CA Overturns Gay Marriage Ban!

[Wezil]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
So you don't believe in Kinsey Asher?

I was trying to figure out Who TF Kinsey Asher was.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Kinsey says that sexuality is both fluid and on a continuum, rather then this unipolar world. If this is true, then yes, people in the middle would be less likely to get married.

So you are saying that if you legalize gay marriage more people may magically float down the "continuum" (as the pen hits the paper) and be more gay?



Oh God, that's even better that what I was expecting!

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


How does equal protection apply to a collective? It's always been individuals. This is why marriage has never fallen under that category.

I don't have the right to demand marriage benefits from the state on an individual basis, or to demand any benefits and recognition for my relationships. The state can choose to recognise them, but that is their decision. It's not an individual right, because it requires the consent of another party.

Judicial tyranny is hardly substitute for the will of the people. I don't see why it would be so difficult to secure the support of the people of California for this issue, rather then overriding what they have already said.

So then court rulings that overthrew bans against interracial marriage were uncalled for??

[Ben Kenobi]

Follow along. Mr. Fun.

On Kinsey's scale? hmm, a 0.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
My question for you Imran, is if marriage benefits are considered to be applicable to the equal protection clause, would that not be a reason to provide them to everyone regardless of whether they are married or not?

Your argument is that homosexuals are being deprived of the equal protection of the law, in that the state cannot declare them to be married. Why then couldn't an individual simply say that he is entitled to the exact same benefits? Is he not being deprived of the equal protection of the law because he is unmarried? Shouldn't divorced people have the same benefits? Shouldn't widowed people?

You're acting like an idiot.

This court ruling was about the equal right to CHOOSE to marry, not whether or not unmarried people should have the same rights and privileges that married people have.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Fun has followed along. You've made nary a persuasive argument on anything.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

In Loving black people weren't allowed to marry white people. There is nothing in the law that prevents gay people from marrying straight people if that is what they choose.

Unless the gay man in question is sad closet case who hates himself, why the **** would a gay man want to marry a woman??

[Ben Kenobi]

So you are saying that if you legalize gay marriage more people may magically float down the "continuum" (as the pen hits the paper) and be more gay?

No, many that are further down the scale will choose the other options now open to them, lowering the marriage rate.

What's so hard to understand about that?

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Fun has followed along. You've made nary a persuasive argument on anything.

Also the fact that at time of my first posting here, this is my first visit in this thread. So I have not yet read through all the past posts and arguments.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
No, many that are further down the scale will choose the other options now open to them, lowering the marriage rate.

What's so hard to understand about that?

Plenty... because WTF?!

What options are they going to choose? Gay marriage?! If they were going to choose gay marriage, you think they would have chosen straight marriage otherwise?!

Why, because you can shame them to be in the closet if gays have no rights?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Follow along. Mr. Fun.

On Kinsey's scale? hmm, a 0.

Then what's the worry? If you're going to dictate life-changing rights for people and it basically boils down to your belief in Kinsey's scale -- which apparently doesn't apply to you -- what gives you that right?

If you're exclusively heterosexual, then why do you assume a significant amount of other people aren't as straight as you?

Get off yourself.
You're full of it.

[Asher]

Originally posted by MrFun



Unless the gay man in question is sad closet case who hates himself, why the **** would a gay man want to marry a woman??

Ask any random republican. They'll tell you -- it's about keeping up appearances even if you're not happy. Same reason Ben loves to see couples who hate eachother stay together until they die.

[Ben Kenobi]

If you're exclusively heterosexual, then why do you assume a significant amount of other people aren't as straight as you?

Because I know plenty of people who aren't. Wow are you saying I only know straight people?

[Ben Kenobi]

What options are they going to choose? Gay marriage?! If they were going to choose gay marriage, you think they would have chosen straight marriage otherwise?!

It would be a phenomenon like evaporation. Stay with me here. Say you have a cup with one exit, and one with two. As you heat it up, are people going to be more likely to go out the top as they were when they was only one opening. Sure, the folks near one end or the other wouldn't change, but the folks in the middle they'll be pretty much evenly divided, whereas before those folks would go out the top, because that was their only option.

[MrFun]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


It would be a phenomenon like evaporation. Stay with me here. Say you have a cup with one exit, and one with two. As you heat it up, are people going to be more likely to go out the top as they were when they was only one opening. Sure, the folks near one end or the other wouldn't change, but the folks in the middle they'll be pretty much evenly divided, whereas before those folks would go out the top, because that was their only option.