SF throws down the gauntlet to Cali

[Imran Siddiqui]

What does French marriage have to do with anything?

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I deny that the state is being just in its definition of who can form a family.

No, you deny the state the right to legislate preferences based upon the needs of society.

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned
No, you deny the state the right to legislate preferences based upon the needs of society.

I also deny the state the right to legalise slavery, or whatever other lame-brained idea someone might have that addresses the 'needs of society' to be bigoted. What's your point?

[Ned]

Originally posted by notyoueither


I also deny the state the right to legalise slavery, or whatever other lame-brained idea someone might have that addresses the 'needs of society' to be bigoted. What's your point?

Bigoted, is it?

Suppose society decides in its bigoted wisdom that raising kids in traditional families is best for society. Suppose it passes a very significant subsidy for such families for the purpose of encouraging them over other forms of raising children. It is your position, oh wise one, that this is not something that society can do?!!!!!!!

The person who is completely off base here is you, NYE.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui


What does French marriage have to do with anything?

They STILL encourage mistresses.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Um... so?

Relavance?

[notyoueither]

Originally posted by Ned


Bigoted, is it?

Suppose society decides in its bigoted wisdom that raising kids in traditional families is best for society. Suppose it passes a very significant subsidy for such families for the purpose of encouraging them over other forms of raising children. It is your position, oh wise one, that this is not something that society can do?!!!!!!!

The person who is completely off base here is you, NYE.

My position is that whether it is two men, or two women, or a man and a woman making a home makes no difference in what could make a good home for children, a priori.

Families need financial relief to deal with the costs of raising children. It is the children for whom the benefit is intended. Would you deny the children of gay people those benefits because their parent/s is/are gay?

And then there are the benefits other than those based on child rearing that society accords to married couples. How can they be justified for barren hetero couples, or elderly newly weds when they are denied to homosexuals if children are the only part of the equation? Simple answer, children are not the only part of the equation.

[Giancarlo]

And don't you hate it when fundamentalists b*tch about how allowing gay marriage will "open the door" to allowing people to marry pets and family members? I heard that argument one too many times. They use that argument for justification to keep gay marriage banned. It just disgusts me.

[Ned]

Imran, I was responding to Che's observation about the reasons Marx opposed marriage. He said that one of the reasons was that (the French at least) encouraged mistresses.

They still do, but apparently communists have dropped their condemnation of marriage (without explanation).

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ned, talking to you is like talking to a child. Most of the opposition for marriage by Marx was that the the woman was being treated like chattel. The remark about mistresses was that men could get them, but if women went outside the marriage they were punished harshly. That doesn't not exist anymore, so some Communists (but certainly not all) see nothing wrong with marriage.

French women will not find themselves being whipped if they have their own action on the side as the men do.

[Ned]

Imran, talking to you is like talking a complete idiot most of time. You wholly failed to grasp my point and only repeat the stupid remark of Che.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Agathon
I didn't say they'd actively want to see anyone dead, but only that if someone died, they would try to profit from it. And it was an obvious joke, so what's your problem?

The phrasing wasn't particularly humorous. I've no doubt there are people who wouldn't mind seeing gays or whatever burned to death or strapped to fences and beaten and such, and I never accused BK of being one of them. Strawman.

Yeah you do. You have a problem with everyone that disagrees with homosexuality and even some that don't. I can understand that it's a touchy subject for you, but that doesn't give you the right to make ridiculous accusations. You aren't the only person Ben thinks is going to hell, after all.

Notice how nothing here so far has been a religious discussion, it's about secular concerns. So wherein is my complaint about people having religious objections?

I don't mind people having objections to homosexuality, I mind when they start trying to foisting those objctions on others, particularly when they start dictating that gay couples should be treated as second-class couples. That's what the entire argument is about!

Really? I think most people are sex addicts of some degree or another. It's also true that people can wean themselves off it should they want to. What's so weird about that?

So gays are sex addicts? again. This is surprisingly stupid coming from you. We're not talking about sex addicts here, we're talking about loving couples who want to get married.

Religious people feel like the victims here.

Lovely that. But since gays have been the ones who have been systematically harrassed, beaten, killed and such for decades--and still are being so by religious folk in other parts of the world--forgive me if I seem a little amused by this sense of "victimization." Religious types still have the vast bulk of the power in this country. I don't think their having to make room for others warrants victimization status.

Besides, gays ARE religious, especially the ones wanting to get married, and there are many religious organizations that support gays and want to marry them legally. So it's not a cut-and-dried religion vs. non-religion issue.

And presumably masochists would be insulted at some of the things people say about them - or pigeon fanciers, or any other bunch of people.

Hmm, typical fundie comparisons of gays to sexual fetishists and bestiality...nice.

The bottom line is that BK and I and others have hashed through this issue a hundred times. He's consistently thrown up strawmen and arguments borne from prejudice, however "politely" he states them. Even though he's been called on why they are bigoted, but continues to use them. For all your separation of him and PA, he has sidled next to PA willingly over these issues. I've never seen him once call PA on his nonsense, have you? I, for one, am just growing tired of his schtick.

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Boris. That same logic was said by the folks in the South with respect to slavery. Only you could find their arguments in the constitution before the 14th amendment.

Huh? That's not quite the same logic. Slavery was legal, it was the North who wanted to get rid of it. This isn't remotely the same circumstance.

You won't like this argument, because this renders you incapable of preventing any county from banning gay marriage, should they disagree.

Not if it's in conflict with the state constitution. The whole point is that SF believes the ban violates the state constitution, and their civil disobedience is a means of bringing that issue to the forefront in preface of a challenge to the law. Now these couples will be involved in a direct challenge in the courts for their rights.

If a state law was passed approving gay marrriage based on the state's constitution, then counties would not have an recourse to refuse to do them. If CA adopted an ammendment to ban gay marriages, then SF wouldn't have any ability to do them, either.

I shall remember this point, next time you whinge about Ohio. Or any of the so-called mini-DOMAs.

Wherein did I "whinge" about Ohio not having the legal ability to set such a law? Nowhere, Mr. Strawman. I don't agree with the law and think the further restrictions on benefits is of dubious legality, but I never said they had no legal right to make such a ban.

Secondly, if marriage is the domain of the states, then it does matter whether or not the state supports the law. To say otherwise, is to strip the state from the authority to marry people, and to hand that decision to mayors.

In this case the state's ability to limit the marriages to men and women sans constitutional ammendment is of dubious legality, give their own constitutional non-discrimination clause. That's why SF is challenging it. A state can't issue any law it wants, about marriage or not, if the law violates their constitution or the U.S. constitution.

You will no longer be able to argue that it should be the law of the land, but rather, the law of cities, with each city to determine as they see fit.

A stunning concession, Boris, that this is not about human rights, but rather about government authority.

And, as seen above, this is a remarkably incorrect interpretation of the argument. F for comprehension.

[Ned]

Originally posted by Boris Godunov
The whole point is that SF believes the ban violates the state constitution,

True.

and their civil disobedience is a means of bringing that issue to the forefront in preface of a challenge to the law. Now these couples will be involved in a direct challenge in the courts for their rights.

Not true.

They could have brought the suit regardless of the civil disobedience.

It was just such civil disobedience by a governmental organization that caused the Civil War. Several Southern states believed they had the right to secede. The federal government disagreed. Rather then decide the issue by legal means in the Supreme Court, the South began shooting.

What the mayor of San Francisco did was equivalent to the South's firing on Ft. Sumter.

[Giancarlo]

What the mayor of San Francisco did was right. He challanged an unconstitutional proposition that banned gay marriage.