California Legalizes Gay Marriage

[Crystallion]

Chris Lionheart, not to be rude, but do yourself a favor and just get out of this thread. If your goal is to spout unneeded hatred and look pathetic doing so, then I suggest on thinking it over again, and this time, please use logic. Kthxbai!

 

[Lucrece]

OK, let's be consistent with the tone of the ruling and refrain from (in)directly attacking each other.

 

[Crystallion]

Sorry, didn't want to come off as POd right now, this is prolly NOT the best evening I ever had. BUT, I don't want to take back anything I said after all.

 

[darkatma]

Oh I'm sorry.. I didn't realize that having an actual anti- opionion was A BAD THING. Apparently this is a one-sided discussion. Apparently logic need not apply.

I generally stay out of these debates, though. I find that if anybody is arguing against gay rights or homosexuals in general, then its not even worth arguing. They usually have closed-minded ideals that make no sense (see: Chris Lionheart's post) and no amount of logic will convince them of the truth. Not my sort of debate.

Thing is, your Anti-"opionion" and logic are mutually exclusive. I don't get what there is against gay marriage really. Any politically based arguments are weak as hell, and religious arguments do not pertain to civil rights and freedoms.

Oh, and the pope must be an idiot =[

 

[~Krystal~]

Good for California. I couldn't applaud the ruling more.

I have a question regarding the benefits married heterosexual couples recieve. Are most of them entirely dependent on the possibility the couple will produce children?

 

[OffTheChain]

While I am really neither for or against gay marriage I do think this is a step in the right direction, though I imagine it will take awhile for the rest of the states to get with the program.

Also this may actually improve the divorce laws pertaining to non-homosexual marriage.

For example, divorce laws in the Western Lands favor the women. Who is to favor in a male/male coupling? Both are divorced with neither receiving alimony or other benefits from the other is the ruling.

Now, let us say a male/female coupling occurs. No children. If the male is forced by the court to pay alimony, a skillful attorney can argue that it is not fair if their client has to pay alimony to his former wife if the ruling of a same sex divorce in a similar situation did not have to.

 

[SamuraiPanda]

Oh I'm sorry.. I didn't realize that having an actual anti- opionion was A BAD THING. Apparently this is a one-sided discussion. Apparently logic need not apply.

Of all the people who countered your points with actual logic, why would you quote/answer MY post, which specifically pointed out that I don't like debating people about this issue? Is it because you thought you found a weakness you could attack or something? Apparently logic need not apply, since you can't logically weasel your way into somehow winning this debate.

 

[Daysoo]

-big paragraphs of interesting things-

A'ight.

I also think that people should learn to distinguish between marriage on civil connotations, and marriage on religious connotations.

It'd certainly be nice.

Seriously, think about it: In the U.S, gay people could go from unrecognized, to civil union'd, to domestically partnered, to mutually committed. How would you feel if people juggled with your marriage and lowered its dignity and value by juggling with its titles. Would you like it if people called your wife/husband your "friend/partner"? That's infinitely insulting to me. Partner sounds so frivolous to me, like some business associate. Why do you feel entitled to degrade my special one by calling him something other than "husband", while reserving the title only for heterosexual males who get married?

Wouldn't really bother me, as long as I had the same rights. Rights first, semantic titles later. If we manage to get everything at once, that'd be ****ing awesome, but I won't get my hopes up for now. As it stands, America strikes me as far too scurred to give up the "M" word right now. :x

I often come to the conclusion that sometimes we gay people can be very dumb in terms of what we allow others to do to us.

lawl. Hope you aren't referring to me.

If priests and other people went trying to tell straight people that they are not worthy, or that they cannot have a family, or that they couldn't divorce, straight people would quickly give them the finger.

Straight, white America getting the shaft? That'll be the day. XD

It's all a matter of switching places and seeing how you would feel; spare us any inflated sense of entitlements; I'll be the first to tell bigots "you're not as special as you may think".

Har. Go get 'em.

OK, let's be consistent with the tone of the ruling and refrain from (in)directly attacking each other.

BOO LOIS YAY BEER. (And gay marriage legalization in California! <3)

 

[SirroMinus1]

Personally, I'm against gay marriage. I mean, I'm married myself, to a man (I'm a girl). That is still the majority of what the world does and finds acceptable.

your not the one getting married now are you.
this goes to all the people who is against gay marriage JUST MIND YOUR BUSSINESS it's none of you guys concern.

 

[SkylerOcon]

Good for California. Disregard that actually, screw California. They finally let homosexuals get married and we're still missing over 1,000 rights. Makes so much sense.

Regarding the debate that this has turned into, all I have to say is that while there are no good political arguments against gay marriage, there are plenty of religious ones. Many religions just don't like homosexuality.

Now then, I'm not saying that they're being horribly misguided and the bible argument against gay marriage made just about as much sense when we used the bible to justify slavery and the holocaust (no joke, look it up), but it's people's religion. If they truly believe that it's wrong, let them think that.

The only time that they should have a right to trample on the beliefs of others, however, is never. Gay marriage doesn't affect them in any way shape or form.

 

[Zero Beat]

Gay rights are a ******** idea. Homosexuals are human beings, and thus deserve equal human rights. I don't know why this is so hard to comprehend.

 

[Daysoo]

Gay rights are a ******** idea. Homosexuals are human beings, and thus deserve equal human rights. I don't know why this is so hard to comprehend.

I'm stealing that. <3

 

[Villi]

While I am really neither for or against gay marriage I do think this is a step in the right direction, though I imagine it will take awhile for the rest of the states to get with the program.

Also this may actually improve the divorce laws pertaining to non-homosexual marriage.

For example, divorce laws in the Western Lands favor the women. Who is to favor in a male/male coupling? Both are divorced with neither receiving alimony or other benefits from the other is the ruling.

Now, let us say a male/female coupling occurs. No children. If the male is forced by the court to pay alimony, a skillful attorney can argue that it is not fair if their client has to pay alimony to his former wife if the ruling of a same sex divorce in a similar situation did not have to.

I think it's funny that you bring up divorce laws in a topic meant to celebrate marriage. xD

I don't really see how that example shows that gay marriage would improve divorce laws, though. Men and women are supposed to have equal rights. Although alimony is granted to a spouse for reasons that might be affected by gender (e.g., women are more likely to be incomeless housewives), it's those reasons and not one's gender that actually influences the decision.

 

[Livvers]

Oh I'm sorry.. I didn't realize that having an actual anti- opionion was A BAD THING. Apparently this is a one-sided discussion. Apparently logic need not apply.

You called it disgusting. That was when your opinion went from being the opposite of what others believe to instead being hateful.

I believe gay couples should be allowed to have the same rights as straight couples. Now, let's get away from the monetary rights gay couples don't have, and to the more personal, meaningful rights. For those in an extremely significant relationship, especially marriage, think about having these rights denied to you, and how hurtful and stressful it could be:

Hospital Visitation Rights - Married couples have the automatic right to visit each other in the hospital and make medical decisions. Same sex couples can be denied the right to visit a sick or injured partner in the hospital.

Same-sex couples have no automatic right to visit one another in the hospital or make medical decisions for one another. Having medical power of attorney documents may help, but there’s no guarantee and hospital will recognize those documents.

Family leave - Same-sex couples have no legally protected right to unpaid leave to care for an ill spouse.

Nursing homes - Same-sex couples have no legal right to live together in a nursing home and spend their final years together.

Read this(especially real people's accounts) http://www.republicoft.com/2006/08/06/what-rights-should-same-sex-couples-have/ , think of your significant other, and put yourself in their shoes. How awful would it feel to have to go through that just because the person whom you deeply loved was unable to get married to you?

 

[FishkeeperTimmay!]

All I can say from a Canadian perspective is;

Keep it up eh? ^^

Stereotypes aside, this is good thing. But seriously, if people can get married, then give the rights they are entitled to. Though, I'm a little confused. In Canada, so long as two people live togeather long enough, they are married in the legal sense of the word. We call it common-law marriages. It applies even if they are of the same sex.

How does common-law work down there? If people live togeather long enough, do they receive common-law marriage status, regardless of sex? Do you even HAVE common-law marriages? xD I'm so clueless to the American system.

Btw, anyone who thinks homosexuals shouldn't be allowed to marry is obviously basing their argument off emotional/religious grounds, which don't have any place when it comes to civil law. Whether they should be allowed to have kids is at least debatable.

 

[Mediocre]

How does common-law work down there? If people live togeather long enough, do they receive common-law marriage status, regardless of sex? Do you even HAVE common-law marriages?

Apparently, so am I.

I was just going to tell you, "no, we don't", when I realized I didn't really know that. Apparently, only eleven states allow common-law marriages, although all states will recognize the common-law marriages that took place in one of those eleven. It doesn't seem like it happens if you just live together for a long time - you have to apply for it.

Wikipedia is great for this sort of thing.

 

[Marie_54]

You two are both seriously stupid.

There is no indication that homosexuality is a choice, and to cite my favorite argument by Mediocre, if being gay is a choice, find someone of your sex attractive, right now. Find a man attractive, Chris. I cannot.

Secondly, what's the big to letting gay people have the same human rights as other humans? Children? Sterile couples don't get this much ****, and neither do extremely old couples. Both those instances show couples that cannot produce children, leaving the only possible argument-religion.

Here's something: Separation between Church and State. Marriage is a legal institution, and the state has no valid reason to bar people from marriage.

I agree with you 100%.

I pity those shallow people who can't accept people that are different from them.

If anyone is going to hell its them.

Anyways if people obeyed the Christian bible in everthing there would still be slavery, there was a segment (don't know if they took it out in new ones) that suggested fair prices for slavery... People need to think for themselves not believe what anyone wrote on paper, i believe in 500 years people will think Chuck Norris was really the new Jesus Christ and even the Jews will accept their new savior.

And i don't really believe in any religion, i make my own and i believe in justice and equal rights, people should find out what morals are right for themselves not fear and follow some papers another human wrote.

If you feel the need to have a religion to explain what happens when you die so be it but don't blindy follow it please...


and i hope no one tells me that i'm going to hell, i don't feel like laughing.

 

[Mokai]

Various thoughts swimming in my head this morning; let's start from the top and see what materializes. ^^;

Personally, I'm against gay marriage. I mean, I'm married myself, to a man (I'm a girl). That is still the majority of what the world does and finds acceptable.

I'm sickened by the whole thing... its disgusting.

Same sex couples should not have the right to marry. What they do is not something that they can't control (race or gender). They choose to violate the laws of nature and the human body. There are serious moral and religious issues behind it as well.

Frankly, no state should have the right to make such a decision. It should be a federal decision (and frankly I would be sickened by that to.) Why should any government have the right to meddle in something that has been good and natural since... idk the beginning of our country.

I'm sorry that the two of you see it that way, but thank you for being brave enough contributing with your opinions. :D The two of you went against the opinions of the magority of the forum to make your voices known and for that you got shot down repeatedly with insults.

Getting bashed just for sharing something about yourself stings, huh. You've generally done nothing to any of these people, none of them know who either of you -really- are and just look down on you for your faults. It doesn't feel very good, does it.

For a lot of us gays out there that's the very attitude we encounter on a daily basis. People don't know us. They don't know the simple, little things we do on a daily basis to make to make the people around us smile. They don't care if we give blood, if we donate money to school programs or if we're raising an adorable little kitten with love and affection. Instead we're despised for something as insignificant as being gay. In their eyes, nothing we do will ever be good enough to excuse the very fact that we have the atrocity to love one else of the same gender. I'm not going to go as far to say that the two of you are the same as these people, but can you explain why this is so?

The two of you probably encounter more gay and lesbian people on a daily basis than you're even aware of. What would you do if you were able to tell someone is strait or gay just be looking at them?

- If your child were gay would it make them any less your son?
- If you were saved from a burning building by a gay firefighter would you be any less thankful?
- If you needed a heart transplant and were given the heart of someone who was a homosexual would it make their sacrifice any less important for you?

All of these questions are things that you need to consider carefully. As Livvers quite nicely covered, there's a number of liberties that homosexuals can't have on the very basis of being unable to marry. I understand the the two of you hold your religious beliefs dearly, but you must understand that your way of thinking is doing more harm than good to people who have done nothing wrong to you. This isn't the first time it's happened either.

Did you know that anti-miscegenation laws in America were backed by religious rhetoric? Passages from the Bible including were used to justify the prohibition of interracial marriage. Today it's laughable to think that people believed a white person will go to hell for marrying a black person but that was the mindset of the day. Despite what some will tell you, the Bible should not be taken so literally. The Bible is a collection of stories; little life lessons that one can take with them into life to find happiness. It's when you begin to use these words as law to dictate and control others that any religion begins to cause more harm than good. If you need an example look no further than Islamic radicals. This is the difference between "good religion" and "bad religion", and it's worth it to be able to know the difference.

I can't force either of you to change your minds, nor word I if given the opportunity. I just hope you'll be willing to give what I've said some thought and perhaps consider opening yourself up a little more to learning about the variety life has to offer. The wonderful thing about humankind is all of the little quirks that set us apart from one another and make us unique. You'll never be able to force your own ideas and morals upon the rest of the world, but why would you when variety keeps life from getting dull?

No offense, but Catholicism is considered one of the weaker Christianity branches. Proof? I am a confirmed Catholic.

Catholics openly accept gays and do not persecute them, but any homosexual actions, which I still disagree with but it's a positive step.

"Real" Christians like Baptist, Protestants, etc are a bit harder to show how they are wrong because their beliefs are MUCH stronger.

I completely agree that Catholicism isn't as "hardcore" as other Christian branches but to say they openly accept gays is going just a bit far. The stance on homosexuality (As well as some other "hot button" issues such as abortion and the Iraq war) can literally be determined a church-to-church basis. The local church in my town holds strictly conservative views while the one a block off of the OSU campus is more on the liberal side. The tendency for a Catholic is to simply drift from church to church until they find one that matches their personal beliefs.

 

[Naybewon]

I'm proud of California, for the most part (concerning this decision)

I'm straight, but I fully support gay and lesbian marriages. As far as the "it's unnatural, other places don't allow it, etc" argument, there are several species of animals (horses, dolphins, giraffes, whales, hyenas, elephants, bears, bearded dragons, snakes, many kinds of monkeys and many kinds of birds, just to name a few) who openly participate in homosexual acts. There are also four countries in the world today (Canada, Netherlands, Belgium and Spain) which support and have legalized same-sex marriages.

I'm sad that California didn't grant the couples full rights though, especially social security benefits. But either way, it's a step in the right direction.

 

[Mugquomp]

I'm sad that California didn't grant the couples full rights though, especially social security benefits. But either way, it's a step in the right direction.

Well, if I'm not mistaken, the court's decision was regarding all of the rights at the state level afforded to a married couple. The rights that aren't recognized currently for same sex marriages are those rights that are afforded by the Federal government (which include social security benefits). And I'm pretty sure the California Supreme Court can't touch those, because that's not its jurisdiction. The barrier in that case is the Defense of Marriage Act. Although I'm not really sure marriage should be handled by the federal government in the first place. That seems more like something better left to the state's level.

 

[Naybewon]

I see. I wasn't aware they were granted all things at the state's level.

Thank you for correcting me

 

[.:~*Momo*~:.]

Wait... if we still lack the same rights that straight married couples do then... what's the point? @_@; ... I must be missing something...

 

[Kitten]

Momo, read Mugquomp's post. The benefits gay couples didn't gain were ones that California didn't have the legal power to give them. They did what they could, but for gay marriages to have the same benefits as straight marriages, gay marriage needs to be legalised at a federal level. I think.

 

[.:~*Momo*~:.]

Oh you mean the post that was just the 2nd from last before I decided to respond? Guess I shouldn't have skimmed the topic like I did. ^^; Well then... if they did what they could then I guess it's good... a step in the right direction at least.

 

[Lucrece]

Oh you mean the post that was just the 2nd from last before I decided to respond? Guess I shouldn't have skimmed the topic like I did. ^^; Well then... if they did what they could then I guess it's good... a step in the right direction at least.

And even then, the granting of the title is important, regardless whether we would get more benefits that straight couples currently enjoy or not.

If you care to investigate the case (there's a record of the argument hearings in the California Supreme Court's website; it's ~3 hours long, but it's fascinating), a large part of the argument was the social value and commentary the difference in naming created, and why different naming is still unequal treatment.

 

[Mic_128]

Whoops! Sorry, I should clarify. I didn't mean that he didn't have an opinion on gay marriage because he's Australian, but rather he doesn't particularly feel strong about the issue because it's an American issue. ^^;

Because we don't have gays in Australia?

Don't dare to claim that the word has religious connotations or origin. It was a communal institution before it was a religious one.

Thing is, a LOT of religions have claimed the word as a religious one. CK is fair to say that because a lot think of it more as a religious thing.

 

[Mokai]

Because we don't have gays in Australia?

No no no, that's not quite what I mean. XD Let my try one more time, third time may be a charm. >.>

Going back to my original message, all I meant was that an American law may not be all that appealing to a Austrailian resident. Y'all have your own sets of laws, politics and issues to deal with so it's understandable if you may not feel strongly one way or another about a political issue in another part of the world. Likewise, I may have no opinion on Section 165-55 of the Australian A New Tax System (Goods and Services) Act of 1999 since it I'm not a resident there.

Y'all have your own battles to fight, that's all that I meant. XD

... On an unrelated note, I love Australia. It may suffer from the curse of PAL but it still ranks high up there on places I'd love to live. <3

 

[PhillipthaGoober]

I'm against gay marriage and everything gay.

 

[SU_Remo]

I'm against gay marriage and everything gay.

Why?


10prejudicialchars

 

[Mokai]

Why?


10prejudicialchars

It's a trap!

 

[SkylerOcon]

I'm against gay marriage and everything gay.

For no good reason, no doubt.

 

[omfgomfg]

skyler, you are making an inference. there is some doubt. however, it is more likely that what you say is correct. unless Phil would like to prove this wrong?

 

[Marie_54]

I'm against gay marriage and everything gay.

Your display picture is so cute and adorable! The cloud guy just needs some rainbows.

 

[darkatma]

skyler, you are making an inference. there is some doubt. however, it is more likely that what you say is correct. unless Phil would like to prove this wrong?

i bet he was being sarcastic.

 

[BlackFoxPariah]

"You cannot legalize gay marriage because there is no such thing. Its like legalizing the square wheel. There is no such thing as that either. Marriage as a concept was created so as to give a name to an arrangement between a man and woman that has the potential to create the lives of the next generation of citizens. If sex between a man and a woman didnt create the next generation of citizens there would be no need for a word to describe their relationship since civilization would have no interest in it. We would just hook up with each other and when we got bored move on. Gay activists understand this and it explains the headlong plunge into gay adoption as an attempt to legitimize the oxymoron, Gay Marriage."

-Jim Quinn

Pretty much summarizes my thoughts.

 

[Ice Climbers P and N]

I'm against gay marriage and everything gay.

That's mean, you should get a beating for saying that. I infact am gay, and I'm going out with another guy right now.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

The gays are people too. They should be allowed to be miserable like everyone else.

 

[Ryuker]

"You cannot legalize gay marriage because there is no such thing. Its like legalizing the square wheel. There is no such thing as that either. Marriage as a concept was created so as to give a name to an arrangement between a man and woman that has the potential to create the lives of the next generation of citizens. If sex between a man and a woman didnt create the next generation of citizens there would be no need for a word to describe their relationship since civilization would have no interest in it. We would just hook up with each other and when we got bored move on. Gay activists understand this and it explains the headlong plunge into gay adoption as an attempt to legitimize the oxymoron, Gay Marriage."

-Jim Quinn

Pretty much summarizes my thoughts.

Man there is so much wrong with that text. First of all the square wheel doesn't have to be legalized, it's simply not that effective.
Marriage is a binding 2 people who want to spent the rest of their life together. That's all it is. Weither they have sexual intercourse or not isn't the issue. Weither they have children or not is completely besides the point. There's plenty of straight couples that don't have children. Would Jim Quinn consider those marriages invalid too :S? Hooking up and moving on when bored of each other sounds more like dating too me. And celebrities seem to get married and divorced all the time.

He's also stating gay couples can't have children. But I know plenty of gay mother that do and do a fine job rasing them as well. The same with male gay couples. There's more ways then having sex to get a baby. The only difference is they simply aren't attracted to the opposite sex.

He also seems to suggest that gay couples are now finding children through adaption in order to get married, while most gay couples try very hard to get children cause they do want to raise a family. They are just as much creating the next generation.

 

[Xsyven]

Let's be honest here-- marriage isn't just a love bond between two people anymore.

* The court's decision does not entitle same-sex couples in California to receive the federal rights and benefits extended to married couples. The so-called federal Defense of Marriage Act discriminates against same-sex married couples by denying them over 1,000 federal rights and benefits, including social security benefits, the ability to file a joint federal tax return, and the right to petition for a spouse to immigrate.

The only way to acheive these is through marriage. Therefore, gay marriage isn't as useless as a square wheel.

 

[Gamer4Fire]

Marriage is about combining legal power and authority. A spouse can make medical and legal decisions that a friend cannot. To deny homosexuals this civil liberty just because they are gay is baseless. There is no reason to deny it.