specific people. Then again, that's probably what is needed to get the two sides to cool off.

You have to accept the definition as used by dominant culture, which in this case is western culture.

No, I don't. I believe that equal protection under the law overrides popular wish to discriminate against a minority. Sorry.

The popular definition in our country used to be that a black man could only marry a black woman and a white man could only marry a white woman. That was - rightfully - overturned on the basis of equal protection. This is no different.

To make it one man and one man, you have to redefine what marriage is.

....except you don't. No more than we had to redefine marriage to allow interracial marriage.

The legal construct remains exactly the same. The only difference is that it is applied equally.

It's never been about love. It's always been about baby making so the country can have soldiers for its military to go around invading other countries.

The vast majority of marriage protections have absolutely nothing to do with "baby making."

Wait..seriously? (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Matthew_Shepard)

I don't think Mr Shepard had anything to do with Prop 8. Considering he was murdered almost 10 years before Prop 8 was even concieved. We are talking about the Prop 8 campaign here, not about what people did ten years ago.

You gotta link to something that actually happened during the campaign for 8. There was no campaign for Prop 8 back in 1999.

b. Boycotts are one thing, but threatening violence is something else entirely.
If either side threatened violence during the campaign they will be held to account by the legal system.

I certainly hope so.

c. So we go back to my question, will they now stoop to the level of those who have engaged in such tactics against them? Or will they take the high road?

You're always going to get a few bad apples who take the low road.

Oooooh, god. They don't want gay organs? It's come to this? Would they rather die than find out they had a gay organ? I don't want to hear it.

Words change. Get over it.



Yeah we should make it illegal for women who can't conceive to get married. Otherwise we'd have to accept that a word can change OHNOES!

Actually you do know that there were severe penalties for women who entered into marriage and couldn't have children? In some countries they were executed, but in most countries their marriages were annulled.
So, women who were sterile, did not have a right to marry the man of their dreams.

will they now stoop to the level of those who have engaged in such tactics against them? Or will they take the high road?

You keep wanting to attribute a few incidents of threatening letters to "the gays" or these are now "tactics" of their "side," as if it's some sort of official Gay Policy. Again the Gay Borg Collective Hive Mind is out to get us all bullshit.

Actually you do know that there were severe penalties for women who entered into marriage and couldn't have children? In some countries they were executed, but in most countries their marriages were annulled.
So, women who were sterile, did not have a right to marry the man of their dreams.

So we should go back to this charming time?

No.

Women who are sterile CAN now marry whoever the fuck they want. So marriage isn't "about making babies" as you falsely claimed. In fact, you've shown that marriage has changed from what you just said it was about, to something else.

Yet you seem absolutely opposed to the idea that marriage can change. Huh. Go figure.

Also women didn't use to have the right to vote. For thousands of years, women by definition were essentially chattel to be bought and sold through slavery. And there were indeed people like you making the same arguments against their rights as you are making against the rights of homosexuals.

You have to accept the definition as used by dominant culture, which in this case is western culture.


You don't have to accept anything. Dominate culture isn't always right.


For tens of thousands of years, marriage has only been a relationship between man and women.
In much of the world you had polygamy where the relationship was between one man and 20 women. In the west, since the dawn of christianity, marriage has been one man and one woman. That is currently the dominant culture.


Actually I think the earliest known law against homosexual marriage was by the emperor Constantius.

Actually you do know that there were severe penalties for women who entered into marriage and couldn't have children? In some countries they were executed, but in most countries their marriages were annulled.
So, women who were sterile, did not have a right to marry the man of their dreams.

And that's an argument against gay marriage? That's an atrocity.

Not change it. Enforce it.



Depends on the culture. There is historical precedence for unions between same-sex couples being recognized, just as there is historical precedence for transgendered persons being recognized as their gender, rather than their sex.



Marriage has not "always" been about anything. At one time, in many cultures, it was essentially a way to transfer ownership of a woman from her father to her new husband. These days, the legal protections that surround marriage really have little to do with child-bearing.



The state court said no such thing. What it did say is that the CA state constitution requires equal protection under the law. The voters came back and said they didn't want to see such protection provided.

We are talking about western culture here. If you want to live in African culture, move to Africa. But if you are in America, you have to abide by western concepts of what marriage is which has always been one man and one woman.

Actually it has. Daughers were transferred to men just for the express purpose of creating children. The creation of children has always been the driving factor behind marriage. The conflict today is whether to keep that defintion or adopt a new one.
Legal protections?? Depends on what country or state you are living in. In most, it is still about being able to rear children. In a lot of countries, if a woman can't bear a child, her marriage can annulled so her partner can find a woman who can bear a child.

I would like to know what it is that gays think they are being protected from? Gay marriage is not going to protect them from people hating on them. It's not going to stop lynchings or harrassment. Equal protection means the law must protect the lives of everyone equally. It does not mean that just because Homeboy has a white house that everyone else has to have a white house also.

Just because Tom works at Taco Bell, it does not mean that everyone has right to that same job at Taco Bell.

Actually I think the earliest known law against homosexual marriage was by the emperor Constantius.

Specifically, Constantius and Constans declared homosexual marriage illegal in 342 CE.

We are talking about western culture here. If you want to live in African culture, move to Africa. But if you are in America, you have to abide by western concepts of what marriage is which has always been one man and one woman.

Yeah except in Massachusetts and Connecticut, or in the Western societies of Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway, Spain.

But I guess those nations aren't Really Western Culture and those states aren't part of Real America.

I would like to know what it is that gays think they are being protected from?

I would like for you to explain to me how Proposition 8 Protects California Children.

NOT ONE supporter of Proposition 8 has EVER been able to explain this. And yet so many of the campaign ads said, "Protect California Children."

Protect them from what, and how?

Explain this to me.

I believe you've stated otherwise in previous threads. By all means correct me if I'm wrong but I find it very telling that that's the only part of my post you feel competent to respond to.



If you had, you wouldn't have made such ignorant statements about what Proposition 8 or its supporters were about. Or perhaps you just did and it didn't register. *shrug*

Or perhaps I do know supporters of Prop 8. Perhaps I disagree with them.
Perhaps I took a backseat to study what they and the gay rights activists were doing so I could write a book about it.
Perhaps I do know opponents of Prop 8. Perhaps I agreed with what they wanted but not the means they used to get it.
Perhaps there are Native Americans who live in California.
Perhaps.......

... boycotts? Sorry, but businesses don't have a right to keep customers. If their actions make a lot of people no longer want to do business with them, looks like it's time for a new plan (or to go out of business).

Agreed. Many of these are likely the same people who get companies to pull their advertising support from commerical TV programs through threatened boycotts because they didn't like the subject matter of the programs. I think this happened with shows like 'Ellen Degeneres' and 'Will and Grace' among others.

Sounds hypocritical now these same types of people are crying foul when the shoe's on the other foot. I say keep their names public (but throw the book at anybody who makes threats of physical harm) and continue to expose their bigotry.

Except that gays do not constitute either a cultural, ethnic, or skin color group. The fact that they oppose gay marrage does not make them racist.
Congrats, you know what the word "racist" means. Now, do you know what "discrimination" means? HINT: One can discriminate without being racist.
What the gay activists are demanding at gunpoint is a total redefinition of marriage.
No, they're trying to get marriage back to the way it was before a constitutional change happened.
The voters in California said they were not ready for that yet.
The voters haven't had a say on removing Prop. 8.
The gays have responded by saying they are going to kill everyone who voted for Prop 8.
My bollocks have they. You go right ahead and just try to prove that "the gays" have tried to do anything of the sort.
Such behavior is not conducive to their cause.
Gross generalisations aren't conducive to yours.
Red Herring. The KKK laws were only meant to protect people from being threatened or lynched on the basis of their skin color. Not because of their gender.
Which doesn't mean they can't protect people from being threatened on the basis of their gender.
Further, saying gay people can't marry, is the same as saying men can't bear children.
No, it isn't.
It's a biological impossible under the current definition of marriage which has been around since marriage was invented back hundreds of thousands of years ago.
If it's biologically impossible then definitions have nothing to do with it. Definitions can change. That's how language works. You can no more stop that than you can go out into the street and tell the wind to blow the other way.
It was not the voters who married them. It was the public officials and courts who decided they had a right to change the constitution.
No, it was the voters that changed the constitution with Prop. 8. Before that marriage between people of the same sex was legal in California.

Changes to the constitution require a public plebiscite in California.
Which it got.

As per the definition, marriage has for millenia been...
Don't give a shit. If allowing same sex couples to marry means changing the definition of marriage then so be it.
Reason being that marriage has always been about the woman's ability to bear children by having sex with the man.
So when will you be annulling marriages between opposite sex but infertile couples?
The State Court said it had the right to redefine marriage. The voters came in and said no you don't.
Wow, you're really totally ignorant as to what happened, aren't you? The Supreme Court found that the Cali. Constitution, as it was, allowed marriage between same sex couples. Some people didn't like this, so they got Prop. 8 passed, which changed the constitution. Now same sex marriage isn't allowed in California. And while the anti-Prop. 8 people are trying to have it struck down(I forget the details, but it was something about Prop. 8 being to broad in scope) the pro-Prop. 8 people are trying to have all the perfectly legal same sex marriages that happened before Prop. 8 annulled.

The debate right now has to be about how to define marriage. That is where the first step toward gay marriage has to be taken. Not by going around threatening to blow up homes, kidnap children, or shoot people. That is the tactics of the KKK and the Nazi's.
Good thing most people involved on both sides have done nothing along the lines of threatening to blow up homes, kidnapping children, or shooting people.

*le gasp* Yes! The vile disgusting gays haven't been patrolling the streets slaughtering everyone who doesn't want them to marry. I'm sure you'll get over this awful shock eventually.
If the cause is really just, why stoop to those levels. If you stick to what is right and legal, you will win in the end.
I'm sure that same sex couples will win the right to amrry, the same as everyone else, yes.
You have to accept the definition as used by dominant culture, which in this case is western culture.
No, I don't.

For tens of thousands of years, marriage has only been a relationship between man and women.
So what? For tens of thousands of years we didn't have the internet.
In much of the world you had polygamy where the relationship was between one man and 20 women. In the west, since the dawn of christianity, marriage has been one man and one woman. That is currently the dominant culture.
You say these things as though they matter.

To make it one man and one man, you have to redefine what marriage is. It's never been about love. It's always been about baby making so the country can have soldiers for its military to go around invading other countries.

Infertile couples can marry, clearly it's not about babies. You can keep lying to yourself, but I think we'd all prefer it if you didn't try to lie to us.

:eek: What? You mean to say the ads about kids having to learn about gay marriage were not true?!?!?!?!?!?

Those were false. But then, all campaigns in California are based on false advertising. Including the pro gay marriage ads.

If you have to take political advertising in California with a cup full of salt because of they are all mostly full of S***.

Actually you do know that there were severe penalties for women who entered into marriage and couldn't have children? In some countries they were executed, but in most countries their marriages were annulled.
So, women who were sterile, did not have a right to marry the man of their dreams.

And, in medieval times, a woman could seek divorce on the grounds that her husband was impotent (which they often thought was caused either by him straying from the marriage bed or masturbating too much). In some places, this meant that he actually had to prove before a panel of judges that he could get and maintain an erection. Eventually, they even expected him to prove that he could have sex with his wife (which was interesting, since she was the one seeking the divorce and clearly didn't want to have sex with him).

But I really don't think anyone would seriously argue to go back to that.

We are talking about western culture here. If you want to live in African culture, move to Africa. But if you are in America, you have to abide by western concepts of what marriage is which has always been one man and one woman.

I don't "have to abide by" any such thing.

Actually it has.

No, it hasn't. You've even shown that by your own examples of "how it used to be" in some places and how it is now.

Legal protections?? Depends on what country or state you are living in. In most, it is still about being able to rear children. In a lot of countries, if a woman can't bear a child, her marriage can annulled so her partner can find a woman who can bear a child.

What happened to "You're in America so we're talking about America"?

In the US, the vast majority of marriage protections have nothing at all to do with children. Those few that do are actually rather akin to property protections.

I would like to know what it is that gays think they are being protected from?

Same-sex marriage would provide all the same protections to same-sex couples as it currently does to opposite sex couples. They would be seen as a single legal entity in many respects. They would be next of kin. They would have joint ownership. Spousal immunity. And so on....

Equal protection means the law must protect the lives of everyone equally.

And, currently, some people who choose to live in a given way are protected, while others who make that same choice are not.

It does not mean that just because Homeboy has a white house that everyone else has to have a white house also.

No, but it does mean that, if the law provides Homeboy certain legal protections for his house, it must provide them equally to everyone else who owns one.

No, I don't. I believe that equal protection under the law overrides popular wish to discriminate against a minority. Sorry.

The popular definition in our country used to be that a black man could only marry a black woman and a white man could only marry a white woman. That was - rightfully - overturned on the basis of equal protection. This is no different.



....except you don't. No more than we had to redefine marriage to allow interracial marriage.

The legal construct remains exactly the same. The only difference is that it is applied equally.



The vast majority of marriage protections have absolutely nothing to do with "baby making."

The difference being that interracial couples of opposing genders can make babies. Gay and Lesbian couples can't.

Now you can make a case for adoption the effects of which we don't know because people are ignorant to allow it.

We are talking about western culture here. If you want to live in African culture, move to Africa. But if you are in America, you have to abide by western concepts of what marriage is which has always been one man and one woman.


Bullshit. We have the establishment clause that is supposed to protect us from people like you. If you want christian lifestyles; move to the vatican.


Actually it has. Daughers were transferred to men just for the express purpose of creating children. The creation of children has always been the driving factor behind marriage. The conflict today is whether to keep that defintion or adopt a new one.


Nope. Transfers were mainily about building a bond between two families for financial gain.

Children were a bonus.

Legal protections?? Depends on what country or state you are living in. In most, it is still about being able to rear children. In a lot of countries, if a woman can't bear a child, her marriage can annulled so her partner can find a woman who can bear a child.

What about that "for better for worst" thing you say in a Religious marriage?

I would like to know what it is that gays think they are being protected from?

People like you.

Gay marriage is not going to protect them from people hating on them. It's not going to stop lynchings or harrassment.

Ahh so denying marriage is protecting them from that? I would think they should have the call.

Equal protection means the law must protect the lives of everyone equally. It does not mean that just because Homeboy has a white house that everyone else has to have a white house also.


The law is not supposed to promote religion either.

Just because Tom works at Taco Bell, it does not mean that everyone has right to that same job at Taco Bell.

Ahh yes they do. Fair employment act says so....

Specifically, Constantius and Constans declared homosexual marriage illegal in 342 CE.

Thank you!

I certainly hope so.



You're always going to get a few bad apples who take the low road.

I would hope that the bad apples of any group would be dealt with and that those groups would be active in making sure the system dealt with them, unless those groups didn't mind being "spoiled" by the bad apples.

If a guy from Yes on 8 was mailing letters threatening to blow up homes, I would hope that if the Yes on 8 campaign knew about it, they would turn him in for prosecution or tell him to cut it out because threatening to kill people makes the whole group look bad, not just the person mailing the threats.
Likewise for the opponents of 8.

Those were false. But then, all campaigns in California are based on false advertising. Including the pro gay marriage ads.

If you have to take political advertising in California with a cup full of salt because of they are all mostly full of S***.

Many people bought into it so the support is not as overwhelming as suggested.

The difference being that interracial couples of opposing genders can make babies. Gay and Lesbian couples can't.

AND YET they can marry. Your argument is bullshit, repeating it after it's been sound refuted is not helping your credibility.

Actually you do know that there were severe penalties for women who entered into marriage and couldn't have children? In some countries they were executed, but in most countries their marriages were annulled.
So, women who were sterile, did not have a right to marry the man of their dreams.
That's disgusting, and I'm pleased we've redefined marriage so such practices no longer occur.
We are talking about western culture here. If you want to live in African culture, move to Africa. But if you are in America, you have to abide by western concepts of what marriage is which has always been one man and one woman.
No, one does not. One has to abide by the legal definition of marriage, which varies from state to state and country to country.

Actually it has. Daughers were transferred to men just for the express purpose of creating children. The creation of children has always been the driving factor behind marriage. The conflict today is whether to keep that defintion or adopt a new one.
That definition hasn't been used for decades if not centuries in the western world. People marry for whatever reasons they want. Not because their parents want a link to another powerful family.
Legal protections?? Depends on what country or state you are living in. In most, it is still about being able to rear children. In a lot of countries, if a woman can't bear a child, her marriage can annulled so her partner can find a woman who can bear a child.
Name these countries.

I would like to know what it is that gays think they are being protected from? Gay marriage is not going to protect them from people hating on them. It's not going to stop lynchings or harrassment.
It protects them from discrimination by granting them the same legal rights as everyone else.
Equal protection means the law must protect the lives of everyone equally.
No, it means the law treats everyone equally. Matters of law are not always life or death.
It does not mean that just because Homeboy has a white house that everyone else has to have a white house also.
Obama didn't have a legal right to be President. Opposite sex couples do have a legal right to marry. Same sex couples do not.

Just because Tom works at Taco Bell, it does not mean that everyone has right to that same job at Taco Bell.
Are you even trying to understand the situation? The right to marry is not like a job, or a political position. It's a right, like free speech, and equal standing in the eyes of the law. To say that some group of people can't have that right is simple bigotry. End of story.
Specifically, Constantius and Constans declared homosexual marriage illegal in 342 CE.
Meanies.

You keep wanting to attribute a few incidents of threatening letters to "the gays" or these are now "tactics" of their "side," as if it's some sort of official Gay Policy. Again the Gay Borg Collective Hive Mind is out to get us all bullshit.



So we should go back to this charming time?

No.

Women who are sterile CAN now marry whoever the fuck they want. So marriage isn't "about making babies" as you falsely claimed. In fact, you've shown that marriage has changed from what you just said it was about, to something else.

Yet you seem absolutely opposed to the idea that marriage can change. Huh. Go figure.

Also women didn't use to have the right to vote. For thousands of years, women by definition were essentially chattel to be bought and sold through slavery. And there were indeed people like you making the same arguments against their rights as you are making against the rights of homosexuals.

Notice your own words. "Can now"

The fact is that legally yes they can because of privacy rights. But in reality no they can't. If a guy wants kids, and the gal can't have children. Guess what? He's not going to marry. He's going to marry a woman who can have kids.

I'm not against changing the definition of marriage. I just want there to be consensus when it happens. Right now, both sides feel to strongly for that consensus to happen. We might have to wait a little longer. Remember people kepts saying there will never be a black President in our lifetime. That was until Obama came around.

Voting and property rights are not the same as marriage. Marriage is more akin to employment packages. A CEO gets 4 million a year worth of compensation while the head of small business gets 50,000 worth. They both do the same job but they don't get the same rights because their roles in their relationships are much different.

You don't have to accept anything. Dominate culture isn't always right.



Actually I think the earliest known law against homosexual marriage was by the emperor Constantius.

Actually I think there were earlier laws by the Assyrians. Certainly the people of the Levant and the Egyptians had laws against homosexuality. Though it was common in much of ancient greece.

Notice your own words. "Can now"

The fact is that legally yes they can because of privacy rights. But in reality no they can't. If a guy wants kids, and the gal can't have children. Guess what? He's not going to marry. He's going to marry a woman who can have kids.


Unless they both decide on adoption.

But what do I know?

Specifically, Constantius and Constans declared homosexual marriage illegal in 342 CE.

what about Hammurabi's Code of Laws?

Red Herring. The KKK laws were only meant to protect people from being threatened or lynched on the basis of their skin color. Not because of their gender. Further, saying gay people can't marry, is the same as saying men can't bear children. It's a biological impossible under the current definition of marriage which has been around since marriage was invented back hundreds of thousands of years ago.

There have been well-publicized instances of where gays/lesbians have been threatened, beaten, lynched and tied to fenceposts and left to die on the basis of their sexual orientation.

Gender isn't the issue. Saying that men can't bear children has nothing to do with it. Women can't bear children either without a man being involved at least temporarily, but that doesn't mean that a woman can't love another woman.

Glad that you said that marriage was "invented" and not some religious mumbo-jumbo that marriage is a sacred religious institution. Marriage was invented by humans for political and economic reasons to cement treaties between nations (royalty) and noblement and it's only historically recently that the common people have been able to afford to get married.

However, since civilization has only been around since well past the end of the last ice age (say 5-6,000 years), I highly doubt marriage was invented "hundreds of thousands of years ago".

what about Hammurabi's Code of Laws?

There is no direct or explicit mention of it. Nor could I find an implied mention.

http://eawc.evansville.edu/anthology/hammurabi.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Babylonian_law#Marriage

Thank you!

To further elaborate on the matter, marriage until 1545 was a entirely private matter between citizens and required nothing more than for two people to express a desire to enter into a union. It was part of the Counter-Reformation, in which the Catholic Church and the Council of Trent decreed that a marriage would only be official so long as it was performed before a priest and two witnesses.

Between 1200 and 1500 it was common for people to marry around 25 years old and not younger. After 1500 it became illegal for a woman to marry before 20 years of age. Yet the female reproductive cycle begins right at puberty, which is anywhere between 9-14 on average. That contradicts the idea that marriage was for procreation, since a good number of years were lost before a girl was legally able to wed.

In fact, the Marriage Act 1753 made it so that if a person was under 21 they required parental consent, even though age of majority was significantly lower. Though this act wasn't effective in America, the states at the time did have their own laws governing marriage and one of those laws restricted age to 20-25 depending on the state.

Notice your own words. "Can now"

Yeah. As in "NOWadays, what dumb fucking laws and regulations that applied 'tens of thousands of years ago*' are NOT a basis, legally or ethically or according to common bloody sense, for us to be constrained by.

The fact is that legally yes they can because of privacy rights. But in reality no they can't. If a guy wants kids, and the gal can't have children. Guess what? He's not going to marry. He's going to marry a woman who can have kids.

I don't even know how to begin pointing out the absurdity of these statements except by quoting them.

I'm not against changing the definition of marriage. I just want there to be consensus when it happens. Right now, both sides feel to strongly for that consensus to happen. We might have to wait a little longer. Remember people kepts saying there will never be a black President in our lifetime. That was until Obama came around.

Yeah and people like you'd be "by definition, black men can't become President in a White country! That's how it's been FOREVER lol!' and completely ignoring or dismissing any racism in this.

Voting and property rights are not the same as marriage. Marriage is more akin to employment packages. A CEO gets 4 million a year worth of compensation while the head of small business gets 50,000 worth. They both do the same job but they don't get the same rights because their roles in their relationships are much different.

OH I get it. Marriage is just like employment packages, and while straight people get the 10 million dollar bonus, gay people are the slave laborers who don't even get paid!

I for one see nothing wrong with that, do you?

Actually I think there were earlier laws by the Assyrians. Certainly the people of the Levant and the Egyptians had laws against homosexuality. Though it was common in much of ancient greece.

Actually I don't think they were. You will have to prove it.

Even with the Egyptians; I read an article that same sex couples where buried together....

The difference being that interracial couples of opposing genders can make babies. Gay and Lesbian couples can't.

Irrelevant. As has already been pointed out, legal marriage protections have little to do with childbearing and the ability to marry is not dependent on the ability to have children.

what about Hammurabi's Code of Laws?

No mention of homosexual or if a man marry a man, etc.....

Yeah except in Massachusetts and Connecticut, or in the Western societies of Belgium, Canada, Netherlands, Norway, Spain.

But I guess those nations aren't Really Western Culture and those states aren't part of Real America.



I would like for you to explain to me how Proposition 8 Protects California Children.

NOT ONE supporter of Proposition 8 has EVER been able to explain this. And yet so many of the campaign ads said, "Protect California Children."

Protect them from what, and how?

Explain this to me.

Except for mass and conn they are not part of the US. But they are all part of Western Civilization which itself, has a diversity of subcultures. It was only in recent years that the laws in those places were changed to redefine marriage in a way that allowed gay marriage to exist in those places. But that raises an interesting deal for further study. If two men marry in Amsterdam and they visit America, are they still married even though the states they visit do not recognize gay marriage? What happens if one of them dies in say Kansas which has laws against gay marriage????


It different with Mass. The federal constitution requires the states to recognize all marriages and other documents issued by each state. Therefore, if Mass says they are going to marry gays, then each of the 49 other states must accept all gay marriages performed in Mass even if it is illegal in the host state. I know there are laws that say this and that state won't accept marriages performed in Mass because of the gay marriage thing, but those laws violate the Fair Faith And Credit Clause of USC.
Hence, even with Prop 8, if a gay couple married in Mass, they would still be married in California. At least theoretically. But then we get stuck on the definition of marriage which the Constitution also says is solely the domain of the states. That is why the SCOTUS is unlikely to look at gay marriage cases. Unless you can find a way to show how banning gay marriage deprives you of the right to vote, hold property, or any other federal right.

Prop 8 did nothing to protect children. No one here was saying it would. You have to take Prop 8 commercials with cup of salt.

Except for mass and conn they are not part of the US.

Well yeah, except for the part about me being right, you're not completely wrong!

But they are all part of Western Civilization which itself, has a diversity of subcultures. It was only in recent years that the laws in those places were changed to redefine marriage in a way that allowed gay marriage to exist in those places. But that raises an interesting deal for further study. If two men marry in Amsterdam and they visit America, are they still married

Yes.

even though the states they visit do not recognize gay marriage? What happens if one of them dies in say Kansas which has laws against gay marriage????

I'm not sure I want to find out.

That is why the SCOTUS is unlikely to look at gay marriage cases. Unless you can find a way to show how banning gay marriage deprives you of the right to vote, hold property, or any other federal right.

I never said SCOTUS would or wouldn't. You're off on your own tangent here.

Actually I don't think they were. You will have to prove it.

Even with the Egyptians; I read an article that same sex couples where buried together....

Yeah and he said "tens of thousands of years," so that is presumably at least like 20,000 years ago. I would like to see the evidence that "marriage is between a man and a woman" from the Mesolithic.

Actually you do know that there were severe penalties for women who entered into marriage and couldn't have children? In some countries they were executed, but in most countries their marriages were annulled.
So, women who were sterile, did not have a right to marry the man of their dreams.
When and where did this happen? I would like a list of places and times, or I call bullshit.

We are talking about western culture here. If you want to live in African culture, move to Africa. But if you are in America, you have to abide by western concepts of what marriage is which has always been one man and one woman.
Are you under the impression that western culture has never changed in thousands of years?

Actually it has. Daughers were transferred to men just for the express purpose of creating children. The creation of children has always been the driving factor behind marriage. The conflict today is whether to keep that defintion or adopt a new one.
False. The establishment of a discrete unit of property -- a "household" -- has always been the driving factor behind marriage. Children only matter in marriage if the marriage household is rich enough for it to matter who gets the stuff when one or both of the married couple die -- i.e. to keep the throne within a given blood line and away from that filthy distant cousin you never liked anyway, even before he went and married the third cousin twice removed of your mortal enemy. Without that concern, marriage has not needed children nor have children needed marriage.

Legal protections?? Depends on what country or state you are living in. In most, it is still about being able to rear children. In a lot of countries, if a woman can't bear a child, her marriage can annulled so her partner can find a woman who can bear a child.
To echo another poster: Name those countries. Another list, if you please. I'll wait.

I would hope that the bad apples of any group would be dealt with and that those groups would be active in making sure the system dealt with them, unless those groups didn't mind being "spoiled" by the bad apples.

If a guy from Yes on 8 was mailing letters threatening to blow up homes, I would hope that if the Yes on 8 campaign knew about it, they would turn him in for prosecution or tell him to cut it out because threatening to kill people makes the whole group look bad, not just the person mailing the threats.
Likewise for the opponents of 8.

I would think so, too. But it's highly unlikely that these particular bad apples had anything official to do with the campaign.

The fact is that legally yes they can because of privacy rights. But in reality no they can't. If a guy wants kids, and the gal can't have children. Guess what? He's not going to marry. He's going to marry a woman who can have kids.

Depends on how much he cares about the gal. If he loves her enough, he'll be willing to seek other options in having kids. If he doesn't, he'll seek another partner.

I'm not against changing the definition of marriage. I just want there to be consensus when it happens.

So we should have waited for that in recognizing interracial marriage as well?

Just wait for the bigots to come around?

Voting and property rights are not the same as marriage. Marriage is more akin to employment packages.

Actually, marriage has a great deal to do with property rights. Far more of the various legal protections provided by marriage involve property rights than children. And even those few that do involve children are similar to those dealing with property.

When and where did this happen? I would like a list of places and times, or I call bullshit.
In Kenya, if a woman is infertile, it is the right of the husband to return her to her family in return for the dowry he paid. FYI of the day!

Unless you can find a way to show how banning gay marriage deprives you of the right to vote, hold property, or any other federal right.

Like...say....the right to equal protection under the law?\

Except for mass and conn they are not part of the US. But they are all part of Western Civilization which itself, has a diversity of subcultures. <snip>
Oh, so we have to "abide by" the traditions of western culture except for when we don't, eh -- on account of "western culture" actually isn't a monolithic standard that hasn't changed for thousands of years, after all?

Oh, so we have to "abide by" the traditions of western culture except for when we don't, eh -- on account of "western culture" actually isn't a monolithic standard that hasn't changed for thousands of years, after all?

Sort of like how we're only talking about the US, right up until USoA wants to claim that marriage is all about babies. Then he can pull in "other countries" and their marriage law.

Notice your own words. "Can now"

The fact is that legally yes they can because of privacy rights. But in reality no they can't. If a guy wants kids, and the gal can't have children. Guess what? He's not going to marry. He's going to marry a woman who can have kids.
Prove it. Prove that every single man who enters into a marriage is doing so for the purpose of having kids with his new wife. Do you want to start now, or will you wait until I point out all the married childless couples, or all the unmarried couples with children?

I'm not against changing the definition of marriage. I just want there to be consensus when it happens. Right now, both sides feel to strongly for that consensus to happen. We might have to wait a little longer. Remember people kepts saying there will never be a black President in our lifetime. That was until Obama came around.
The longer we wait, the longer gay people are treated differently in the eyes of the law.

And why does there even need to be a consensus? Our society is founded on the principals that all people are equal, and that the government will not arbitrarily deny rights to one group while respecting them in the case of another. Marriage is a right that is only respected in the case of opposite sex couples(in most places). The sooner we extend that right to same sex couples the better. All this whining about the definition of marriage is semantics. Materially there is no difference.

Voting and property rights are not the same as marriage. Marriage is more akin to employment packages. A CEO gets 4 million a year worth of compensation while the head of small business gets 50,000 worth. They both do the same job but they don't get the same rights because their roles in their relationships are much different.

No, it isn't, not at all. A CEO of a huge company taking in millions in profit and the CEO of a tiny company taking in one million in profit(if they're lucky) have the exact same rights. They each have a right to a fair wage for the work they do. They do not have the right to have the same wage as everyone else doing the same kind of job.

Reason being that marriage has always been about the woman's ability to bear children by having sex with the man.

Always? Really? Are you sure you really want to argue that it has, for example, ALWAYS been the case that a post-menopausal woman cannot legally be married?

Aw, the petty, hatemongering bigots don't want the Public Disclosure laws to apply to them?

TOUGH SHIT.

They're gonna have to out themselves as assholes who want the nation to believe as they do and live under their rules. Boo-fuckin'-hoo.

In Kenya, if a woman is infertile, it is the right of the husband to return her to her family in return for the dowry he paid. FYI of the day!
He won't learn if you do his work for him.

Also, according to USofA, if we want to live by Africa's standards, we should go live in Africa. He's only interested in telling us what "western culture" (except I guess when other cultures support him better than ours does, or when he is forced to admit that our culture doesn't follow his rules).

In Canada, the only time a marriage can be annulled is if:

There is proof of affinity or consanguinity.

Either partner is still married to another.

Either partner is not age of majority, and unable to consent.

Either partner is not in a mentally sound state at the time of the marriage. i.e.: drunk, or otherwise intoxicated; mentally incompetent.

Either partner is not freely consenting; i.e.: forced.

If a partner is unable to perform sexually AND the other did not know about this until after the marriage. If the partner knew before hand, there is no grounds for annulment.

So we should have waited for that in recognizing interracial marriage as well?

Just wait for the bigots to come around?
And let's not forget to hold our breath while we wait.

Sort of like how we're only talking about the US, right up until USoA wants to claim that marriage is all about babies. Then he can pull in "other countries" and their marriage law.
Any port in a storm, I guess.

Congrats, you know what the word "racist" means. Now, do you know what "discrimination" means? HINT: One can discriminate without being racist.

No, they're trying to get marriage back to the way it was before a constitutional change happened.

The voters haven't had a say on removing Prop. 8.

My bollocks have they. You go right ahead and just try to prove that "the gays" have tried to do anything of the sort.

Gross generalisations aren't conducive to yours.

Which doesn't mean they can't protect people from being threatened on the basis of their gender.

No, it isn't.

If it's biologically impossible then definitions have nothing to do with it. Definitions can change. That's how language works. You can no more stop that than you can go out into the street and tell the wind to blow the other way.

No, it was the voters that changed the constitution with Prop. 8. Before that marriage between people of the same sex was legal in California.


Which it got.


Don't give a shit. If allowing same sex couples to marry means changing the definition of marriage then so be it.

So when will you be annulling marriages between opposite sex but infertile couples?

Wow, you're really totally ignorant as to what happened, aren't you? The Supreme Court found that the Cali. Constitution, as it was, allowed marriage between same sex couples. Some people didn't like this, so they got Prop. 8 passed, which changed the constitution. Now same sex marriage isn't allowed in California. And while the anti-Prop. 8 people are trying to have it struck down(I forget the details, but it was something about Prop. 8 being to broad in scope) the pro-Prop. 8 people are trying to have all the perfectly legal same sex marriages that happened before Prop. 8 annulled.


Good thing most people involved on both sides have done nothing along the lines of threatening to blow up homes, kidnapping children, or shooting people.

*le gasp* Yes! The vile disgusting gays haven't been patrolling the streets slaughtering everyone who doesn't want them to marry. I'm sure you'll get over this awful shock eventually.

I'm sure that same sex couples will win the right to amrry, the same as everyone else, yes.

No, I don't.


So what? For tens of thousands of years we didn't have the internet.

You say these things as though they matter.



Infertile couples can marry, clearly it's not about babies. You can keep lying to yourself, but I think we'd all prefer it if you didn't try to lie to us.

Gay is a sexual orientation, not a gender.

I'm pretty certain that the voters will get a chance to overturn Prop 8. But what happens if they vote to keep it??????

Gay marriage, before Prop 8, was legal for only the 6 months prior to Prop 8's passage. One year ago, there was no gay marriage in California.

I'm glad you accept that Prop 8 was public plebiscite. Will there be one to repeal it????

If you seek to change the definition through legally permissable means, then kudos to you. I hope you succeed.

Marriages between infertile couples, for most of human history, have been subject to annullment.

I'm glad to see you recognize that not everyone who voted for 8 is a bigot.

Dominant cultures matter in that they explain why people vote the way they do or why support some causes and not others. Western cultures is very biased against gays, traditionally.

Only in recent years have infertile couples gained a right to marry but then that has never been tested or challenged. I would imagine if it was, it would have to be along lines similar to that used against gay marriage.

Aw, the petty, hatemongering bigots don't want the Public Disclosure laws to apply to them?

TOUGH SHIT.

They're gonna have to out themselves as assholes who want the nation to believe as they do and live under their rules. Boo-fuckin'-hoo.

This.

I find it funny that the homophobes want to be exempt from being shown to be the hateful bigots that they are.

So we should have waited for that in recognizing interracial marriage as well?

Just wait for the bigots to come around?


Hey, don't limit yourself to marriage rights! We clearly should have waited to abolish slavery until every single person in the world agreed that all races were equal. I'm sure the black posters here totally wouldn't mind still being enslaved today, and would happily and patiently wait for the kids in Prussian Blue to come around. :rolleyes:

Only in recent years have infertile couples gained a right to marry but then that has never been tested or challenged. I would imagine if it was, it would have to be along lines similar to that used against gay marriage.

Rooted in scaremongering, bigotry and discrimination against a sexual orientation? No it wouldn't.

It's a little hard to sell, "Protect Our Children against those evil women who get married but are incapable of having a child! THEY WILL TEACH THEIR EVIL INFERTILITY IN SCHOOLS!"

Nice try though.

Yeah and he said "tens of thousands of years," so that is presumably at least like 20,000 years ago. I would like to see the evidence that "marriage is between a man and a woman" from the Mesolithic.

Well they weren't gay back then. Come one now think about it. Wearing animal skins and no accessories!

Gay is a sexual orientation, not a gender.

No, but both male and female are genders.

Currently, the law treats people differently on this basis, just as it treated people differently on the basis of ethnicity with anti-miscegenation laws.


I'm glad to see you recognize that not everyone who voted for 8 is a bigot.

Where did Ifreann say that?

Dominant cultures matter in that they explain why people vote the way they do or why support some causes and not others. Western cultures is very biased against gays, traditionally.

In other words, members of Western culture tend to be bigoted towards homosexuals?

Only in recent years have infertile couples gained a right to marry but then that has never been tested or challenged. I would imagine if it was, it would have to be along lines similar to that used against gay marriage.

Infertile couples have always had the right to marry (since there has been a legally recognized concept of marriage). They also, in some places and some periods of time, had the ability (but not a legal requirement) to dissolve their marriage due to impotence or infertility.

It was not the voters who married them. It was the public officials and courts who decided they had a right to change the constitution.

Or perhaps they were merely deciding to apply the Constitutional promises about equality?

As per the definition, marriage has for millenia been a relationship between men and women. It has never been about relationships between men and men or women and women. Reason being that marriage has always been about the woman's ability to bear children by having sex with the man.

However, you're right that it would not be the State Court who could create such a definition. The State Legislature on the other hand probably does have that right.

Sometimes. Sometimes marriage has been about putting a daughter in a position of hostage to a rival kingdom to guarantee that you won't declare war on them. Other times, it's been about combining the fortunes of two noble families so that between them they'd have even more power, wealth and property.

The State Court said it had the right to redefine marriage. The voters came in and said no you don't.

Actually, there was no redefining of marriage proposed. In many dictionaries, marriage was never defined as between a 'man and a woman', mostly because it never occurred to the dictionary writers that anybody might wish otherwise.

The debate right now has to be about how to define marriage. That is where the first step toward gay marriage has to be taken. Not by going around threatening to blow up homes, kidnap children, or shoot people. That is the tactics of the KKK and the Nazi's.

Agreed that going around and blowing up homes is not the right way to go about it. However, the ones who made such threats represent a tiny minority of extreme radicals, and not the mainstream of LGBT community. In that, they're not much different that the Westboro Baptist anti-gay radicals who threaten all kinds of things nor some of the extreme anti-abortion protestors who DO set fire to and blow up clinics and on at least a couple of noteworthy occassions have actually shot and killed doctors. There are nutcases on both side of many debates but that shouldn't mean that all the people of either side agree with them.


If the cause is really just, why stoop to those levels. If you stick to what is right and legal, you will win in the end.

And the LGBT community probably WILL win in the end. Whether it will be in 10 years or 100 years I don't know.

Gay is a sexual orientation, not a gender.
Male/male or female/female or male/female. Gender. Get it?

I'm pretty certain that the voters will get a chance to overturn Prop 8. But what happens if they vote to keep it??????
Then the fight to change minds will continue.

Also, is your question mark key stuck?

Gay marriage, before Prop 8, was legal for only the 6 months prior to Prop 8's passage. One year ago, there was no gay marriage in California.
And? A law is not less of a law just because it is new.

I'm glad you accept that Prop 8 was public plebiscite. Will there be one to repeal it????
We shall see.

Also, you should try cleaning your keyboard maybe.

If you seek to change the definition through legally permissable means, then kudos to you. I hope you succeed.
Thank you.

Marriages between infertile couples, for most of human history, have been subject to annullment.
Proof, please, thank you. *waits*

I'm glad to see you recognize that not everyone who voted for 8 is a bigot.
I agree with him. Some of them were just duped by bigots who told lies.

Dominant cultures matter in that they explain why people vote the way they do or why support some causes and not others. Western cultures is very biased against gays, traditionally.
And of course, bias, discrimination, bigotry and injustice are not something anyone should ever try to change, even in a culture where the dominant tradition for several hundred years has also been the rise of humanist and egalitarian social philosophies that challenged and even tore down more ancient power structures. Yeah, we wouldn't want to keep up the traditions of a dominant culture like that, now would we?

Only in recent years have infertile couples gained a right to marry but then that has never been tested or challenged. I would imagine if it was, it would have to be along lines similar to that used against gay marriage.
I demand proof of these assertions. The one above, plus the one about infertile marriages being subject to annulment through "most of human history", plus the ones about countries where women faced all kinds of penalties for not having kids in marriage. Lay it out. This is the last time you'll be asked. Failure to post supporting evidence within the next 24 hour period (to give you time to look stuff up) will result in dismissal of your entire argument as based on a deliberate lie.

Happy google hunting.

Gay is a sexual orientation, not a gender.

Sexual orientation, however, is not what determines one's ability to marry. If I try to marry Jane Doe, the determining factor is not "Do you like to fuck women?" but rather "Are you a man?" If I were male, I would legally be permitted to marry Jane Doe, whether or not I liked screwing her. As I am a female, I am not so permitted. That's discrimination on the basis of gender.

Same-sex marriage would provide all the same protections to same-sex couples as it currently does to opposite sex couples. They would be seen as a single legal entity in many respects. They would be next of kin. They would have joint ownership. Spousal immunity. And so on....

Why does it take marriage for people to have such rights? If you want to file joint taxes with someone, you should not be required to marry them. If you want to leave them your belongings. you should not be required to marry them.



And, currently, some people who choose to live in a given way are protected, while others who make that same choice are not.

I'm not sure of how it is the same choice. In marriage you have a husband and you have a wife. The wife is always a female and the husband is always a male. How do you have husband and wife in gay marriages?



No, but it does mean that, if the law provides Homeboy certain legal protections for his house, it must provide them equally to everyone else who owns one.

I would agree with that.

Hey, don't limit yourself to marriage rights! We clearly should have waited to abolish slavery until every single person in the world agreed that all races were equal. I'm sure the black posters here totally wouldn't mind still being enslaved today, and would happily and patiently wait for the kids in Prussian Blue to come around. :rolleyes:

I claim the Jamaicans! They work hard and are a fun people!

Why does it take marriage for people to have such rights? If you want to file joint taxes with someone, you should not be required to marry them. If you want to leave them your belongings. you should not be required to marry them.

We call the legal construct in which two people are seen as a single legal entity for many purposes "marriage".

If it were called something else, then it wouldn't involve marrying anyone.

I'm not sure of how it is the same choice.

They are living in the same situation - entwining their lives to the same extent. The legal situations marriage protections are meant to cover occur with same-sex couples just as they do with opposite-sex couples.

I would agree with that.

Then you should agree that same-sex couples who choose to build lives together should be able to obtain the same legal protections as opposite-couples who choose to do so.

Why does it take marriage for people to have such rights? If you want to file joint taxes with someone, you should not be required to marry them. If you want to leave them your belongings. you should not be required to marry them.

Are you saying that you support civil unions with identical rights to marriage? Because as our system stands, hundreds of rights are automatically conferred by legal marriage. Are you saying that a gay couple should have access to all of those rights with the same convenience (and therefore just arguing about terminology) or not?


I'm not sure of how it is the same choice. In marriage you have a husband and you have a wife. The wife is always a female and the husband is always a male. How do you have husband and wife in gay marriages?

Um...you....don't. You have a husband and a husband, or a wife and a wife. And this exercise in vocabulary matters how, precisely?

In Canada, the only time a marriage can be annulled is if:
....
Either partner is not in a mentally sound state at the time of the marriage. i.e.: drunk, or otherwise intoxicated; mentally incompetent.
No drunk weddings? Awwwww :(
Gay is a sexual orientation, not a gender.
I know.

I'm pretty certain that the voters will get a chance to overturn Prop 8.
If the court finds in favour of the anti-prop. 8 people they won't. It'll be struck down.
But what happens if they vote to keep it??????
People who support equal rights for homosexuals will keep at it. One obstacle never stopped a civil rights movement before and it won't now.

Gay marriage, before Prop 8, was legal for only the 6 months prior to Prop 8's passage. One year ago, there was no gay marriage in California.
Only because it never came to the Supreme Court until....whenever it did. It's a small difference, but it's there. Since the constitution was never actually changed, then it was, technically, always a right.

I'm glad you accept that Prop 8 was public plebiscite. Will there be one to repeal it????
There might be, but there doesn't have to be. Again, I don't recall the details, but Prop. 8 may have been too broad in scope or something like that to pass the way it did. If the court finds that this is the case(the same court that found that same sex marriage is legal, btw) then any change Prop. 8 made will be undone.

If you seek to change the definition through legally permissable means, then kudos to you. I hope you succeed.
The definition doesn't need to be changed in many places. It wasn't in California, until Prop. 8 passed.

Marriages between infertile couples, for most of human history, have been subject to annullment.
And they aren't any more. For most of human history the United States of America didn't exist. Things change.

I'm glad to see you recognize that not everyone who voted for 8 is a bigot.
I recognise no such thing.

Dominant cultures matter in that they explain why people vote the way they do or why support some causes and not others. Western cultures is very biased against gays, traditionally.
Then tradition can go fuck a porcupine.

Only in recent years have infertile couples gained a right to marry but then that has never been tested or challenged. I would imagine if it was, it would have to be along lines similar to that used against gay marriage.
How recent? Can you point to a time in America where infertile couples were no allowed to marry?

Are you saying that you support civil unions with identical rights to marriage? Because as our system stands, hundreds of rights are automatically conferred by legal marriage. Are you saying that a gay couple should have access to all of those rights with the same convenience (and therefore just arguing about terminology) or not?



Um...you....don't. You have a husband and a husband, or a wife and a wife. And this exercise in vocabulary matters how, precisely?
Well, it's like the wheels on a bike, you know? You have the front wheel and the back wheel, right? You can't put the front wheel on at the back or the back wheel on at the front because then they wouldn't be the front and back wheels, get it? In that same way, you can't let a girl be the "husband" because that's just like switching the wheels on a bike. See?

Or something like that.

The word "spouse", by the way, is just a funny noise that doesn't mean anything.

Bullshit. We have the establishment clause that is supposed to protect us from people like you. If you want christian lifestyles; move to the vatican.

I agree, laws should never be based off religious texts. It always results in persecutions and wars.






What about that "for better for worst" thing you say in a Religious marriage?

I always thought that was in Christian marriages. I don't think other religions use that line in their marriages.



People like you.
ME? I'm just the mayor of Los Angeles. What'd I do???? J/K lol




The law is not supposed to promote religion either.
Again, I agree. I would hope we are moving further from basing our laws on the Bible.



Ahh yes they do. Fair employment act says so....

Not really. Not if they can't do the job because they incompetent, criminals, or if the company can't afford to hire them. Or if there is any other valid reason such as not being able to get along nicely with coworkers. I know this, because I was denied a job because they didn't think I would be able fit in. If they don't think you can fit in, they don't have to hire you.

You have to accept the definition as used by dominant culture, which in this case is western culture.

You might get an argument about that if you were to stand beside the big rock in Mecca and make such a proclamation. Do you think you could last for 5 minutes?

For tens of thousands of years, marriage has only been a relationship between man and women.

Kinf of surprising that it could have been around for "tens of thousands of years (what happened to the hunmdreds of thousand you claimed earlier?) when civilization hasn't been around for much more than about 5 or 6,000 years.

In much of the world you had polygamy where the relationship was between one man and 20 women. In the west, since the dawn of christianity, marriage has been one man and one woman. That is currently the dominant culture.

Again, that is only the dominant culture in THIS country. Although I DO seem to remember something about polygamy happening out in Utah. Hmmmm

To make it one man and one man, you have to redefine what marriage is.

No, first you'd have to define that it can only be about one man and one woman. That's just an assumption that you're making that it has to be that way.

It's never been about love. It's always been about baby making so the country can have soldiers for its military to go around invading other countries.

You've GOT to be joking now, right?!?!?

I know MANY, many couples who got married for love. In fact, just about every couple I know who are married got married for love. Making soldiers to go around invading other countries was about the furthest thing from their minds at the time.

Well, it's like the wheels on a bike, you know? You have the front wheel and the back wheel, right? You can't put the front wheel on at the back or the back wheel on at the front because then they wouldn't be the front and back wheels, get it? In that same way, you can't let a girl be the "husband" because that's just like switching the wheels on a bike. See?

Or something like that.

The word "spouse", by the way, is just a funny noise that doesn't mean anything.

The scary thing is that I suspect this argument actually makes sense to some people. :p

Why does it take marriage for people to have such rights? If you want to file joint taxes with someone, you should not be required to marry them. If you want to leave them your belongings. you should not be required to marry them.
Maybe not, but that's just one of hundreds of rights granted automatically to married couples.





I'm not sure of how it is the same choice. In marriage you have a husband and you have a wife. The wife is always a female and the husband is always a male. How do you have husband and wife in gay marriages?
What about marriages where same sex marriage is legal? Did they have some kind of linguistic crisis?

The scary thing is that I suspect this argument actually makes sense to some people. :p
Inasmuch as anything makes sense to such people. ;)

Many people bought into it so the support is not as overwhelming as suggested.

True. We will have to wait for a measure to overturn 8 however. I know some people who were strongly for it. My own brother disowned me for not contributing to the Yes on 8 campaign.
Then again it probably had something to do with the fact that his girlfriend left him for another girl.

What about marriages where same sex marriage is legal? Did they have some kind of linguistic crisis?

Well, duh. I'm sure the married lesbian couple I'm friends with spend all their time crying to the heavens, "But....but which of us is the husband? I'm so confused!"

Or, y'know, not.

AND YET they can marry. Your argument is bullshit, repeating it after it's been sound refuted is not helping your credibility.

Gays and Lesbians currently cannot marry in California and most other US states.

Well, duh. I'm sure the married lesbian couple I'm friends with spend all their time crying to the heavens, "But....but which of us is the husband? I'm so confused!"

Or, y'know, not.

Pfft, no. Since they can't have kids they've obviously gotten an annulment.

Gays and Lesbians currently cannot marry in California and most other US states.

But they can marry in some US states, and other countries.

Whats your point? Do you have one?

Gays and Lesbians currently cannot marry in California and most other US states.

They can in two states, and in several other cultures. Your argument was that marriage is somehow "by definition," in "Western culture" (including the US, and including Western nations as listed) between 'man and woman,' and is therefore flat-out wrong.

We can go round and round this merry go round as many times as you need in order to get it.

Well, duh. I'm sure the married lesbian couple I'm friends with spend all their time crying to the heavens, "But....but which of us is the husband? I'm so confused!"

Or, y'know, not.

they don't take turns?

True. We will have to wait for a measure to overturn 8 however.

Not necessarily. There is a challenge in the courts pertaining to whether or not the subject matter had to be a revision, rather than an amendment.

I know some people who were strongly for it. My own brother disowned me for not contributing to the Yes on 8 campaign.
Then again it probably had something to do with the fact that his girlfriend left him for another girl.

Well that's smart. If she had left him for another guy, would he be campaigning against opposite-sex marriage?

they don't take turns?
See my bicycle analogy, posted earlier. If you put two front wheels on a bike, do you think you're going to get anywhere, even if you switch them fore and aft? Think about it. I dare you. ;)

No drunk weddings? Awwwww :(

You're allowed being drunk...except when taking vows.

No, but both male and female are genders.

Currently, the law treats people differently on this basis, just as it treated people differently on the basis of ethnicity with anti-miscegenation laws.



Where did Ifreann say that?



In other words, members of Western culture tend to be bigoted towards homosexuals?



Infertile couples have always had the right to marry (since there has been a legally recognized concept of marriage). They also, in some places and some periods of time, had the ability (but not a legal requirement) to dissolve their marriage due to impotence or infertility.

Westerners have a long history of hatemongering. From slavery to genocide to antimyscegenation. The fact that you have westerners wanting to beat people up for being gay or wanting to kill women for wanting the right to vote should be no surprise.

Westerners have a long history of hatemongering. From slavery to genocide to antimyscegenation. The fact that you have westerners wanting to beat people up for being gay or wanting to kill women for wanting the right to vote should be no surprise.

So you can't actually answer any of the points in my post?

Westerners have a long history of hatemongering. From slavery to genocide to antimyscegenation. The fact that you have westerners wanting to beat people up for being gay or wanting to kill women for wanting the right to vote should be no surprise.

What point are you trying to make here?

What point are you trying to make here?

Apperantly, because intolerance is part of Western (human, actually, but whatever) history, and because some people want to beat up gay people, its ok to deprive them of civil liberties.

I guess he thinks that history should be repeated and that by depriving them of civil liberties, we're actually protecting them, because now they might not get beaten up?

And the LGBT community probably WILL win in the end. Whether it will be in 10 years or 100 years I don't know.


Or it might be sooner considering I know a guy who has thing for lesbians. LOL

Westerners have a long history of hatemongering. From slavery to genocide to antimyscegenation. The fact that you have westerners wanting to beat people up for being gay or wanting to kill women for wanting the right to vote should be no surprise.

So I guess Christianity is failing in it's job.

So I guess Christianity is failing in it's job.

Christianity is actually a direct contributer.

Westerners have a long history of hatemongering. From slavery to genocide to antimyscegenation. The fact that you have westerners wanting to beat people up for being gay or wanting to kill women for wanting the right to vote should be no surprise.

So, because history demonstrates humanity's ability to blindly hate one another for reasons that are utterly asinine, we must continue down that path?

Christianity is actually a direct contributer.

Shush! you are scaring the fish!

Are you saying that you support civil unions with identical rights to marriage? Because as our system stands, hundreds of rights are automatically conferred by legal marriage. Are you saying that a gay couple should have access to all of those rights with the same convenience (and therefore just arguing about terminology) or not?



Um...you....don't. You have a husband and a husband, or a wife and a wife. And this exercise in vocabulary matters how, precisely?

I have always supported having the same legal rights. Its the terminology that is the sticker.

I have always supported having the same legal rights. Its the terminology that is the sticker.

The terminology refers to the legal rights.

This is like saying, "I like cake. I just don't like it to be called cake."

As for targeting those who happened to get married for any type of reprisal, you're talking about an entirely different subject. Getting married is a matter of one's personal life - not a political statement.
The Yes-on-8 people disagree, that's the whole problem.
Red Herring. The KKK laws were only meant to protect people from being threatened or lynched on the basis of their skin color.
You're just fine with me being threatened or lynched for some other reason? And allowing the cowards to stay hidden.
In the west, since the dawn of christianity, marriage has been one man and one woman.
Not since the "dawn" of Christianity.
The popular definition in our country used to be that a black man could only marry a black woman and a white man could only marry a white woman.
Originally, actually, blacks could not even marry each other.
Actually I think there were earlier laws by the Assyrians.
You think wrongly.
I'm pretty certain that the voters will get a chance to overturn Prop 8.
Not if the court just strikes it down. Whether a minority gets equal rights is not properly a question for the majority to decide.
Marriages between infertile couples, for most of human history, have been subject to annullment.
No, I don't believe so. Any source?
I'm glad to see you recognize that not everyone who voted for 8 is a bigot.
Some were dupes.

Inasmuch as anything makes sense to such people. ;)

except that its more like you are trying to make the chain into the front tire.

except that its more like you are trying to make the chain into the front tire.

Except not at all. Mur's analogy was perfectly apt.

The Yes-on-8 people disagree, that's the whole problem.

Well, when they get married they think it's a personal thing.

Originally, actually, blacks could not even marry each other.

This is true. Based on USoA's reasoning, maybe this means they couldn't have children?

Some were dupes.

I still don't buy that there was any significant amount here. People who believed that crap did so because they wanted to. Then they could pretend not to hold bigoted views in the first place.

"Oh, but I really thought schools were going to suddenly start trying to make children gay. Really!"

except that its more like you are trying to make the chain into the front tire.

Oh really? Do please explain exactly how the functions of "husband" and "wife" are so very different from each other. This sounds fun.

Oh really? Do please explain exactly how the functions of "husband" and "wife" are so very different from each other. This sounds fun.

Oh, this is easy.

One has to have a penis, and the other has to have a vagina.

Done.

=)

what's amusing is that the closest example of "marriage between infertile couples for most of human history resulted in an annulment" that I can think of was Henry the VII, which wasn't so much "infertility" as it was "she wouldn't give me sons. And he had to create a whole new religion to do it.

Which is made amusing by the fact that it's the father's genes, not the mother's that determines the gender of the child.

Which points out the other obvious fallacy. We could not, until reasonably recently, even determine who was, and was not, infertile. And in those situations in which failure to produce children could result in dissolution of the marriage, socially that had far less to do with a religious perspective, and more to do with failure of the woman to "do her duty" and produce offspring. Which made it entirely a growth of the feudal eras, which hardly encompasses the width and breath of human history.

So, because history demonstrates humanity's ability to blindly hate one another for reasons that are utterly asinine, we must continue down that path?

I would hope not.

The terminology refers to the legal rights.

This is like saying, "I like cake. I just don't like it to be called cake."

I dont' call it cake. I call it sweet bread. lol

Oh really? Do please explain exactly how the functions of "husband" and "wife" are so very different from each other. This sounds fun.
I've got popcorn. *shares*

I've got popcorn. *shares*

*munches* :)

I dont' call it cake. I call it sweet bread. lol
Sweetbreads? Organs? That's gross, unless you make them into pies. So, you're into pie, eh? Deviant.

By the way, the clock is ticking on that research you have been asked to do. I hope you're googling while making shallow, flippant remarks here. You have until tomorrow evening to pull your data together.

*munches* :)

*snuggles between Mur and Poli and grabs some popcorn*

*snuggles between Mur and Poli and grabs some popcorn*
Snuggling! *runs and gets fuzzy slippers and extra fluffy robe**

(*which I don't actually own, but I like the image)

I dont' call it cake. I call it sweet bread. lol

For tens of thousands of years in Western history it's been called cake. By threatening to change this definition you are threatening the very foundations of society!

Snuggling! *runs and gets fuzzy slippers and extra fluffy robe**

(*which I don't actually own, but I like the image)

Woo, NSG slumber party! *brings teddy bear*

Oh, this is easy.

One has to have a penis, and the other has to have a vagina.

Done.

=)

and here I thought you were going to say "one's Pitching and the other's Catching"

:p

except that its more like you are trying to make the chain into the front tire.so if you're counting the chain, then you support threesomes?
1 chain and 2 tires?

Woo, NSG slumber party! *brings teddy bear*

*hides outside the bushes*
*consults with LG and Dinaverg re: NSG panty raid*

and here I thought you were going to say "one's Pitching and the other's Catching"

:p

so if you're counting the chain, then you support threesomes?
1 chain and 2 tires?
Kinky. :p

*hides outside the bushes*
*consults with LG and Dinaverg re: NSG panty raid*

but, Poli doesn't wear pa---

I've said too much

but, Poli doesn't wear pa---


ahem... being that this is NSG...

provide proof. :mad:





pweese? :hail:

Woo, NSG slumber party! *brings teddy bear*

*plays with Poli's hair*

and here I thought you were going to say "one's Pitching and the other's Catching"

:p

so if you're counting the chain, then you support threesomes?
1 chain and 2 tires?

And the saddle, and the frame, and the handlebars, and the brakes. Kinky shit.

I can see that, by the time USoA comes back with his proof, this thread will no longer be interested in what he has to say about marriage. ;)

but, Poli doesn't wear pa---

I've said too much

I'll bow to your years of training in the matter. There's still Dem and.....well there's still Mur.......ah fuck.
I can see that, by the time USoA comes back with his proof, this thread will no longer be interested in what he has to say about marriage. ;)
We weren't interested in what he was saying, just in telling him he's wrong :tongue:

ahem... being that this is NSG...

provide proof. :mad:





pweese? :hail:

ehh, I don't think she'd appreciate it if I shared those pictures

Oh really? Do please explain exactly how the functions of "husband" and "wife" are so very different from each other. This sounds fun.

Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to create a family. You create a family by making babies.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=14382111

"The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for the union of same-sex couples also occurs during the Roman Empire. The term, however, was rarely associated with same-sex relationships, even though the relationships themselves were common.[17] In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared same-sex marriage to be illegal."

The whole western culture thing collapses. I have no interest in basing our laws off of religious texts.

"There was no state involvement in marriage and personal status, with these issues being adjudicated in "the churches.

"Marriage typically requires consummation by sexual intercourse, and non-consummation (that is, failure or refusal to engage in sex) may be grounds for an annulment."

"In some cultures, marriage imposes an obligation on women to bear children. In northern Ghana, for example, payment of bridewealth signifies a woman's requirement to bear children, and women using birth control face substantial threats of physical abuse and reprisals"

Marriages by definition gives the following rights:

giving a husband/wife or his/her family control over a spouse’s sexual services
giving a husband/wife responsibility for a spouse’s debts.
giving a husband/wife visitation rights when his/her spouse is incarcerated or hospitalized.
giving a husband/wife control over his/her spouse’s affairs when the spouse is incapacitated.
establishing the second legal guardian of a parent’s child.
establishing a joint fund of property for the benefit of children.
establishing a relationship between the families of the spouses.

Marriage is an institution that is historically filled with restrictions. From age, to gender, to social status, restrictions are placed on marriage by society for reasons of passing on healthy genes,

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wife

wife: the female partner in a marriage.
husband: the male partner in a marriage.

For explanation for how the roles are different see above.

And the saddle, and the frame, and the handlebars, and the brakes. Kinky shit. It's sounding less like a threesome and more like B&D...

USoA is supporting this? :tongue:

I can see that, by the time USoA comes back with his proof, this thread will no longer be interested in what he has to say about marriage. ;)
Considering the purpose of the thread was not a definition of marriage, I think almost everyone is in agreement that those harrasing and threatening anyone (no matter the side of the issue) should be arrested and prosecuted...

I got some flicks for the slumber party... :D

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=14382111

you might want to check this link... ;)

Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to create a family. You create a family by making babies.

No, you don't. My husband and I are a family. We don't need to have babies to gain that label.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=14382111

For explanation for how the roles are different see above.

The roles listed (those that apply in legal marriage in the US, anyways) have the exact same rights for husband and wife. That is what is meant by using husband/wife and his/her, as well as the single term "spouses".

Of course, the idea that the joint property is necessarily for the benefit of children is ridiculous. If it were true, those without children wouldn't be able to share joint property.

Ladles and gentlespoons, word connotations change over time, especially in a language as polyglottal as English. But that doesn't matter in this case because the word doesn't need to be changed. The enforcement of the law as it pertains to the word needs to be extended to all citizens, period. I cannot see how that simple point is being missed. No re-definition is necessary.

The other reason the definition doesn't matter is because most definitions have more than one sense. Look up the word "set", for example. It's got the longest entry in the whole of any English dictionary.

The word "marriage" has several senses, each with a 1. or a 2. or a 3. in front of it, which confers legitimate connotation status to the word used in that sense. What does that mean? It means that IF a dictionary has "man and woman" as ONE of the senses of the definition, look to sense 2 or 3 or 4, and you'll see a legitimate connotation that does NOT include man and woman. Hell, in one sense, it refers to any combination of two things, as in the sentence "her work is a subtle marriage of art and science". Tell me -- which of art or science is male or female?

The principle in question here, for the Nth time, is NOT the definition of marriage. It is equal protection under the law. If you don't understand that, it's because you're trying not to.

If you don't understand that, it's because you're trying very hard not to, indeed.

Actually you do know that there were severe penalties for women who entered into marriage and couldn't have children? In some countries they were executed, but in most countries their marriages were annulled.
So, women who were sterile, did not have a right to marry the man of their dreams.

No, I don't know that. And neither do you. Why do I say that? Because you've yet to post anything remotely resembling a link to any kind of source for that generalization you're trying to pass off as a "fact". Your entire set of arguments in this thread have been "it has been this way forever", when it simply hasn't. You've been refuted dozens of times. You've tried to "LOL" your way out of the direct fire of solid rebuttals of every claim and generalization you've made, and not responded to a single one.

You're a fraud or a troll, and your posts are doing a disservice to both labels.

We are talking about western culture here. If you want to live in African culture, move to Africa.

Wait -- aren't you the one trying to bring up things that have happened in the past regarding marriage? Dude, if you want to live in the past, move to the past.

But if you are in America, you have to abide by western concepts of what marriage is which has always been one man and one woman.

Except that it hasn't "always" been anything of the sort, as has been shown repeatedly. Remember, one of your initial claims was "a hundred thousand years". Y'know, before humanity formed civilizations? Anything you posted after that was to be taken with more salt than California political ads.

Actually it has. Daughers were transferred to men just for the express purpose of creating children. The creation of children has always been the driving factor behind marriage. The conflict today is whether to keep that defintion or adopt a new one.

If you had actually read up on this topic, like, AT ALL, you'd know this is untrue. Marriages were often made to shore up political/national/royal alliances. Kids were a bonus, 'cause there was always someone else to inherit the throne if the couple didn't conceive.

Legal protections?? Depends on what country or state you are living in. In most, it is still about being able to rear children. In a lot of countries, if a woman can't bear a child, her marriage can annulled so her partner can find a woman who can bear a child.

You have yet to name a single one of these supposed countries. Until then, this argument smells worse than Madonna's crotch after the encore.

I would like to know what it is that gays think they are being protected from?

Discrimination. Or haven't you been reading the thread?

Gay marriage is not going to protect them from people hating on them.

Nor does straight marriage prevent people from hating those couples. What is your point?

It's not going to stop lynchings or harrassment. Equal protection means the law must protect the lives of everyone equally.

I find it hilarious that you can cite equal protection and still not know it means for all, and in regard to all legal institutions. Guess what that includes?

It does not mean that just because Homeboy has a white house that everyone else has to have a white house also.

I don't see the analogy you're trying to make with that statement. How does one group of people seeking the same rights everyone else has in any way comparable to what color one's house is?

Just because Tom works at Taco Bell, it does not mean that everyone has right to that same job at Taco Bell.

What? Of course they do. If they meet the job requirements and successfully interview, they have a right to the same job. It won't be Tom's job because -- wait for it -- Tom is already in that spot. How is this in any way relevant?

The difference being that interracial couples of opposing genders can make babies. Gay and Lesbian couples can't.

So you've missed the last 40 or so years, have you? Infertile couples have been benefitting from this thing called reproductive science. In vitro fertilization, sperm or egg donors. In fact, Julie Cypher and her celebrity musician lesbian partner Melissa Etheridge had sperm donated and Julie produced a child. How about that? I think it's pretty damned cool. Thing is, that procedure is used with hetero couples too! Ain't it neat? I think so.

Now you can make a case for adoption the effects of which we don't know because people are ignorant to allow it.

Wait -- did you just say that people are ignorant to allow adoption? 'Cause you just pissed off a whole lot of adopted kids and their adoptive parents if you did. Please clarify this, if only for your own personal safety.

Notice your own words. "Can now"

The fact is that legally yes they can because of privacy rights.

Privacy rights? Infertile women marrying has NOTHING WHATSOEVER to do with privacy! Have you ever SEEN a marriage license? There's nothing about fertility on it at all! I worked at a County Auditor's office from 1998-2001. I gave out hundreds of marriage licenses. All it took was $52, an oath and signatures. They had to wait three days, and then the license was good for 30 more days after that. Two witnesses and the officiant had to sign it, and it had to be returned to the Auditor's Office to be recorded. Boom. Married. Nothing about privacy or fertility.

Your arguments are weaker than Emo Phillips' biceps.

But in reality no they can't. If a guy wants kids, and the gal can't have children. Guess what? He's not going to marry. He's going to marry a woman who can have kids.

Holy crap. You're just gonna keep slinging generalizations until you tire out, aren't you? My own sister and brother were both married to people who didn't want kids, and they don't want kids. You simply have no idea what you're talking about. You're saying things that you WISH were true, but really, really aren't. You're gonna have to get over that. It doesn't play well in reality.

I'm not against changing the definition of marriage.

Good. 'Cause nobody's talking about it 'cause that's not what needs to happen. How many times does that make? 20? 25?

I just want there to be consensus when it happens. Right now, both sides feel to strongly for that consensus to happen. We might have to wait a little longer. Remember people kepts saying there will never be a black President in our lifetime. That was until Obama came around.

Irrelevant, seeing has how the law has been okay with Black people in office since at least Reconstruction. Now, that's de jure. De facto, was a bit different.

Voting and property rights are not the same as marriage. Marriage is more akin to employment packages. A CEO gets 4 million a year worth of compensation while the head of small business gets 50,000 worth. They both do the same job but they don't get the same rights because their roles in their relationships are much different.

And this is relevant how?

Gay is a sexual orientation, not a gender.

Ah, but without gender, the preference would be moot, wouldn't it?

Marriages between infertile couples, for most of human history, have been subject to annullment.

AGAIN, WHERE? WHEN? WHO? HOW? Have you got ANY source for this bit of utter bat guano?

I'm glad to see you recognize that not everyone who voted for 8 is a bigot.

Nope, just many of them.

Dominant cultures matter in that they explain why people vote the way they do or why support some causes and not others. Western cultures is very biased against gays, traditionally.

Execept some of Europe, where they don't really care. Thailand, where they solve the problem (apparently) by being cool with their men becoming women either transvestitially or via surgery, and many other places.

Dominant cultures can be wrong, man. It's just that simple. If the dominant culture does something or believes something that's wrong, guess what? It's still wrong. Your benighted faith in the power of popularity is frightening.

Only in recent years have infertile couples gained a right to marry but then that has never been tested or challenged. I would imagine if it was, it would have to be along lines similar to that used against gay marriage.

FOR THE LAST TIME, BULLSHIT. Unless you can prove this, your constant repetition of it won't make it true. It makes you look incredibly ignorant and foolish. At the same time, yet.

Why does it take marriage for people to have such rights? If you want to file joint taxes with someone, you should not be required to marry them. If you want to leave them your belongings. you should not be required to marry them.

When you get married, certain legal rights are automatically conferred upon you. Couples in committed relationships that are not legally recognized, such as same-sex marriages, do not automatically obtain these rights and privileges, so it is incumbent upon them to seek legal advice in order to ensure the same benefits.

Some of these goals can be accomplished through documents such as life insurance policies, wills, and powers of attorney, but others, like health insurance benefits for domestic partners, may or may not be available, depending on where you live.

The following list highlights those legal rights and benefits that arise automatically in legally recognized marriages, some of which may possibly be obtained through other legal mechanisms for other couples.

- Spousal immunity, which provides that spouses cannot be compelled to testify as to confidential communications between them, under certain circumstances
- Right to adopt children as a couple
- Right to joint custody of children after divorce
- Inheritance rights
- Joint property ownership rights
- Immigration rights, including expedited U.S. citizenship for spouses of U.S. citizens and limited protection from deportation for noncitizen spouses
- Medical decision-making power in the event of one spouse’s incapacity
- Right to share group health care insurance benefits
- Right to share pension benefits
- Right to social security benefits after spouse’s death or disability
- Right to file joint income tax returns
- Right to claim family partnership tax benefits under federal tax laws, which allow division of business income among family members
- Right to claim estate tax marital deduction
- Right to compensation for the wrongful death or injury of a spouse caused by the negligence of another

...and many more.

The fact that these rights are AUTOMATICALLY CONFERRED by marriage for MOST COUPLES, but NOT for gay couples means that a RIGHT is granted UNEQUALLY.

The fact that gay couples have to go through a LAWYER or MANY OTHER MEANS to get each of those rights individually means that SOME people are NOT EQUAL to others. That does NOT jibe with the Constitution.

At long last, can you not see this?

I'm not sure of how it is the same choice. In marriage you have a husband and you have a wife. The wife is always a female and the husband is always a male. How do you have husband and wife in gay marriages?

*facepalm*

Why did I waste my effort? If you were going to float THIS turd of an argument....

Unless you can find a way to show how banning gay marriage deprives you of the right to vote, hold property, or any other federal right.

Um. The right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the U.S. Constitution. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1), 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

Also, the right to equal protection under the law extends to everyone regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

That is two rights banning same-sex marriage violates.

Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to create a family.

And you would deny gays and lesbians this right, based on your personal notions of "marry" and "family"--despite the fact that same-sex couples certainly are capable of marrying and/or forming a family.

ehh, I don't think she'd appreciate it if I shared those pictures
The needs of the many outweigh the needs of you. :tongue:
Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to create a family." You create a family by making babies.
Learn to close your quotes.

Also, examine that sentence closer. Does it state that people may only marry for the purpose of creating a family? No. It says they have the right to marry and the right to create a family. Further, does it say that men may only marry women and vice versa? Not quite. It says that "Men and women....have the right to marry and to create a family". The sentence is ambiguous.

And, unfortunately, the Declaration of Human Rights has no actual legal standing.

was typically may In some cultures
Some key words from those quotes. We're not interested in what marraige was, or may be, or is in other places. What's relevant is what marriage is now; a right enjoyed almost exclusively by opposite sex couples for no better reason than people think gays are icky.
Marriages by definition gives the following rights:
By whose definition? In what jurisdiction?

giving a husband/wife or his/her family control over a spouse’s sexual services
So my family has a say in who my (hypothetical)wife fucks? Like hell they do. Shit, I don't even have control over who my wife fucks. I have no right to stop her from having consentual sex with anyone. I could probably use it as grounds for a divorce, but that's not the same thing.
giving a husband/wife responsibility for a spouse’s debts.
giving a husband/wife visitation rights when his/her spouse is incarcerated or hospitalized.
giving a husband/wife control over his/her spouse’s affairs when the spouse is incapacitated.
establishing the second legal guardian of a parent’s child.
establishing a joint fund of property for the benefit of children.
establishing a relationship between the families of the spouses.
Explain how none of these things could happen with two husbands or two wives.

Marriage is an institution that is historically filled with restrictions. From age, to gender, to social status, restrictions are placed on marriage by society for reasons of passing on healthy genes,
Where did you copy/paste this from? And why should we care what marriage has been historically?

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wife

wife: the female partner in a marriage.
husband: the male partner in a marriage.
Does not preclude there being two wives in a marriage or two husbands, nor should it matter if it did. Words change.

For explanation for how the roles are different see above.

Your explanation is lacking.

I have always supported having the same legal rights. Its the terminology that is the sticker.

Except that it isn't. You've been shown why and how NUMEROUS times. You're just being deliberately obtuse, putting your fingers in your ears nad saying "la la la, I can't hear you!" Effective, if childish.

I dont' call it cake. I call it sweet bread. lol

Equally childish. We've been posting legitimate rebukes of your less-than-legitimate sweeping generalizations, and you come back with even weaker jokes?

For tens of thousands of years in Western history it's been called cake. By threatening to change this definition you are threatening the very foundations of society!

Now THAT's a joke. Good one, T.

Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to create a family. You create a family by making babies.

That doesn't say that same sex couples can't marry. It says hetero couples can. It's granting language, not exclusionary language. You've not shown anything.

However, I find it delightfully ironic that with this bit:

"The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for the union of same-sex couples also occurs during the Roman Empire. The term, however, was rarely associated with same-sex relationships, even though the relationships themselves were common.[17] In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared same-sex marriage to be illegal."

The whole western culture thing collapses. I have no interest in basing our laws off of religious texts.

...you effectively show us that, not long after the Roman Empire banned same-sex marriages, IT COLLAPSED.

I think you should be very careful about what you're defending here. It doesn't bode well for the Californian Empire.

"There was no state involvement in marriage and personal status, with these issues being adjudicated in the churches."

Which supports our side, since the state began issuing licenses, and the law of the US demands equal access and equal protection under that law. Thanks!

"Marriage typically requires consummation by sexual intercourse, and non-consummation (that is, failure or refusal to engage in sex) may be grounds for an annulment."

Emphasis added. "Typically" =/= "always", which is what YOU HAVE BEEN CLAIMING. Again, you damn yourself with your own "proof".

"In some cultures, marriage imposes an obligation on women to bear children. In northern Ghana, for example, payment of bridewealth signifies a woman's requirement to bear children, and women using birth control face substantial threats of physical abuse and reprisals"

Again, emphasis added. SOME is not ALL, which is what YOU HAVE BEEN CLAIMING.

Your arguments are an asbestos stock pot full of a cold stew made from generalization, assumption, willful ignorance and fail.

Um. The right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the U.S. Constitution. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1), 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

Also, the right to equal protection under the law extends to everyone regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

That is two rights banning same-sex marriage violates.



And you would deny gays and lesbians this right, based on your personal notions of "marry" and "family"--despite the fact that same-sex couples certainly are capable of marrying and/or forming a family.
TCT, TG. :tongue:

I'm not sure of how it is the same choice. In marriage you have a husband and you have a wife. The wife is always a female and the husband is always a male. How do you have husband and wife in gay marriages?

By using the word "spouses". It achieves the same thing and is gender neutral.

Of course... you could be obtuse like my he-wife and I and make up your own titles. I'm the she-husband and he's the he-wife. Fun with English!

Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights declares that "Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to create a family. You create a family by making babies.
False. You create a family by getting married and establishing that other people are members of the group you just created. Such members can include in-laws as well as adopted children.

Also, you do know that gay people can and do make babies, right?

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=14382111

"The first recorded use of the word "marriage" for the union of same-sex couples also occurs during the Roman Empire. The term, however, was rarely associated with same-sex relationships, even though the relationships themselves were common.[17] In the year 342, the Christian emperors Constantius and Constans declared same-sex marriage to be illegal."
I see, so although the Romans DID use the word "marriage" for same-sex couples, since not a lot of gay couples got "married," you're going to decide that means that the institution of marriage has always been defined as a man and a woman, and screw the historical example you, yourself, cited?

Also, thank you for proving that western culture has changed its mind about this issue several times, in direct contradiction of your earlier claims of continuity of cultural tradition.

The whole western culture thing collapses. I have no interest in basing our laws off of religious texts.

"There was no state involvement in marriage and personal status, with these issues being adjudicated in "the churches.
Who are you talking to here? Without proper quoting, these sentences make no sense.

"Marriage typically requires consummation by sexual intercourse, and non-consummation (that is, failure or refusal to engage in sex) may be grounds for an annulment."
And who are you quoting here? Also, lack of sex and lack of children are two different things. You claimed that lack of children would annul a marriage, but your quote says that lack of sex can be grounds for annulment. Infertile people can have sex. So being available to each other for sex is the requirement, not the production of babies. You fail again.

"In some cultures, marriage imposes an obligation on women to bear children. In northern Ghana, for example, payment of bridewealth signifies a woman's requirement to bear children, and women using birth control face substantial threats of physical abuse and reprisals"
If you want to live by Africa's standards, go live in Africa. Who was it who said that? Oh, right, it was you.

Also, one (questionable because not properly cited) example does not support your assertions that this has been the norm everywhere and especially in western culture for most of human history. You fail again.

Marriages by definition gives the following rights:

giving a husband/wife or his/her family control over a spouse’s sexual services
giving a husband/wife responsibility for a spouse’s debts.
giving a husband/wife visitation rights when his/her spouse is incarcerated or hospitalized.
giving a husband/wife control over his/her spouse’s affairs when the spouse is incapacitated.
establishing the second legal guardian of a parent’s child.
establishing a joint fund of property for the benefit of children.
establishing a relationship between the families of the spouses.
All of which can be done by same-sex spouses as easily as by opposite-sex spouses. What was your point in bringing this up?

Marriage is an institution that is historically filled with restrictions. From age, to gender, to social status, restrictions are placed on marriage by society for reasons of passing on healthy genes,
More bullshit. I demand a source that states this to be a fact.

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/wife

wife: the female partner in a marriage.
husband: the male partner in a marriage.
Merriam-Webster:

spouse : married person : husband , wife

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/spouse

For explanation for how the roles are different see above.
*sees above* I see that the roles are actually not different at all.

Thanks for clearing that up. How you doing on that list of countries? (Lonely little Ghana does not constitute a list all by itself.)

Good grief, people, I go to dinner and this thread turns into a discussion of my underwear (which I do, for the record, wear)? You all are HOPELESS. :p

Good grief, people, I go to dinner and this thread turns into a discussion of my underwear (which I do, for the record, wear)? You all are HOPELESS. :p

Which is why Ifreann was nice enough to make this thread: http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=579162

Good grief, people, I go to dinner and this thread turns into a discussion of my underwear (which I do, for the record, wear)? You all are HOPELESS. :p

Who do you expect us to believe? A baby eating liberal or a wealthy lawyer?

Not necessarily. There is a challenge in the courts pertaining to whether or not the subject matter had to be a revision, rather than an amendment.



Well that's smart. If she had left him for another guy, would he be campaigning against opposite-sex marriage?

There is a question whether gays should be allowed to adopt children, whether they are
married or not.

Actually, even in hetero marriages, the illegal immigrant spouse can still be deported
at the whim of the government.

Um. The right to marry is a fundamental right protected by the U.S. Constitution. See, e.g., Loving v. Virginia (http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=388&invol=1), 388 U.S. 1 (1967)

Also, the right to equal protection under the law extends to everyone regardless of gender or sexual orientation.

That is two rights banning same-sex marriage violates.



And you would deny gays and lesbians this right, based on your personal notions of "marry" and "family"--despite the fact that same-sex couples certainly are capable of marrying and/or forming a family.

Can a woman marry her cat?
Can a man marry his dog?
Do they not have a right to get married and form a family????
After all, they love each other.

Who do you expect us to believe? A baby eating liberal or a wealthy lawyer?

But...but...the wealthy lawyer is also a baby-eating liberal!

Plus, much as NA might wish otherwise, I still have somewhat greater access to my ass than he does, and can verify that I am indeed wearing underpants. They are blue. So there. :tongue:

Can a woman marry her cat?
Can a man marry his dog?
Do they not have a right to get married and form a family????
After all, they love each other.
Animals can't consent. Adult humans can.
But...but...the wealthy lawyer is also a baby-eating liberal!
:eek2: ONPOSSIBLE!

Plus, much as NA might wish otherwise, I still have somewhat greater access to my ass than he does, and can verify that I am indeed wearing underpants. They are blue. So there. :tongue:

STOP RUINING THINGS FOR ME :(

Can a woman marry her cat?
Can a man marry his dog?
Do they not have a right to get married and form a family????
After all, they love each other.

........I think the discussion of my underpants may actually be more relevant and intelligent than this post.

........I think the discussion of my underpants may actually be more relevant and intelligent than this post.

I know which one I prefer :)

"A reason for annulment is called an diriment impediment to the marriage"

Diriment impediments include:

Consanguinity (how closely related two people are by blood)
Insanity precluding ability to consent
Not intending, when marrying, to remain faithful to the spouse
One partner had been deceived by the other in order to obtain consent,
Abduction of a person, with the intent to compel them to marry
Failure to adhere to requirements of canon law for marriages
the couple killed the spouse of one of them in order to be free to marry
the couple committed adultery

The cause of action for annulment in New York State is generally fraud.
Fraud generally means the intentional deception of the Plaintiff by the Defendant in order to induce the Plaintiff to marry

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

In New Jersey the include impotency. A person whose spouse is impotent, has grounds for annullment. If you are impotent, you can't produce children.

http://www.divorcecenterofnj.com/pages/divorce_faqs/articles/annulment_faqs.html

In the Muslim world, a man can get an annullment if his wife fails to produce children. Particularly, male children. This is particularly true in the middle eastern countries such as Syria.

In 2003, the Syrian High Court ruled that a man could divorce his wife simply by texting her "I divorce you. I divorce. I divorce you."
However it doesn't count if said while drunk or ill.



http://books.google.com/books?id=pPOxqGFOOA8C&pg=PA171&lpg=PA171&dq=is+failure+to+produce+children+a+reason+for+annulment&source=web&ots=wqV3pwWQXp&sig=CXTyov2DpYSD_OeCzqhsC5dekrU&hl=en&sa=X&oi=book_result&resnum=7&ct=result

Animals can't consent. Adult humans can.

:eek2: ONPOSSIBLE!



STOP RUINING THINGS FOR ME :(

But of course they can. They have just as much rights as you and me.
If we can marry, then so can they.

But of course they can.

No, they can't.

They have just as much rights as you and me.

No, they don't.

I wonder though, if people realize how offensive that argument is. "gee, if we let gays marry, why not let people marry dogs, or sheep, or children, or computer desks! ITS ENTIRELY THE SAME THING!"

...are you fucking shitting me? Really?

There is a question whether gays should be allowed to adopt children, whether they are
married or not.
And that question is exclusively asked by homophobic bigots who would rather see children be abused and neglected in state systems than live in a safe and stable home environment with responsible caregivers, just so they can feed their egos by being assholes about gays.

Actually, even in hetero marriages, the illegal immigrant spouse can still be deported
at the whim of the government.
Another unsupported claim, and even if it turns out to be true once you are done properly researching it (and please do it properly this time), it is completely irrelevant because violating immigration laws is illegal, whereas being gay is not. Comparing gayness to crime = fail.

Also, the legal status of a spouse and the government's action against that spouse in regard to that status has precisely fuck-all to do with questions of whether a given person could be a good parent or not, as well as fuck-all to do with issues of adoption. More fail.

Can a woman marry her cat?
Can a man marry his dog?
Do they not have a right to get married and form a family????
After all, they love each other.
Bullshit, as well as an insultingly shallow response. Animals cannot give consent to bind themselves by contract to another, therefore, animals cannot marry under US law. In case you forgot in your globe-hopping trip to nowhere, we are discussing laws in the USA. (I believe that, for religious purposes, humans sometimes ceremonially "marry" animals in some polytheistic countries, such as India, but I do not believe those marriages are legal -- as in legally binding on the parties as recognized by the government. But it doesn't matter because we are talking about the US.)

"A reason for annulment is called an diriment impediment to the marriage"

Diriment impediments include:

Consanguinity (how closely related two people are by blood)
Insanity precluding ability to consent
Not intending, when marrying, to remain faithful to the spouse
One partner had been deceived by the other in order to obtain consent,
Abduction of a person, with the intent to compel them to marry
Failure to adhere to requirements of canon law for marriages
the couple killed the spouse of one of them in order to be free to marry
the couple committed adultery

The cause of action for annulment in New York State is generally fraud.
Fraud generally means the intentional deception of the Plaintiff by the Defendant in order to induce the Plaintiff to marry

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Annulment
None of that has anything to do with gayness. Irrelevance is not helping you argument.

In New Jersey the include impotency. A person whose spouse is impotent, has grounds for annullment. If you are impotent, you can't produce children.

http://www.divorcecenterofnj.com/pages/divorce_faqs/articles/annulment_faqs.html
Gayness =/= impotence. I told you once already, gay people can and do make babies. Therefore, although a person may be able to get an annulment in New Jersey if they want to have children and it turns out their spouse cannot give them one, that does not in any way suggest that having babies is a requirement of marriage. You fail again -- unless you have information that shows that, in New Jersey, any marriage will automatically be annulled by the state if it comes to light that the male spouse is impotent. Do you have such information?

Also, as mentioned before, gay people can and do make babies, so the impotence thing could just as easily apply to same sex couples as to hetero couples. You fail again.

In the Muslim world, a man can get an annullment if his wife fails to produce children. Particularly, male children. This is particularly true in the middle eastern countries such as Syria.

In 2003, the Syrian High Court ruled that a man could divorce his wife simply by texting her "I divorce you. I divorce. I divorce you."
However it doesn't count if said while drunk or ill.
Sexist desire for a particular kind of child in two countries =/= a norm throughout all of human history for penalizing women for not producing babies in marriage. Also the ease with which a woman can be divorced in some countries has nothing whatsoever to do with anything. Do try to stay on topic.

But of course they can. They have just as much rights as you and me.
If we can marry, then so can they.
Bullshit. Prove to me that animals can give consent. Show me an animal's signature on a marriage license and signature on an oath of free act document showing that they gave consent to be bound by the agreement by their own will and in full understanding of what they were doing.

Alternatively, show me video of a wedding in which the animal spouse answers "I do" to the recited questions of the officiant. I'll wait while you sort through youtube.

No, they can't.



No, they don't.

I wonder though, if people realize how offensive that argument is. "gee, if we let gays marry, why not let people marry dogs, or sheep, or children, or computer desks! ITS ENTIRELY THE SAME THING!"

...are you fucking shitting me? Really?
Standard operating procedure. They make all their comparative examples insults but never admit it, so they can deny it when called on it. They compare homosexuality to bestiality, to pedophilia, to other sex crimes, to murder, theft, fraud, etc, but as long as they never actually SAY "homosexuality is a crime and a perversion", they think they can get away with it.

Can a woman marry her cat?
Can a man marry his dog?
Do they not have a right to get married and form a family????
After all, they love each other.

Christ I was wondering if that would show up.

If we allow the gays to marry then we will allow people to marry their pets, farm animals, corpses.....

:rolleyes:

No, they can't.



No, they don't.

I wonder though, if people realize how offensive that argument is. "gee, if we let gays marry, why not let people marry dogs, or sheep, or children, or computer desks! ITS ENTIRELY THE SAME THING!"

...are you fucking shitting me? Really?

Are you saying that Leona Helmsly had no right to marry her dog? The only person on the planet she cared for? The only person she wanted to, and did, leave all her belongings to? Are you saying she does not have the right to do that?

Are you saying that Leona Helmsly had no right to marry her dog? The only person on the planet she cared for? The only person she wanted to, and did, leave all her belongings to? Are you saying she does not have the right to do that?

...yes, yes I am.

And that question is exclusively asked by homophobic bigots who would rather see children be abused and neglected in state systems than live in a safe and stable home environment with responsible caregivers, just so they can feed their egos by being assholes about gays.


Another unsupported claim, and even if it turns out to be true once you are done properly researching it (and please do it properly this time), it is completely irrelevant because violating immigration laws is illegal, whereas being gay is not. Comparing gayness to crime = fail.

Also, the legal status of a spouse and the government's action against that spouse in regard to that status has precisely fuck-all to do with questions of whether a given person could be a good parent or not, as well as fuck-all to do with issues of adoption. More fail.


Bullshit, as well as an insultingly shallow response. Animals cannot give consent to bind themselves by contract to another, therefore, animals cannot marry under US law. In case you forgot in your globe-hopping trip to nowhere, we are discussing laws in the USA. (I believe that, for religious purposes, humans sometimes ceremonially "marry" animals in some polytheistic countries, such as India, but I do not believe those marriages are legal -- as in legally binding on the parties as recognized by the government. But it doesn't matter because we are talking about the US.)


None of that has anything to do with gayness. Irrelevance is not helping you argument.


Gayness =/= impotence. I told you once already, gay people can and do make babies. Therefore, although a person may be able to get an annulment in New Jersey if they want to have children and it turns out their spouse cannot give them one, that does not in any way suggest that having babies is a requirement of marriage. You fail again -- unless you have information that shows that, in New Jersey, any marriage will automatically be annulled by the state if it comes to light that the male spouse is impotent. Do you have such information?

Also, as mentioned before, gay people can and do make babies, so the impotence thing could just as easily apply to same sex couples as to hetero couples. You fail again.


Sexist desire for a particular kind of child in two countries =/= a norm throughout all of human history for penalizing women for not producing babies in marriage. Also the ease with which a woman can be divorced in some countries has nothing whatsoever to do with anything. Do try to stay on topic.


Bullshit. Prove to me that animals can give consent. Show me an animal's signature on a marriage license and signature on an oath of free act document showing that they gave consent to be bound by the agreement by their own will and in full understanding of what they were doing.

Alternatively, show me video of a wedding in which the animal spouse answers "I do" to the recited questions of the officiant. I'll wait while you sort through youtube.

PETA would probably disagree with you. Animals have just as much rights as people. After all, people are animals too. I forget which country, but one west european country ruled that apes do have the same rights as humans. \

Are you saying that Leona Helmsly had no right to marry her dog? The only person on the planet she cared for? The only person she wanted to, and did, leave all her belongings to? Are you saying she does not have the right to do that?

...yes, yes I am.
I'll get in on this action and say it, too. And I'll up the ante by demanding again, as in my previous post, any evidence otherwise from USoA, since he's the one claiming that people have the legal right marry animals. Since marriage requires both parties to consent in order to be legal, I expect that proof to come in the form of documented evidence that animals have consented to be married.

PETA would probably disagree with you. Animals have just as much rights as people.

Irrelevent what PETA thinks. Animals under the law currently do not have the same rights as people. Are there farms out there where we milk and kill humans for consumption? If there were, do you think they would be legal?

I'll get in on this action and say it, too. And I'll up the ante by demanding again, as in my previous post, any evidence otherwise from USoA, since he's the one claiming that people have the legal right marry animals. Since marriage requires both parties to consent in order to be legal, I expect that proof to come in the form of documented evidence that animals have consented to be married.

Or that the law even allows animals to "consent".

...yes, yes I am.

Well that was simple.

Irrelevent what PETA thinks. Animals under the law currently do not have the same rights as people. Are there farms out there where we milk and kill humans for consumption? If there were, do you think they would be legal?

are you asking?

Like...seriously asking? Because, if you are...I got a place you could go...

PETA would probably disagree with you. Animals have just as much rights as people. After all, people are animals too. I forget which country, but one west european country ruled that apes do have the same rights as humans. \
I hope you don't play dodgeball, because you suck at dodging. I stated my argument clearly and told you exactly what kind of proof in support of your claims I would accept. Put up or shut up.

are you asking?

Like...seriously asking? Because, if you are...I got a place you could go...
I think he was asking if our mutual friend thought such farms would be legal if animals shared the same legal rights as humans in our society.

I think he was asking if our mutual friend thought such farms would be legal if animals shared the same legal rights as humans in our society.

no, really? Because I was totally going to give him the address of a farm I know where the milk people, and where that totally happens.

no, really? Because I was totally going to give him the address of a farm I know where the milk people, and where that totally happens.

Hey, you've built a certain reputation here. Maybe people just figured that if anyone would know where the farm where one milks tied-up women is, it'd be you. :tongue:

no, really? Because I was totally going to give him the address of a farm I know where the milk people, and where that totally happens.

Mmmm....people milk.

No, seriously, I just got your joke. Maybe Im dimmer than I thought :p

no, really? Because I was totally going to give him the address of a farm I know where the milk people, and where that totally happens.
I think those kinds of links are against the forum rules. :p

oh wait. The austrian autistic court threw out the case. But supporters of Chimp rights will fight on.

http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/monkeywire/2002-April/000194.html

Chimps share 99% of the DNA of humans. That alone should be enough for them to be considered persons.

"At any moment, however, Simba could be yanked from this home provided
by the Primate Foundation of Arizona and sent to a laboratory as a
subject for medical research.

It sounds as if he could use a lawyer. More and more legal reformers
think so."

What right do you to say that Simba is not a person? What right does anyone have to deprive Simba of rights??

"The advocates of granting legal standing to chimps have gained
support from constitutional scholar Laurence Tribe, a Harvard Law
School professor. Mr. Tribe argues that the leap isn't as great as it
might appear: Courts recognize corporations as juristic, or legal,
"persons"; that is, they enjoy and are subject to legal rights and
duties.

"The whole status of animals as things is what needs to be
rethought," says Mr. Tribe. "Nonhuman animals certainly can be given
standing."

In legal terms, animals are "things," that is, they don't possess
rights on their own. The push is to extend the legal definition of
"persons" to Pan troglodytes, the species closest to man."

THis is a valid movement.
Chimps are people too.



http://www.vgt.at/presse/news/2008/news20080115_en.php

"All the courts have successfully evaded the central question, whether a chimp should be considered a thing or rather a person. We have supplied 4 scientific expert statements, which univocally state that chimps indeed are persons according to the law as it stands today."

"Legal expert Mag. Eberhart Theuer, who supported the application, will appeal to the European Court of Human Rights: „The way this verdict was reached, denied Hiasl a fair trial"

Back to the first link:

"animals are more like our children than our property. It isn't just the 98.7% of DNA
the two species have in common. Like Homo sapiens, chimps have
complex social interactions, use tools and teach their offspring
distinctive cultural traits. With sign language, some chimps seem to
be able to communicate"

""If a human four-year-old has what it takes for legal personhood,
then a chimpanzee should be able to be a legal person in terms of
legal rights," Mr. Wise says."

But Mr. Tribe says there's no need for constitutional protections on
that score. The 13th Amendment already forbids slavery. Mr. Tribe
notes that nowhere does it state that only humans are covered; the
status itself is forbidden, he argues. Likewise, the Eighth Amendment
bars cruel and unusual punishment. Legal standing for chimpanzees
could make it easier, not harder, for courts to balance conflicting
interests, he says.

I stand by what I say that animals have the same rights as people.

Hey, you've built a certain reputation here. Maybe people just figured that if anyone would know where the farm where one milks tied-up women is, it'd be you. :tongue:

that...um...that's a little too messed up even for me.

oh wait.

Shhh, this thread isn't about you anymore. It's about where we can find tied up women getting milked.

....did I just fucking say that?

no, really? Because I was totally going to give him the address of a farm I know where the milk people, and where that totally happens.

The Mustang Ranch is not a farm!

:tongue:

that...um...that's a little too messed up even for me.

Well, yes, I know that. I think I would have noticed if there'd been milking machines there when I stopped by your place. :p

Shhh, this thread isn't about you anymore. It's about where we can find tied up women getting milked.

....did I just fucking say that?

Ah, NSG. I love how we can go from gay marriage rights to THIS all in the space of a few pages. :D

I stand by what I say that animals have the same rights as people.
Well, if that's your final word, then I guess it's official. You're a troll.

At least, having realized that there was no way you could ever hope to salvage anything from the wreckage of your ridiculous arguments, you fell back on trolling in a sad attempt to keep the spotlight focused on you. However, as Neo Art says:

Shhh, this thread isn't about you anymore. It's about where we can find tied up women getting milked.

....did I just fucking say that?
And you put it in writing, too. :D

Mmmm....people milk.

No, seriously, I just got your joke. Maybe Im dimmer than I thought :p

Actually there is a place in Western Europe where they do milk human women and they use it in their soups and stuff.

I think those kinds of links are against the forum rules. :p

Oh dude. That's evil. WHat I just walk into???? :eek:

And just to kill NA's buzz, I'd like to point out that I know exactly where you can find women being milked and though they are not tied up, they are wearing -- and being milked through/around -- rather restricting clothing.

That place is the women's restroom of any office where women who recently gave birth happen to be working. They're constantly going to the bathroom with their portable milking machines during the work day.

Poli's rather disappointing reference to Neo not having milking machines in his house reminded me of it.

Also, for USoA's sake, I have no evidence whatsoever that those formerly pregnant, currently milkful women were married -- or heterosexual.

Actually there is a place in Western Europe where they do milk human women and they use it in their soups and stuff.

Er, not so much. They pay pregnant women for their breastmilk at one particular restaurant, which is a wee bit different than people-farms.

...seriously, this may be the weirdest threadjack in NSG history.

And just to kill NA's buzz, I'd like to point out that I know exactly where you can find women being milked and though they are not tied up, they are wearing -- and being milked through/around -- rather restricting clothing.

That place is the women's restroom of any office where women who recently gave birth happen to be working. They're constantly going to the bathroom with their portable milking machines during the work day.

No, seriously, that's not actually hot.

Poli's rather disappointing reference to Neo not having milking machines in his house reminded me of it.

Wait, the absence of such disappoints you? Well...I mean, if you're really into it...

Poli's rather disappointing reference to Neo not having milking machines in his house reminded me of it.

Disappointing? Well, if it makes you feel better, I suppose he might have had one hidden somewhere. I didn't check the closets. :p

No doubt this will devolve into another Prop. 8 debate, but I have several thoughts about this matter distinct from the Prop. 8 merits.

1. Campaign finance laws are neutral and should be enforced. Period.

2. Although boycotts and protests of donors are to be expected (and in my view encouraged regarding Prop. 8 supports), threats, harassment, violence, etc. are not acceptable and should be roundly condemned.

3. The convience of asking to be exempt from campaign finance laws at a time when donors to Prop. 8 are being investigated for violating those laws is more than a bit suspicious.

What thoughts do you have, NSG?

*ignores the rest of the thread*

Agreed on points 1 and 3 and on point 2 isn't threatening and harassing people against the law? Couldn't they just call the police?

No, seriously, that's not actually hot.
I find it rather disconcerting when I go in those places just to take a pee or touch up my lipstick. In some offices, at some times, it's like they're running a dairy farm on the side. In all seriousness, I'd rather they just brought their infants to work and breast fed them at their desks. They'd at least still seem human.

Wait, the absence of such disappoints you? Well...I mean, if you're really into it...
I miss the blackmail photos I could have set up. :(

I miss the blackmail photos I could have set up. :(

pft, that presumes I have any shame.

pft, that presumes I have any shame.
Hm...that's right...damn.

I find it rather disconcerting when I go in those places just to take a pee or touch up my lipstick. In some offices, at some times, it's like they're running a dairy farm on the side. In all seriousness, I'd rather they just brought their infants to work and breast fed them at their desks. They'd at least still seem human.
You can't really blame the mothers for the current situation though. I would have loved to take my infant to work with me..... those machines aren't fun or comfortable.

Um, ok.

Let's assume USoA, for the sake of your argument, that animals have EXACTLY the same rights as humans.

Well, that's doesn't mean my cat, or dog, or the chimp in the zoo can give consent. It's a lot like a credit card: you can't get one until you're 18 in because you can't legally be bound by anything. Not only can animals literally not SIGN A PIECE OF PAPER (or give verbal/signing consent) but they don't have the mental faculties to enter into a legally binding agreement. No chimp or gorilla or primate comes even close to the complexity of an 18 year old human. Or even 16 year old, if they get their parents' consent.
(NOTE: all ages based on New York State, may vary by location, but priciple is the same. Primate intelligence rarely reaches beyond toddler/very early childhood, which while still granting them rights, does not allow them to be functioning parts of human society.)

End of story with cats/animals/corpses/inanimate objects/thoughts/ideas/anything other than a consenting adult human intellect displaying person.

New concern-
Might this open the door for incest? Perhaps. Reasons against incest are biological, yes, but if a couple agreed not to have children (or to adopt, or whatever) could a brother and sister get married? (Ex: Australian couple, brother and sister, separated at birth, met each other, fell in love, and had their marriage annulled when they and the government discovered the relation.)

A sidenote is that states aren't forced to recognize other states' marriages, and don't even try to say that isn't true. Also; getting marriage rights in places you AREN'T considered to be legally married costs exorbitant amounts of money (hiring lawyers for hours on ends, legal battles for spousal health benefits) compared to a 52 dollar piece of paper that gives heterosexual couples the same rights.

And hey, I'd like it if sometime in my lifetime, if I could marry the man I fall in love with and have it be recognized. It'd be just swell.

[edit: addressing the person I'm speaking to.]

You can't really blame the mothers for the current situation though. I would have loved to take my infant to work with me..... those machines aren't fun or comfortable.
I blame the employers because by creating a situation in which normal human needs -- like infant feeding -- must be pushed into the background in an unnatural way, rather than acknowledged and accepted, they finally succeed in literally treating women like cattle.

I blame the employers because by creating a situation in which normal human needs -- like infant feeding -- must be pushed into the background in an unnatural way, rather than acknowledged and accepted, they finally succeed in literally treating women like cattle.

I always pumped in my office. Told the boss unless she wanted to prepare her lunch in the can....I was gonna keep doing it.

I got fired, but meh, more time to play with the baby. :p

i think compromise can be reached. protect the identities of smaller donors of say less then 5,000 dollars. report those who donated over 5,000

Can a woman marry her cat?
Can a man marry his dog?
Do they not have a right to get married and form a family????
After all, they love each other.

Let's assume for the sake of argument that this isn't a non sequitur, isn't a patently offensive comparison, isn't obviously distinguishable on copious grounds including ability to consent, etc, etc....

What exactly would be the harm to you or anyone else if I was married to one of my cats?

Hmmm....

i think compromise can be reached. protect the identities of smaller donors of say less then 5,000 dollars. report those who donated over 5,000

Why make a special exemption in the existing law for Prop. 8 supporters?

The current cut-off is $100. That is a generally applicable, neutral law.

Can a woman marry her cat?
Can a man marry his dog?
Do they not have a right to get married and form a family????
After all, they love each other.

Cats are not humans.

Dogs are not humans.

Homosexuals are humans. So they have things like, you know, human rights.

Unlike, you know, how dogs and cats aren't. Because dogs and cats aren't human.

*sigh*

Let's assume for the sake of argument that this isn't a non sequitur, isn't a patently offensive comparison, isn't obviously distinguishable on copious grounds including ability to consent, etc, etc....

What exactly would be the harm to you or anyone else if I was married to one of my cats?

Hmmm....
Admit it, you've already had her try on the dress.

Cats are not humans.

Dogs are not humans.

Homosexuals are humans. So they have things like, you know, human rights.

Unlike, you know, how dogs and cats aren't. Because dogs and cats aren't human.

*sigh*

Some homosexuals are not humans. Some homosexuals are bears.

I know all about it. I was hosting Steven Baldwin's Extreme Teen Pray the Gay Away Homosexual-Insanity Faith Healing Fest and Precious Metals Brokering Home Business Seminar, and this guy told me how he used to be gay, and he used to have sex with bears, and go to bear bars to have sex with bears.

But then he found Jesus at a Reclamation Ministries soul saving event. Now he's straight and most hangs around with other reformed gays at Reclamation Ministries. In fact, last I heard, he moved in with Mark, the pastor.