Federal Judge Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ruling in California

reply to post by dbates

So then we have to ask why does the state really even care if anyone gets "married"? I know about the religious aspect of things but those people could still go to a church and have a ceremony without needing a marriage license. Quite honestly a public commitment in front of family and a pastor would satisfy pretty much all religious nuts like myself.

The state cares if people get married because they get paid when people get married. They also get paid when those same people get a divorce. because they licensed You to get married they also get to tell You which of You gets what once the marriage is over and while doing so You rack up even more court fees, hence they get paid a 3rd time.

The state has no business whatsoever "allowing" anyone to get married. It is a fundamental right of any Human being to marry whomever They want as long the other person is in agreement BUT the state saw an opportunity to make money off of it and the people went right along with allowing them to regulate their personal life because it comes with tax breaks.

Originally posted by grahag
Ah, the old, "Gays have the right to marry members of the opposite sex" argument. It's just a very clever way to say, "No, you can't get married to who you want. You have to marry the people 'I' want you to marry".

Switch it around and see if it seems fair. You can't marry someone of the opposite sex because it's illegal. You gonna be okay with that? I didn't think so.

No because that would be dumb, the legalities of marraige were mostly meant to protect offspring.

Originally posted by centurion1211

Originally posted by Avenginggecko

Originally posted by leo123
reply to post by Annee

 

Apparently the ruling judge is openly gay.

Talk about a conflict of interest!

That's a ridiculous argument. Wouldn't it be the same level of conflict if the ruling judge was straight and married? Does that mean divorced judges can't rule in divorce cases? Women judges can't rule in gender bias cases? Black judges can't rule in crimes involving black people?

Think about this from the legal point of view, rather than whether it favors your own personal beliefs, or not.

It's the question of whether a judge can gain a personal benefit based on their ruling. In this case, it can easily be said that the judge could gain a personal benefit because based on his own ruling he was now free to marry his gay partner. Same would be true in every one of the examples you cited - if the judge could personally gain from the ruling.

edit on 6/14/2011 by centurion1211 because: (no reason given)

What gain? Being able to legally wed his partner? Ooooh, such a gain.

Yes, and if these attention seekers do not get these "rights" then gays will disappear completely

No, they wont. But then you know that dont you? And just wanted to have a dig? Crawl back in your hole or go to church or whatever it is you do. Burn books perhaps.

Originally posted by grahag
You don't seem to be getting my message. Let me give you a VERY personal example. I am infertile. I am married. Should my marriage be voided because I cannot father a child?

How is the government supposed to know that? It obviously isn't practical to check everyone's fertility.

Originally posted by Seektruthalways1
why do people have to make the legal system get involved to make their 'wicked acts' more appropriate? Don't you think the reason there is a female and a male on this planet? So we can express the correct way of marriage not some screwed up crap of gay marriage. And yes I am against people who are gay, but I will not hate them, just think its the dumbest choice out of many(smoking, drinking to get drunk, doing stupid daredevil stunts etc.).

Why can't people just leave things the way they were for thousands of years. Its worked till now, why change it?

If it aint broke, dont try to fix it!!! And see how far the human race gets when everyone decides to be gay, 100 years and bam, no more humans. Looks like the Global Elite are getting what they want, or should I say, Satan.

Because it IS 'broke'. It's not broken for you because you can do what you want. Turn it around and apply it to yourself and see how fair it seems. Wear the (fabulously matched) shoe on the other foot and see if you can find it in your heart to prevent someone the same rights you enjoy.

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by grahag
You don't seem to be getting my message. Let me give you a VERY personal example. I am infertile. I am married. Should my marriage be voided because I cannot father a child?

How is the government supposed to know that? It obviously isn't practical to check everyone's fertility.

edit on 15-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)

You're being purposely obtuse now. So what you're saying is that you support the government testing everyone getting married whether they can produce children? Is it the government's job to do that? To even question it? To even consider it? If you think so, then you should go back to school and enroll in s civics class to find out what government is for. I'll give you a hint though. It's for the protection of the people...

If you can show me the governmental guidelines on it's reasons for marriage, I'll shut up if it agrees with your line of thought.

Originally posted by grahag
You're being purposely obtuse now. So what you're saying is that you support the government testing everyone getting married whether they can produce children?

No, like I've said twice already, that would obviously be impractical and it's none of their business, and that's why they aren't going to void your marraige.

Hmmm, let me think, what would be a good easy way to identify relationships that are prone to producing offspring? I wonder, when a man and a woman declare that they're entering into a committed romantic relaltionship (I think they call that marraige), might that be a good indication that their relationship is the type that's prone to producing offspring? I think so...

Originally posted by grahag

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by grahag
So the reason that it's legal for a man and woman to marry is because they can/will produce offspring? So the marriages of people who can't/won't produce offspring should be voided. Nope, that doesn't clear things up at all.

When a man and a woman announce that they're entering into a committed romantic relationship it's a situation that is prone to producing offspring. They obviously can't check everyone's fertility etc. etc.

You don't seem to be getting my message. Let me give you a VERY personal example. I am infertile. I am married. Should my marriage be voided because I cannot father a child? Is my ONLY reason for getting married to produce children?

No, has any marriage been voided due to infertility whilst gays do not have the same "marriage rights"

Seeing as how same sex marriage doesn't affect the heterosexual population, why would they have a problem with it and why should they have an opinion on it? The issue should have been only among the gay population. Would you like the right to marry? Yes or no. From that the State could have decided if it was going to recognize same sex marriages. Why would heterosexuals have a say or even care? It doesn't affect them.

Originally posted by Garfee

Yes, and if these attention seekers do not get these "rights" then gays will disappear completely

No, they wont. But then you know that dont you? And just wanted to have a dig? Crawl back in your hole or go to church or whatever it is you do. Burn books perhaps.

edit on 15-6-2011 by Garfee because: arrgh typos

ha ha, when the hyperbole is returned your thin veneer of tolerance and "equality" is removed and you resort to crude and, in my instance, incorrect stereotyping

Couldn't have gone better

Originally posted by zerimar65
Seeing as how same sex marriage doesn't affect the heterosexual population, why would they have a problem with it and why should they have an opinion on it? The issue should have been only among the gay population. Would you like the right to marry? Yes or no. From that the State could have decided if it was going to recognize same sex marriages. Why would heterosexuals have a say or even care? It doesn't affect them.

is that how voting works now, segmented and only in groups


Whites voting on "white" issues


Gays on "gay issues"


Straights on "straight issues"



Odd, and be a bit of a nightmare to set up electorally


Good one

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by grahag
You're being purposely obtuse now. So what you're saying is that you support the government testing everyone getting married whether they can produce children?

No, like I've said twice already, that would obviously be impractical and it's none of their business, and that's why they aren't going to void your marraige.

Hmmm, let me think, what would be a good easy way to identify relationships that are prone to producing offspring? I wonder, when a man and a woman declare that they're entering into a committed romantic relaltionship (I think they call that marraige), might that be a good indication that their relationship is the type that's prone to producing offspring? I think so...

edit on 15-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)

If your reason to deny someone marriage is because they're not likely to produce offspring, then you'll need to qualify that with some facts. And if you deny some people, you'll need to deny ANYONE who can't have kids at that point.

And you're also under the false assumption that gays cannot have children. There are MANY MANY instances of them being able to. They're not infertile.

Originally posted by grahag
reply to post by blueorder

 

I have a feeling the longer that they are denied equal treatment, the more you're going to hear from them. That's how the civil rights movement went in the 60s... In the end, it'll probably take bloodshed to make people realize that human rights aren't about gender or preference or race.

If people want "bloodshed" over this imaginary right (to be honest I dont care, but if someone threatens bloodshed over it, then people are going to react)- then they will get the serve returned as I am sure people would not take kindly to being murdered simply for holding a view

Originally posted by grahag

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by grahag
You're being purposely obtuse now. So what you're saying is that you support the government testing everyone getting married whether they can produce children?

No, like I've said twice already, that would obviously be impractical and it's none of their business, and that's why they aren't going to void your marraige.

Hmmm, let me think, what would be a good easy way to identify relationships that are prone to producing offspring? I wonder, when a man and a woman declare that they're entering into a committed romantic relaltionship (I think they call that marraige), might that be a good indication that their relationship is the type that's prone to producing offspring? I think so...

edit on 15-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)

If your reason to deny someone marriage is because they're not likely to produce offspring, then you'll need to qualify that with some facts. And if you deny some people, you'll need to deny ANYONE who can't have kids at that point.

he doesn't "Need" to do that- that is just you acting like a little tyrant and demanding it- clearly marriage is centred around the bedrock of civilisation, the family, which means mother, father and kids- some people choose not to and others are unfortunate, but that is what it grew out of (as well as the religious aspect)

Now me personally, I don't really care, and if some "group" demand these imaginary rights and bizarre state recognition then so be it- clearly most people in California do oppose it though

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by grahag
reply to post by blueorder

 

I have a feeling the longer that they are denied equal treatment, the more you're going to hear from them. That's how the civil rights movement went in the 60s... In the end, it'll probably take bloodshed to make people realize that human rights aren't about gender or preference or race.

If people want "bloodshed" over this imaginary right (to be honest I dont care, but if someone threatens bloodshed over it, then I am going to react)- then they will get the serve returned

I'm sure that same phrase was uttered regarding civil rights in the 60's. It's only imaginary to people who already have the right to marry who they want.

Originally posted by grahag

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by grahag
reply to post by blueorder

 

I have a feeling the longer that they are denied equal treatment, the more you're going to hear from them. That's how the civil rights movement went in the 60s... In the end, it'll probably take bloodshed to make people realize that human rights aren't about gender or preference or race.

If people want "bloodshed" over this imaginary right (to be honest I dont care, but if someone threatens bloodshed over it, then I am going to react)- then they will get the serve returned

I'm sure that same phrase was uttered regarding civil rights in the 60's. It's only imaginary to people who already have the right to marry who they want.

anyone who threatens murder because their "group" does not have recognition by the state over marriage should be dealt with in the firmest manner, keep referring to 50 years ago all you want

reply to post by SevenBeans


Did you even read the full post?

He gave the idea more population = better economy.

No, it doesn't.

Nor is it written anywhere marriage is an "idea" to produce more offspring.

Do you even understand how mating works? It doesn't involve marriage in anyway.

Marriage is a bond between to people who at the time have strong feelings for each other/arranged/forced etc.

2 guys getting it on isn't marriage, that's sex.
2 guys who want to have a legally recognized bond with each other is called marriage.

Y'see?

Did you even read what my original post was? Same-sex marriage not being legal restricts the rights of heterosexuals who wish to marry the same gender for whatever reasons, but you don't care about that because for some reason you think marriage = reproduction.

Originally posted by grahag
If your reason to deny someone marriage is because they're not likely to produce offspring, then you'll need to qualify that with some facts. And if you deny some people, you'll need to deny ANYONE who can't have kids at that point.

We know for a fact that two men having sex is not the type of relationship that's prone to producing offspring.

We also know for a fact that when a man and a woman wed, declaring in public that they've entered into a committed romantic partnership... that this IS the type of relationship that is prone to producing offspring.

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by grahag

Originally posted by SevenBeans

Originally posted by grahag
You're being purposely obtuse now. So what you're saying is that you support the government testing everyone getting married whether they can produce children?

No, like I've said twice already, that would obviously be impractical and it's none of their business, and that's why they aren't going to void your marraige.

Hmmm, let me think, what would be a good easy way to identify relationships that are prone to producing offspring? I wonder, when a man and a woman declare that they're entering into a committed romantic relaltionship (I think they call that marraige), might that be a good indication that their relationship is the type that's prone to producing offspring? I think so...

edit on 15-6-2011 by SevenBeans because: (no reason given)

If your reason to deny someone marriage is because they're not likely to produce offspring, then you'll need to qualify that with some facts. And if you deny some people, you'll need to deny ANYONE who can't have kids at that point.

he doesn't "Need" to do that- that is just you acting like a little tyrant and demanding it- clearly marriage is centred around the bedrock of civilisation, the family, which means mother, father and kids- some people choose not to and others are unfortunate, but that is what it grew out of (as well as the religious aspect)

Now me personally, I don't really care, and if some "group" demand these imaginary rights and bizarre state recognition then so be it- clearly most people in California do oppose it though

It's a hypocritical standard and wouldn't hold up under any kind of scrutiny. It'll happen and this entire debate will just go away...