Gay marriage ban upheld in California

[Holmes]

Do you believe in consent? If it is people's prerogative to marry their sister ot 5 other people, then whatever.
I mean, a lot of states already totally allow you to marry your cousins. Geez.

Now that is really perverse.

Well, the ot was supposed to be an or.

Perverse or not, it's not your place to say what people can and can not do, imo. To me, marriage is a union between two people, but for someone else who believes something else, I'm not one to impose on him.

[MK]

Progressive liberals are delusional when it comes to our society.

[Joe Republic]

I guess since Winfield and MK cannot effectively counter the points that we've just made here, they know that their position is on fragile ground.

[Lincoln Republican]

I guess since Winfield and MK cannot effectively counter the points that we've just made here, they know that their position is on fragile ground.

Joe, make no mistake.

Real marriage is never on fragile ground.

Whatever else gay marriage does or does not do, it does not bear fruit.

[Alcon]

I guess since Winfield and MK cannot effectively counter the points that we've just made here, they know that their position is on fragile ground.

Does it help to picture Winfield as a press release with arms for typing?

[Holmes]

What is real marriage? If it's a completely religious thing, you'll be sad to know that a lot of churches and clergy marry same-sex couples, and some even don't perform marriages in protest to the goverment's non-recognition of those marriages.

If you're afraid of definitions, I regret to tell you that marriage has been redefined many times to include all religions(and atheists), races, and even the couple has become equal -- the woman used to be significantly younger than the man and used to be property. In fact, that's still the case in some places in the world, and trying to fix that injustice would be, according to you, wrongfully trying to define marriage for them.

It's like I said. Marriage is different for everyone.

[Joe Republic]

I guess since Winfield and MK cannot effectively counter the points that we've just made here, they know that their position is on fragile ground.

Joe, make no mistake.

Real marriage is never on fragile ground.

Whatever else gay marriage does or does not do, it does not bear fruit.

When in doubt, repeat the same arguments you've already had shot down before, but again with nothing to back it up.  Yours is possibly the worst debate technique I've ever seen.

I take it you've conceded the point that nobody has a right to tell people how to live their lives, provided that those people are consenting and not harming anybody.

And I have no idea what point you're trying to make about gay marriage not bearing fruit, because you know that infertile and elderly couples are still able to marry.  The ability to have children isn't even relevant here anyway!

[Lunar]

I guess since Winfield and MK cannot effectively counter the points that we've just made here, they know that their position is on fragile ground.

Joe, make no mistake.

Real marriage is never on fragile ground.

Except the first or second marriages of Rudy or Newt, etc.

[Lincoln Republican]

OK, let me explain.

One of the purposes of marriage is to bring children into the world, children who will have a father and a mother. 

Now, I realize that we are not living in an ideal world, at least not at this point in time. 

Therefore, obviously, all children born will not have a father and a mother to raise them and to love them.  Some are raised by gay couples, some are raised by single parents, some are raised by others.  That's just a fact of life in society.

But, all things considered, the most ideal situation for children born into this world would be for them to have a loving mother and a loving father, to nurture them, to teach them, to raise them, and to love them. 

Oh, I know, I know, everyone knows gay couples who are better parents than any heterosexual parents they know, blah, blah, blah.  We've heard it all before, so don't bother.

Like I said, we are not living in an ideal world.  Your point is well taken that not all married heterosexual couples will have children, obviously.  On the other hand, no homosexual couples, together, will have a child, ever.  Have, as in procreate.  Anyone want to dispute this?  Good luck.

Now, we all know some gay couples, a gay male couple or a gay female couple, will adopt, where eligible.  Some gay women will get pregnant, by natural means or artificially, and some gay men and gay women will bring a child from a previous relationship into their relationship with their gay partner.  This is how gay couples obtain children.  I do not believe in gay adoption, but whatever.

I agree, nobody has a right to tell people how to live their lives, however, the radical gay movement seems to like to tell the rest of the country how to redefine marriage. 

[War on Want]

OK, let me explain.

One of the purposes of marriage is to bring children into the world, children who will have a father and a mother. 

Now, I realize that we are not living in an ideal world, at least not at this point in time. 

Therefore, obviously, all children born will not have a father and a mother to raise them and to love them.  Some are raised by gay couples, some are raised by single parents, some are raised by others.  That's just a fact of life in society.

But, all things considered, the most ideal situation for children born into this world would be for them to have a loving mother and a loving father, to nurture them, to teach them, to raise them, and to love them. 

Oh, I know, I know, everyone knows gay couples who are better parents than any heterosexual parents they know, blah, blah, blah.  We've heard it all before, so don't bother.

Like I said, we are not living in an ideal world.  Your point is well taken that not all married heterosexual couples will have children, obviously.  On the other hand, no homosexual couples, together, will have a child, ever.  Have, as in procreate.  Anyone want to dispute this?  Good luck.

Now, we all know some gay couples, a gay male couple or a gay female couple, will adopt, where eligible.  Some gay women will get pregnant, by natural means or artificially, and some gay men and gay women will bring a child from a previous relationship into their relationship with their gay partner.  This is how gay couples obtain children.  I do not believe in gay adoption, but whatever.

I agree, nobody has a right to tell people how to live their lives, however, the radical gay movement seems to like to tell the rest of the country how to redefine marriage. 

Your point is...

[Lincoln Republican]

OK, let me explain.

One of the purposes of marriage is to bring children into the world, children who will have a father and a mother. 

Now, I realize that we are not living in an ideal world, at least not at this point in time. 

Therefore, obviously, all children born will not have a father and a mother to raise them and to love them.  Some are raised by gay couples, some are raised by single parents, some are raised by others.  That's just a fact of life in society.

But, all things considered, the most ideal situation for children born into this world would be for them to have a loving mother and a loving father, to nurture them, to teach them, to raise them, and to love them. 

Oh, I know, I know, everyone knows gay couples who are better parents than any heterosexual parents they know, blah, blah, blah.  We've heard it all before, so don't bother.

Like I said, we are not living in an ideal world.  Your point is well taken that not all married heterosexual couples will have children, obviously.  On the other hand, no homosexual couples, together, will have a child, ever.  Have, as in procreate.  Anyone want to dispute this?  Good luck.

Now, we all know some gay couples, a gay male couple or a gay female couple, will adopt, where eligible.  Some gay women will get pregnant, by natural means or artificially, and some gay men and gay women will bring a child from a previous relationship into their relationship with their gay partner.  This is how gay couples obtain children.  I do not believe in gay adoption, but whatever.

I agree, nobody has a right to tell people how to live their lives, however, the radical gay movement seems to like to tell the rest of the country how to redefine marriage. 

Your point is...

I thought it was pretty obvious.

[War on Want]

OK, let me explain.

One of the purposes of marriage is to bring children into the world, children who will have a father and a mother. 

Now, I realize that we are not living in an ideal world, at least not at this point in time. 

Therefore, obviously, all children born will not have a father and a mother to raise them and to love them.  Some are raised by gay couples, some are raised by single parents, some are raised by others.  That's just a fact of life in society.

But, all things considered, the most ideal situation for children born into this world would be for them to have a loving mother and a loving father, to nurture them, to teach them, to raise them, and to love them. 

Oh, I know, I know, everyone knows gay couples who are better parents than any heterosexual parents they know, blah, blah, blah.  We've heard it all before, so don't bother.

Like I said, we are not living in an ideal world.  Your point is well taken that not all married heterosexual couples will have children, obviously.  On the other hand, no homosexual couples, together, will have a child, ever.  Have, as in procreate.  Anyone want to dispute this?  Good luck.

Now, we all know some gay couples, a gay male couple or a gay female couple, will adopt, where eligible.  Some gay women will get pregnant, by natural means or artificially, and some gay men and gay women will bring a child from a previous relationship into their relationship with their gay partner.  This is how gay couples obtain children.  I do not believe in gay adoption, but whatever.

I agree, nobody has a right to tell people how to live their lives, however, the radical gay movement seems to like to tell the rest of the country how to redefine marriage. 

Your point is...

I thought it was pretty obvious.

No, not really. You just stated facts and then stupid opinions that seem very baseless. Marriage doesn't exist for procreation anymore. The times they are a changin.

[Magic 8-Ball]

OK, let me explain.

One of the purposes of marriage is to bring children into the world, children who will have a father and a mother.

Another is to commit yourself to someone you love. 

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Nor have we ever.  The institution early on was one of political and economic union as much as one of love.  Definitions evolve as times change.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Very good.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, ideally children should be raised by their biological parents in a loving environment.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Who ever said this?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

What if they try really, really hard?

So, should infertile heterosexuals be precluded from marriage as well?

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Okay.  This has little to do with why they can't marry, but whatever.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Marriage has, again, been redefined over time.

[Lincoln Republican]

OK, let me explain.

One of the purposes of marriage is to bring children into the world, children who will have a father and a mother. 

Now, I realize that we are not living in an ideal world, at least not at this point in time. 

Therefore, obviously, all children born will not have a father and a mother to raise them and to love them.  Some are raised by gay couples, some are raised by single parents, some are raised by others.  That's just a fact of life in society.

But, all things considered, the most ideal situation for children born into this world would be for them to have a loving mother and a loving father, to nurture them, to teach them, to raise them, and to love them. 

Oh, I know, I know, everyone knows gay couples who are better parents than any heterosexual parents they know, blah, blah, blah.  We've heard it all before, so don't bother.

Like I said, we are not living in an ideal world.  Your point is well taken that not all married heterosexual couples will have children, obviously.  On the other hand, no homosexual couples, together, will have a child, ever.  Have, as in procreate.  Anyone want to dispute this?  Good luck.

Now, we all know some gay couples, a gay male couple or a gay female couple, will adopt, where eligible.  Some gay women will get pregnant, by natural means or artificially, and some gay men and gay women will bring a child from a previous relationship into their relationship with their gay partner.  This is how gay couples obtain children.  I do not believe in gay adoption, but whatever.

I agree, nobody has a right to tell people how to live their lives, however, the radical gay movement seems to like to tell the rest of the country how to redefine marriage. 

Your point is...

I thought it was pretty obvious.

No, not really. You just stated facts and then stupid opinions that seem very baseless. Marriage doesn't exist for procreation anymore. The times they are a changin.

Thank you for your puerile commentary on my profound discourse.

[justfollowingtheelections]

Can I ask something?  If gay couple want to be able to marry, how exactly does that affect heterosexuals?

[Lunar]

Actually, two women CAN have a child.  Sperm banks were created for heterosexual couples but they still work for others.

[Lincoln Republican]

Actually, two women CAN have a child.  Sperm banks were created for heterosexual couples but they still work for others.

Excuse me?

I really hate to burst your fantasy here, but the two women did not have the child.

In instances to which you refer, one of the women is artificially inseminated with the sperm from an, obviously, male sperm donor.  Needless to say, the sperm that fertilizes the egg does not come from the woman's same sex partner.

The one woman becomes the biological mother, true, but the same sex partner has nothing whatsoever to do with the conception of the baby.   

[ottermax]

OK, let me explain.

One of the purposes of marriage is to bring children into the world, children who will have a father and a mother. 

Now, I realize that we are not living in an ideal world, at least not at this point in time. 

Therefore, obviously, all children born will not have a father and a mother to raise them and to love them.  Some are raised by gay couples, some are raised by single parents, some are raised by others.  That's just a fact of life in society.

But, all things considered, the most ideal situation for children born into this world would be for them to have a loving mother and a loving father, to nurture them, to teach them, to raise them, and to love them. 

Oh, I know, I know, everyone knows gay couples who are better parents than any heterosexual parents they know, blah, blah, blah.  We've heard it all before, so don't bother.

Like I said, we are not living in an ideal world.  Your point is well taken that not all married heterosexual couples will have children, obviously.  On the other hand, no homosexual couples, together, will have a child, ever.  Have, as in procreate.  Anyone want to dispute this?  Good luck.

Now, we all know some gay couples, a gay male couple or a gay female couple, will adopt, where eligible.  Some gay women will get pregnant, by natural means or artificially, and some gay men and gay women will bring a child from a previous relationship into their relationship with their gay partner.  This is how gay couples obtain children.  I do not believe in gay adoption, but whatever.

I agree, nobody has a right to tell people how to live their lives, however, the radical gay movement seems to like to tell the rest of the country how to redefine marriage. 

Your point is...

I thought it was pretty obvious.

No, not really. You just stated facts and then stupid opinions that seem very baseless. Marriage doesn't exist for procreation anymore. The times they are a changin.

Thank you for your puerile commentary on my profound discourse.

That's a puerile response...

[Lincoln Republican]

OK, let me explain.

One of the purposes of marriage is to bring children into the world, children who will have a father and a mother. 

Now, I realize that we are not living in an ideal world, at least not at this point in time. 

Therefore, obviously, all children born will not have a father and a mother to raise them and to love them.  Some are raised by gay couples, some are raised by single parents, some are raised by others.  That's just a fact of life in society.

But, all things considered, the most ideal situation for children born into this world would be for them to have a loving mother and a loving father, to nurture them, to teach them, to raise them, and to love them. 

Oh, I know, I know, everyone knows gay couples who are better parents than any heterosexual parents they know, blah, blah, blah.  We've heard it all before, so don't bother.

Like I said, we are not living in an ideal world.  Your point is well taken that not all married heterosexual couples will have children, obviously.  On the other hand, no homosexual couples, together, will have a child, ever.  Have, as in procreate.  Anyone want to dispute this?  Good luck.

Now, we all know some gay couples, a gay male couple or a gay female couple, will adopt, where eligible.  Some gay women will get pregnant, by natural means or artificially, and some gay men and gay women will bring a child from a previous relationship into their relationship with their gay partner.  This is how gay couples obtain children.  I do not believe in gay adoption, but whatever.

I agree, nobody has a right to tell people how to live their lives, however, the radical gay movement seems to like to tell the rest of the country how to redefine marriage. 

Your point is...

I thought it was pretty obvious.

No, not really. You just stated facts and then stupid opinions that seem very baseless. Marriage doesn't exist for procreation anymore. The times they are a changin.

Thank you for your puerile commentary on my profound discourse.

That's a puerile response...

Oh, good grief man, can you not see the light hearted nature of my reply?

Come on now, words like puerile?  profound discourse?

I mean, the reply to my post was direct, yes, but puerile?

I mean, my post was good, yes, but a profound discourse?

[Magic 8-Ball]

Actually, two women CAN have a child.  Sperm banks were created for heterosexual couples but they still work for others.

Excuse me?

I really hate to burst your fantasy here, but the two women did not have the child.

In instances to which you refer, one of the women is artificially inseminated with the sperm from an, obviously, male sperm donor.  Needless to say, the sperm that fertilizes the egg does not come from the woman's same sex partner.

The one woman becomes the biological mother, true, but the same sex partner has nothing whatsoever to do with the conception of the baby.   

That's a most interesting interpretation of what he said.

And, again, they can if they try really, really hard.

[Alcon]

OK, let me explain.

One of the purposes of marriage is to bring children into the world, children who will have a father and a mother. 

Tradition is not more important than what's right for the child.  If they happen to be the same thing, so be it.  But tradition should not interfere into the quality of life for an innocent child.  Period.

And if you want to prove that the traditional (man-woman) relationship is so superior to the nontraditional (gay) relationship in child-raising that we should disallow them to do so, then you have to prove it.  You can't just repeat it over and over.  As you say -- "we've heard it all before, so don't bother."*

Oh, I know, I know, everyone knows gay couples who are better parents than any heterosexual parents they know, blah, blah, blah.  We've heard it all before, so don't bother.

"I've heard a claim before, therefore it's not true"?  What?

On the other hand, no homosexual couples, together, will have a child, ever.  Have, as in procreate.  Anyone want to dispute this?  Good luck.

Now, we all know some gay couples, a gay male couple or a gay female couple, will adopt, where eligible.  Some gay women will get pregnant, by natural means or artificially, and some gay men and gay women will bring a child from a previous relationship into their relationship with their gay partner.  This is how gay couples obtain children.  I do not believe in gay adoption, but whatever.

I don't dispute this, but we don't restrict marriage based on ability to create children.  We never have.  It's never even been cultural "taboo" to marry when infertile.  You're arguing tradition with something that isn't even traditional!

Your second thought is basically saying "sure, gay marriage can raise children productively, but they shouldn't, so whatever."  I call it a "thought" because I have no idea what it would mean as an argument.

* - Except, in this case, I'm asking you to prove burden of proof when you make a positive assertion, instead of simply repeating the assertion.  In your case, you're rejecting an assertion because it has been repeated.  The former makes sense; the latter does not.

[Tonberry]

Like I said, we are not living in an ideal world.  Your point is well taken that not all married heterosexual couples will have children, obviously.  On the other hand, no homosexual couples, together, will have a child, ever.  Have, as in procreate.  Anyone want to dispute this?  Good luck.

Do you also believe that marriages should be dissolved at menopause? I highly doubt that you do, and as such, redefining marriage is therefore necessary, even from your standpoint.

[Earth]

It's very much a double standard "traditionalists" have going on in their argument. A gay couple has to use means outside of normal biology to have kids, so therefor, marriage isn't something they should be allowed to do, but heterosexual couples that can't procreate for whatever reason get a pass, so long as it's a 'normal' relationship.

I haven't heard one realistically good reason why gays shouldn't be allowed to marry, and all I get is authoritarian crap either from a religious point of view, or just childish reasons similar to 'cause it's icky'.

[Starbucks Union Thug HokeyPuck]

I am pleased with the decision.  Its a victory for the anti-gay marriage camp.  I am warming to gay marriage, but SLOWLY.  We've had 5 states ratify gay marriage in the last 3 months and, to me, that is too much too fast.  We need to slow it down a little bit.  This country needs time to soak in and get used to it after each state, rather than have the entire steak shoved down its throat at one time.  The country could choke on it if it is done too fast.  I think a slow, methodical approach to the ratification would be ideal.  I don't prescribe a regular interval, but a slower, again more methodical, approach.  To me, its like a child learning to eat meat.  If you try to shove the entire sirloin steak down its throat at one time, the child's liable to choke on it.  Rather, if you take it slow and easy, the child is more apt to accept it without major repercussions.  They may spit a bite back up every now and then, but eventually, he'll eat the entire steak.

Can I just say that your position is retarded?

Yes, I can. Clearly, gay marriage doesn't affect you at all, and you've realized that. Yet, for your own selfish discomfort, you would tell hundreds of thousands of people to wait on equal protection under the law, to wait on equal right of contract, to wait on equal taxation to wait on equal recognition. Equality must wait because we're queasy.

At the risk of sounding hysterical (because it is hyperbole), would you tell slaves in 1865 to wait a few decades to be freed because we're not sure if we want to let you go, we're just warming to the idea? Would you tell women in 1920 to wait a few decades for the right to vote because we want to take our time? Would it not have been better if slavery were abolished in 1855 rather than 1865, or in 1845 instead of 1855; would it not have been better if women received the right to vote in 1910 rather than 1920, or in 1900 rather than 1910? Why is it then better for gay marriage to happen in 2020 than in 2010, or in 2030 than in 2020? Rights don't have anything to do with how you feel about them. They're only about the people they affect.

Another sophist comparing gay marriage to slavery, segregation, women's right to vote, et cetera.  These are in NO WAY comparable to gay marriage.  Gays have the SAME RIGHTS as everyone else.  That they cannot marry each other is not relevant.  I cannot marry a man of the same sex either.  Gay people can vote, they can receive an education, they can purchase property and they can own businesses.  Gay people are not being oppressed.  When the vast majority of Americans are told that an age-old institution, the bedrock of our society, must be changed because of political reasons, don't be surprised when we get angry, and don't cry "Discrimination!" when there is none.

Again!  How the hell is marriage being undermined here?  Progressives are realizing it's worth and trying to extend it.

A. 95% of marriages would still be heterosexual anyway

and

B. Half of heterosexual marriages fail... how could we undermine it any more? 

Stop disguising bigotry with stupid words like "bedrock" and "tradition".  The reason we compare it to interracial marriages and segregation is because this whole thing is following the SAME STUPID PATTERN and you'd think we'd have grown a freakin' brain by the 21st century. 

[MK]

I am pleased with the decision.  Its a victory for the anti-gay marriage camp.  I am warming to gay marriage, but SLOWLY.  We've had 5 states ratify gay marriage in the last 3 months and, to me, that is too much too fast.  We need to slow it down a little bit.  This country needs time to soak in and get used to it after each state, rather than have the entire steak shoved down its throat at one time.  The country could choke on it if it is done too fast.  I think a slow, methodical approach to the ratification would be ideal.  I don't prescribe a regular interval, but a slower, again more methodical, approach.  To me, its like a child learning to eat meat.  If you try to shove the entire sirloin steak down its throat at one time, the child's liable to choke on it.  Rather, if you take it slow and easy, the child is more apt to accept it without major repercussions.  They may spit a bite back up every now and then, but eventually, he'll eat the entire steak.

Can I just say that your position is retarded?

Yes, I can. Clearly, gay marriage doesn't affect you at all, and you've realized that. Yet, for your own selfish discomfort, you would tell hundreds of thousands of people to wait on equal protection under the law, to wait on equal right of contract, to wait on equal taxation to wait on equal recognition. Equality must wait because we're queasy.

At the risk of sounding hysterical (because it is hyperbole), would you tell slaves in 1865 to wait a few decades to be freed because we're not sure if we want to let you go, we're just warming to the idea? Would you tell women in 1920 to wait a few decades for the right to vote because we want to take our time? Would it not have been better if slavery were abolished in 1855 rather than 1865, or in 1845 instead of 1855; would it not have been better if women received the right to vote in 1910 rather than 1920, or in 1900 rather than 1910? Why is it then better for gay marriage to happen in 2020 than in 2010, or in 2030 than in 2020? Rights don't have anything to do with how you feel about them. They're only about the people they affect.

Another sophist comparing gay marriage to slavery, segregation, women's right to vote, et cetera.  These are in NO WAY comparable to gay marriage.  Gays have the SAME RIGHTS as everyone else.  That they cannot marry each other is not relevant.  I cannot marry a man of the same sex either.  Gay people can vote, they can receive an education, they can purchase property and they can own businesses.  Gay people are not being oppressed.  When the vast majority of Americans are told that an age-old institution, the bedrock of our society, must be changed because of political reasons, don't be surprised when we get angry, and don't cry "Discrimination!" when there is none.

Again!  How the hell is marriage being undermined here?  Progressives are realizing it's worth and trying to extend it.

A. 95% of marriages would still be heterosexual anyway

and

B. Half of heterosexual marriages fail... how could we undermine it any more? 

Stop disguising bigotry with stupid words like "bedrock" and "tradition".  The reason we compare it to interracial marriages and segregation is because this whole thing is following the SAME STUPID PATTERN and you'd think we'd have grown a freakin' brain by the 21st century. 

Nobody is being a bigot, but somebody is being a delusional progressive.

You liberals really don't get it.   God created man and a woman with different reproduction organs to damn REPRODUCE!      The interracial marriages are not the same as your case for gay marriages period.   It doesn't matter what color the man or woman is bottom line they can both mate and reproduce, thus forming a bond of marriage to care for the child.    You want to redefine the man/ woman institution to now say man and man or woman and woman.   Liberals argue and bitch about wanting to change our society, yet the end result is always more problems.   Actually you guys have did a pretty good job at destroying hetro marriages enough as it is.

Gay marriages would be the final nail in the coffin.