California gay marriage ban gaining steam

[Pint0 Xtreme]

So, fuck off and die, you worthless little cumstain. You have no argument, and you're just voting the way you are because the thought of a cock thrusting back and forth in your ass and making your own cock hard from the stimulation to your prostate is scaring the hell out of you.

For the record, I'm voting the other way, but the thought of a cock up my ass scares me too. Especially if it was there all of a sudden, without warning me.

Don't knock it until you try it! In all seriousness, regardless of party affiliation, I'm sincerely appreciative of any ally that can help us fight this thing. Whether you're Republican or Democrat, voting to treat any group different is just plain wrong.

[Nieztchean Uber-Amoeba]

So, this thread to about an hour and a half to bloom from 1 to 4 pages. Dog-piles are fun! I mean, I don't want to be a backseat moderator, but I think it only takes 2 or 3 people at a time to argue with Kodiak to accomplish the smackdown.

[Kodiak]

So, this thread to about an hour and a half to bloom from 1 to 4 pages. Dog-piles are fun! I mean, I don't want to be a backseat moderator, but I think it only takes 2 or 3 people at a time to argue with Kodiak to accomplish the smackdown.

I'd be in favor of taking this to a colliseum debate, since I'm fairly limited in my time to respond to a dog-pile. I do like the "thread updated" button, as it lets me see what's been posted, but in the time it take me to answer to a single length post 8-10 more replies come up.

[Darth Wong]

I live in California, and I'm voting "Yes" on prop 8.

Is that primarily because you're an asshole and you hate gay people, or is it primarily because you're an imbecile and you buy into the boatload of laughably fallacious arguments in favour of banning gay marriage, such as "sanctity of marriage" or "marriage is for procreation" or "only ideal parents should marry" or "marriage is a Christian institution"?

Wow, so many reasons how can I choose?

I didn't include traditionalism because it's so nakedly and obviously morally bankrupt in light of the other horrors of traditionalism, hence it belongs more in the first category, of simply being an asshole. Apparently, that's the option you chose.

In 2001 Californians voted overwhelmingly to define marriage in civil law as being between a man and a woman. Within their reach of power, the state supreme court overturned that ruling as "unconstitutional", and now those persons are back to vote the same measure into law via an amendment to the state constitution.

Ah. Appeal to popularity fallacy.

I don't hate gays at all.

You've got a funny way of showing it.

I don't think they should be denied any of the rights that they enjoy under California state law, which are equivalent to married couples. I repeat, proposition 8 does not diminish in any way the rights of same-sex couples, but defines what marriage is.

It says they are legally different from everyone else, and must be given a special category because they must not sully the standard category with their disgusting presence. What do you think this "let them marry but call it something else" idea is? How is it different from making them wear pink armbands? Should we vote on the pink armband amendment, arguing that it doesn't matter because they still technically have all their rights? Every single time they're asked for their marital status, they would be forced to declare that no, they are not like everyone else.

I believe that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman, regardless of their religion.

"I believe" is not a valid argument for putting the force of law into an idea.

Marriage was an institution of Jewish law and part of dozens of cultures long before the Christian era.

Do you care to discuss exactly what kind of marriage those primitives believed in? Because it bears almost no resemblance to what we have today, regardless of sexual orientation.

I support the "traditional" definition of marriage because I believe it's correct.

So you treat your wife as property then?

[Terralthra]

So, this thread to about an hour and a half to bloom from 1 to 4 pages. Dog-piles are fun! I mean, I don't want to be a backseat moderator, but I think it only takes 2 or 3 people at a time to argue with Kodiak to accomplish the smackdown.

I'd be in favor of taking this to a colliseum debate, since I'm fairly limited in my time to respond to a dog-pile. I do like the "thread updated" button, as it lets me see what's been posted, but in the time it take me to answer to a single length post 8-10 more replies come up.

I'll accept this Coliseum challenge.

Although I'll probably have to fight off scores of others for the privilege.

[Covenant]

It's a subject that, almost more than any other common one I can think of, provokes an instant and immediete reaction in people. I was ready to drop my own condemnation as well, but I scaled back when I refreshed the page and found two extra pages had appeared while I was writing it. It's not really a dogpile--I mean, well, maybe it is. But I'd define a dogpile as wounded, nearly-dead opponent whom everyone else leaps on at the end. Someone who is still pretty sure in their shoes about where they stand is still a viable target.

Obviously though, I'm against this nonsense, but I'm in Illinois. I'm not gay or bi, but I know a lot of people who do, and it's a big step from simply saying "What people call marriage isn't a matter for the state" to saying "...so we're going to define marriage as something you can't do." A civil union is fine, but once you've defined marriage as something only for straight people you've made a de-facto stand on the issue. It's not a non-stance, it's a stand against, in opposition, in defiance. Maybe California shouldn't have baited the issue, but really, Prop 8 is fucking trash. If the state wants to create it's own Secular Marriage and let gay people scribble out "civil union" and write in "marriage" then what the hell are people whining about? If you want traditional marriage, go to a Church and get married traditionally. Gay marriage should offend some Church-going son of a bitch no more than Hindu marriage.

[Darth Wong]

Gay marriage should offend some Church-going son of a bitch no more than Hindu marriage.

To the fundies, it's about "tarnishing the institution" of marriage. Of course, if one judges an institution by the moral fibre of the people in it, then marriage has already been tarnished far more than it could possibly be by the inclusion of homosexuals.

The real reason is a gut-level one: fundies feel that marriage is sort of an exclusive club: a last bastion where heteros can join and keep the homos out. Sure, the club admits felons, drunkards, junkies, murderers, rapists, and even lawyers, but as long as they keep the gays out, then it stands for something. Specifically, it stands for "no gays".

[GrandMasterTerwynn]

So, this thread to about an hour and a half to bloom from 1 to 4 pages. Dog-piles are fun! I mean, I don't want to be a backseat moderator, but I think it only takes 2 or 3 people at a time to argue with Kodiak to accomplish the smackdown.

I'd be in favor of taking this to a colliseum debate, since I'm fairly limited in my time to respond to a dog-pile. I do like the "thread updated" button, as it lets me see what's been posted, but in the time it take me to answer to a single length post 8-10 more replies come up.

I'll accept this Coliseum challenge.

Although I'll probably have to fight off scores of others for the privilege.

Some Coliseum debate this would be. On one side, you have loads of evidence which shows that letting the homosexual people marry really isn't all that bad, and won't cause society to instantly unravel at the seams. No more than the thought of letting black men marry white women, or Catholics marrying Jews. On the other side, you have an enormous appeal to tradition based in deeply rooted bigotry whose seed is a 2000 year old system of belief which is only remarkably enlightened by the standards of Bronze Age tribesmen. It would be a lot like a fight between my cat, and her bowl of cat food.

[Covenant]

Some Coliseum debate this would be. On one side, you have loads of evidence which shows that letting the homosexual people marry really isn't all that bad, and won't cause society to instantly unravel at the seams. No more than the thought of letting black men marry white women, or Catholics marrying Jews. On the other side, you have an enormous appeal to tradition based in deeply rooted bigotry whose seed is a 2000 year old system of belief which is only remarkably enlightened by the standards of Bronze Age tribesmen. It would be a lot like a fight between my cat, and her bowl of cat food.

At least the Foodamentalists wouldn't be able to claim that they didn't get a fair, one-on-one chance to debate their point of view against the Catheists and the other Catfood Progressives. It is probably a foregone conclusion, this is hardly a heavy-hitter style of debate. An appeal to tradition isn't something you can go to war on.

[Alyrium Denryle]

So, this thread to about an hour and a half to bloom from 1 to 4 pages. Dog-piles are fun! I mean, I don't want to be a backseat moderator, but I think it only takes 2 or 3 people at a time to argue with Kodiak to accomplish the smackdown.

I'd be in favor of taking this to a colliseum debate, since I'm fairly limited in my time to respond to a dog-pile. I do like the "thread updated" button, as it lets me see what's been posted, but in the time it take me to answer to a single length post 8-10 more replies come up.

I am coming in here late. but I will take you on.

[TithonusSyndrome]

So both sides are in no shortage of candidates to argue, and there's nothing implying anyone has commitments that would keep them from proceeding with entering into the Coliseum as planned. Unless I missed something here, then can we please move this one forward and get it underway post-haste? The Coliseum has been inactive far too long for my liking.

[Alyrium Denryle]

So, this thread to about an hour and a half to bloom from 1 to 4 pages. Dog-piles are fun! I mean, I don't want to be a backseat moderator, but I think it only takes 2 or 3 people at a time to argue with Kodiak to accomplish the smackdown.

I'd be in favor of taking this to a colliseum debate, since I'm fairly limited in my time to respond to a dog-pile. I do like the "thread updated" button, as it lets me see what's been posted, but in the time it take me to answer to a single length post 8-10 more replies come up.

I'll accept this Coliseum challenge.

Although I'll probably have to fight off scores of others for the privilege.

I know gay marriage issues like the back of my hand (actually working on a huge reply to this thread right now...) and this is deeply deeply personal.

[Kamakazie Sith]

I'm curious to what the topic for debate will be? Kodiak has pretty much already admitted that his position is one of unequality. So, what's left?

[Gil Hamilton]

This seems like a truly stupid debate. Marriage is a legal contract between two people with a defined set of rights, benefits, and legal ramifications. Saying that marriage is a traditional institution is a red herring, because they aren't voting on that. They are voting on whether or not two people of the same sex can enter into this particular legal contract or not.

Peoples beliefs about any religious implications have nothing to do with the issue. Even if you have particular beliefs regarding what marriage is religiously, that is not part of the law and isn't affected by whether or not gay people can be married under the law.

In light of that, Kodiak's position on the issue seems rather silly. Proposition 8 bans the legal definition of marriage, which is what he's voting for. It has nothing to do with the "traditional"* marriage, as he calls it. This doesn't effect that. People are free to believe whatever they want. However, that stops when it leans on other citizens in an attempt to make them second class..

(*which is silly, since for most of history, marriage was practically a business relationship where women were considered a net minus due to the fact that her family had to pay a dowry. As someone who supports "traditional" marriage, I'm sure his wife's parents paid his parents a sum of money/land/products and the woman herself is a baby factory aiming to produce a man heir *cough cough*)

[Terralthra]

I know gay marriage issues like the back of my hand (actually working on a huge reply to this thread right now...) and this is deeply deeply personal.

That's part of what I'm concerned about, to be frank. When you're personally involved in a debate, you sometimes get a bit irrational.

[Graeme Dice]

Absolute lie and propaganda dissemated by people who want to ban gay marriage. No church would be forced to perform a gay marriage.

Even if it's not a lie, I fail to see the problem with that. It could only lead to fewer churches, which is an unquestionably good thing. Religion is, after all, little more than an evil influence on society.

[Darth Yoshi]

The problem is that most people don't agree that religion is bad, and so threatening the Sanctity of Church™ gets their panties in a bunch.

[Alyrium Denryle]

I know gay marriage issues like the back of my hand (actually working on a huge reply to this thread right now...) and this is deeply deeply personal.

That's part of what I'm concerned about, to be frank. When you're personally involved in a debate, you sometimes get a bit irrational.

Not me...

I dont have to get irrational to win.

I live in California, and I'm voting "Yes" on prop 8.

Well first of all. Fuck you, right in the ear.

I don't think they should be denied any of the rights that they enjoy under California state law, which are equivalent to married couples.

Except that they are not, which is why gay people brought the matter in front of the supreme court in the first place. Civil unions and domestic partnerships do not actually provide the same benefits as marriage, both from a functional or social standpoint (see Brown v. Board of Education)

I repeat, proposition 8 does not diminish in any way the rights of same-sex couples, but defines what marriage is.

Except that it does, you lying or ignorant (take your pick) sack of shit. Additionally creating a legal term that is separate from marriage denotes that I am in a separate and therefore inferior social class.

By saying that I should not be able to get married you are essentially telling me that I am inferior and not worthy of real marriage, but because you wish to patronize me you will give me the same benefits (even though in reality civil unions do not create those same benefits, only some of them and unlike marriage do not transfer from state to state should prior to the blatantly unconstitutional Defense of Marriage Act of 1996)

I believe that marriage should be defined as between a man and a woman, regardless of their religion.

Why? Because you want to impose your religious views on everyone else? What about people who's concept, religious or civil does not actually specify or care? Even christian churches such as the metropolitan community church, or church of christ, or the unitarians. What about them?

Marriage was an institution of Jewish law and part of dozens of cultures long before the Christian era.

No... marriage has been a part of pretty much every culture the world has ever seen and has included a lot of variation. But so long as you are on the judeo-christian track...

The traditional marriage you refer to was also an arranged marriage that basically made women into property. But of course you conveniently forget that. Just because something is traditional does not make it correct. Is there some objective standard by which you are making this judgement other than wanking about a false caricature of

Forgive me for not listing every single culture that recognizes an institution of marriage

You dont get to say that marriage is specifically a hebrew thing, and respond this way when challenged. Sorry. Doesnt work like that.

If same-sex couples already enjoy the same rights that married couples have

We dont

then I can only conclude that their desire to have marriage defined in their favor is so that they can feel an acceptance and assurance that what they're doing is condoned by society at large. I don't condone changing the definition of marriage and if that makes me in favor of inequality then so be it.

Heaven forbid we want to be socially equal and thus not second class citizens. Fuck you. Also, you have yet to actually justify

No, it doesn't.

Why should a civil and legal ceremony then, be constrained by the same religious strictures as a marriage at your church?

As you said, it's a symbolic preference on my part and I don't believe that defining marriage as between a man and a woman does anything to reduce anyone's constitutional rights or demote their welfare.

Except for the brown v board of education thing.

What do these people and their traditional symbolism matter? They can keep it. They can keep their religious ceremony and their feelings of superiority. I dont give a shit. They can rationalize my marriage away as being something secular and thus inferior. But when it comes to the state officially sanctioning that bigotry, that is another matter, because the state shouldnt care, because we have this thing called a constitution and a 14th amendment

Since you can't have a religious marriage without a civil recognition they're connected in that respect.

Actually, you can. You can get married in a church and never have that marriage recognized by the state and vice versa.

I don't hate gay people, but I also don't condone homosexuality.

How does that make any sense? What exactly do you find objectionable about being gay?

I don't approve of Gay marriage but I support full rights as domestic partners and would vote against any law to reduce those rights.

And prop 8 would do just that because domestic partnerships in CA do not provide equivalent legal protections

[CaptainChewbacca]

And prop 8 would do just that because domestic partnerships in CA do not provide equivalent legal protections

I asked this earlier; what protections are present in a marriage contract in California that aren't present in civil unions?

[Alyrium Denryle]

Well that was interesting... sentences got...deleted somehow...

Here are the fixed sentences.


No... marriage has been a part of pretty much every culture the world has ever seen and has included a lot of variation. But so long as you are on the judeo-christian track...

The traditional marriage you refer to was also an arranged marriage that basically made women into property. But of course you conveniently forget that. Just because something is traditional does not make it correct. Is there some objective standard by which you are making this judgement other than wanking about a false caricature of history.


Heaven forbid we want to be socially equal and thus not second class citizens. Fuck you. Also, you have yet to actually justify the idea that the traditional marriage is correct.

[RIPP_n_WIPE]

Wow he's doing worse that I did on my racism vs homophobia thread.

I don't really have anything to say other than that I used to think to think in a similar vein as Kodiak until I realized that I really was being bigoted. "It works for me" only pertains to things that affect you and your kin who are under your supervision and who you are responsible for. If you want marriage to be known as a male-female union let that be your churches definition. For the purpose of law and to make sure people are treated the same and are not discriminated against.

[Alyrium Denryle]

And prop 8 would do just that because domestic partnerships in CA do not provide equivalent legal protections

I asked this earlier; what protections are present in a marriage contract in California that aren't present in civil unions?

Mostly federal benefits, CA law is better than other states, but until actual marriage is recognized by the state, no federal benefits will ever be granted.

[Stark]

I asked this earlier; what protections are present in a marriage contract in California that aren't present in civil unions?

This logic is awesome. Be happy with your discriminatory exclusion from the club of a concept as old as human civilisation! The name's not important, which is why it's so important to keep YOU GAY PEOPLE out of it!

[Alyrium Denryle]

I asked this earlier; what protections are present in a marriage contract in California that aren't present in civil unions?

This logic is awesome. Be happy with your discriminatory exclusion from the club of a concept as old as human civilisation! The name's not important, which is why it's so important to keep YOU GAY PEOPLE out of it!

Well, he is actually on our side, just asking.

I did forget to mention... Domestic partnerships are also not valid outside the state in question...ever. Gay marriages are a bit iffy because of DOMA, but Civil Unions.. if I were to get in a car crash in nevada my partner would have no visitation rights...

[Stark]

I'm aware of his attitude in this thread, which is why I used the phrase 'this logic'. You'll note this logic is also used by Kodiak, thus making it relevant.