CA Overturns Gay Marriage Ban!

[Aeson]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
That I am saying is a consequence of this ruling. If depriving someone of these benefits violates the equal protection clause, then they should be available to everyone.

No, sadly what I said is not a consequence of this ruling.

[Cyclotron]

The intellectual dishonesty here galls me. I think we can all be pretty sure that ben's objections, when they come down to it, do not amount to the idiotic technicalities he's arguing. Ben, as a conservative Christian, has his own reasons for opposing gay marriage, but feels compelled to omit them from his argument here. It's just like anti-gay marriage groups saying they're "defending the family" even though they can't say how the "family" is being threatened; it's about "God hates fags" or just "gay sex is gross," but of course these opinions aren't suited for public discourse.

In any case, I am continually reminded why I am proud to be a Californian. Today is just another such reminder.

[Asher]

Originally posted by Cyclotron
The intellectual dishonesty here galls me. I think we can all be pretty sure that ben's objections, when they come down to it, do not amount to the idiotic technicalities he's arguing. Ben, as a conservative Christian, has his own reasons for opposing gay marriage, but feels compelled to omit them from his argument here. It's just like anti-gay marriage groups saying they're "defending the family" even though they can't say how the "family" is being threatened; it's about "God hates fags" or just "gay sex is gross," but of course these opinions aren't suited for public discourse.

In any case, I am continually reminded why I am proud to be a Californian. Today is just another such reminder.

That's why it's amusing. Ben can't think for himself.

[Ben Kenobi]

The intellectual dishonesty here galls me. I think we can all be pretty sure that ben's objections, when they come down to it, do not amount to the idiotic technicalities he's arguing.

So, since you read my mind.

Spell it out what I am thinking, and why I am opposed to this issue.

I'm rather curious, since you seem to know better what I think then I do.

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Well, you can't argue with the truth. As the law stands, Asher can get married to a woman in the states if he chooses to do so.

That is, hetrosexuals can marry someone they want to; homosexuals can only marry people they don't want to.

[Q Classic]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


As do you.

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.

You are choosing to deprive yourself of the benefit, much as those who choose to be confirmed bachelors.

This is an aside, but I keep seeing this argument. White and black are treated as binaries, as are gay and straight.

The law doesn't prevent white and white marriages, black and black marriages, or white and black marriages: in other words, like-like, like-like, and different-different ~ homoethnic, homoethnic, and heteroethnic ones.

Why is sexuality so different? You're right, the law doesn't prohibit a straight-straight or a gay-straight marriage, but does prohibit a gay-gay one: it's okay for one form of like-like and it's okay to have different-different, but not okay to have the other like-like.

One form of homo-orientation is accepted, as is hetero-orientation?

It's all very silly.

What it boils down to is that the government should have no ****ing business dealing with marriage, and any such rights granted to it should be excised.

[Arrian]

Cyclotron

EXACTLY.

-Arrian

[Ben Kenobi]

That is, hetrosexuals can marry someone they want to; homosexuals can only marry people they don't want to.

I want many things. I would love a big mac for free, but that doesn't mean I have a legal right to one. Just because I want something doesn't mean it is my right to demand something.

[Aeson]

BK, if government decided that hetero marriage wasn't allowed, and allowed gay marriage, would you make the same argument re: equal protection?

[Asher]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi

I want many things. I would love a big mac for free, but that doesn't mean I have a legal right to one. Just because I want something doesn't mean it is my right to demand something.

You really should just leave this forum and go find some Christian forum. You depress everyone here with your delusion.

[Arrian]

I want many things.

Yeah, you want everyone to live their lives according to the rules in your holy book (or rather, those rules that you or your chosen wise men pick from that book, while ignoring others).

Well, life's a *****.

-Arrian

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi


I want many things. I would love a big mac for free, but that doesn't mean I have a legal right to one. Just because I want something doesn't mean it is my right to demand something.

Unless they decide to grant a right to free big macs for everyone.

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Ben Kenobi
Two assumptions here.

1. Increasing benefits for alternatives to marriage will not decrease the number who will choose marriage.

We've seen this over and over again. If you elevate common law marriage to the same, or nearly the same benefit, then it lowers the number who will choose marriage. This will have the exact same effect.

You actually just argued that if gay marriages exist, less straight people were marry. You didn't just do that did you?

2. The only benefit that the state derives from marriage is 'stability'.

This is also false. Children are most likely to be born, and children are better off when raised in a two parent home, mother and father. Therefore, the state has cause to restrict marriage to just a man and a woman, in order to protect the benefits associated in childbirth and rearing.

There is actually no proof that a mother and father parent household is any better than a mother & mother or father & father household.

So in order to protect the benefits associated in child rearing, they should allow gays to marry, allowing adopted children to have stable family units.

Unless you are arguing that parents that can't have kids should not be able to be married because they can't bear children.

Then the law again falls afoul of the same arguments I am making that the state derives an intrinsic benefit from the marriage of a man and a woman, that they do not derive otherwise.

There is no benefit that the state gains from a man/woman marriage that they wouldn't get in a man/man or woman/woman marriage. You have heard of artificial insemination and adoption, right?

[Ben Kenobi]

Q Cubed:

You're right, the law doesn't prohibit a straight-straight or a gay-straight marriage, but does prohibit a gay-gay one: it's okay for one form of like-like and it's okay to have different-different, but not okay to have the other like-like.

That's all I'm saying. This means that there is something else going on here then what is being said in Loving. The analogy would be them allowing white and black marriages, but not ones between black people.

It also means that the arguments based on two different classes do not work. Otherwise, we would be allowing gay people to marry each other but not allowing gay people to marry straight people. That is what was going on in Loving, and why they argued that you are setting up two different classes.

So why is this different? Why are sexual preferences important in marriage? Maybe this sounds like a stupid question to some, it does to me. You cannot get divorced because you married a black man, you can get divorced because of unconsummation. It isn't considered a conjugal relationship without sex.

What we are seeing up here is that where domestic partnership benefits are being established, that they are being asked to 'prove' a sexual relationship to prevent roomates from claiming the benefit. Again, we see that sexual relationships are essential, and this is the argument that Imran is saying.

If we say that conjugal relationships are essential to establishing a marriage, then the analogy breaks with the former. You are looking at apples and oranges. You cannot make the analogy with race, from the face of a marriage, race is irrelevant to conjugal relationships. Sexual preference is not.

[Imran Siddiqui]

race is irrelevant to conjugal relationships. Sexual preference is not.

Gay people have sex too, you know?

However:

If we say that conjugal relationships are essential to establishing a marriage

They don't need to be. Parapelgics can get married even if they can't get it up to have sex with their wives.

And you can basically get divorced because of anything.