SF Judge: "no rational purpose" for denying marriage to gay couples - Page 2  

I've already pointed out why this is a bad decision. Citing the bad decision doesn't change that fact. You could do a find and replace with gender for age and number of partners and the same reasoning would still apply.

Here I'll even do one for you.


This is why I have claimed that homosexual marriage isn't about whether one likes or dislikes someone who is homosexual or even how tolerant someone can be. It is about the right of government and people to determine how laws apply and also the definitions of those words.

Almost every law creates classifications or even discriminations. The point is that they must apply equally. The age of eighteen for marriage is nothing more than a societal line in the sand. There is even historical proof that plenty of success marriages have occurred before that line and that society had accepted such marriages in the past. The reality however is that society applies the age limit equally to all parties. They could even allow homosexuals to marry partners of the same gender, but if they made them wait until eighteen while allowing heterosexual partners to marry at say, sixteen, it would be an equal rights protection problem.

The marriage licensing requirement of opposite gender is applied equally. It is not applied seperately to homosexuals and heterosexuals. You might be upset by that fact, but the point is that we are not claiming that hetero may only marry hetero and homo only homo and writing that into law. If we did, it would be a seperate but equal issue. There is no marriage requirement to state your orientation in any fashion.

Nick

The question isn't do adolescents go through biological change. The question is should society be allowed to deny equal protection to parties for reasons of biological change?

Care to tackle that one?

Using your reasoning I could deny women going through menopause the right to marry. Menopause is a biological change. Males go through something similar but I'm not aware of a general term for it.

Nick

You're missing the whole point.

What basis is there to deny homosexuals and heterosexuals alike the right to marry anyone of any gender?

Look at the intent of the law.

The intent of this law is clearly designed to deny homosexuals the right to marry eachother, while allowing heterosexuals the right to marry eachother.

This is not about gender at all. The gender issue is a distraction from the issue of freedom to marry whomever one pleases. Stop with the distractions already.

Heterosexuals can marry the person they are likely to want to marry. Homosexuals cannot marry the person they are likely to want to marry. That is the basis for the discrimination pointed out in this decision.

What is the average age of all the clueless people you ***** about in the Insider Lounge again?

Yes I believe it. I've watched forty year old people make the same bad decisions they been making since they were fourteen, and I've watched fourteen year olds make better decisions than thirty year olds. It has also been proven that aptitude seldom changes with age.

Age, as they say, is just a number. But then again, I live in a blue state that allows twelve year olds to request abortions on demand.

Nick

Marriage isn't just a protection. It is also a prohibition. It actually creates more restrictions than it grants rights.

I've responded to it by showing that hetero and homosexual people are not treated seperately but equal. We have no laws keeping the confined to their own groups as we did for races. Homosexual using the exact same criteria as heterosexuals and the government asks them nothing about their sexuality during the licensing process.

Nick

Menaopause affects the decision-making ability of women? That's new.

The whole point is that before adolescence, the brain has not been developed to the capacity that would allow a child the reasoning ability necessary to make a life changing decision.

During adolescence, in Western society, the youth's sociological experience and their education level is generally not sufficient enough to allow them to make such a life changing decision.

You're really not very good at drawing reasonable analogies, are you?

Either you honestly support your own personal right to marry a thirteen year-old, or you're trying to draw a straw man. Because the analogy to same sex marriage just isn't there, no matter how hard you pretend that it is.

This thought just occurred to me......How about this for strawman/Angels-on-the-head-of-a-pin? question:


Could two homsexual brothers get married? If not, why not?

And this is relevant to the thread how? It grants rights. It is a right. The restrictions it adds (unable to marry someone else, shared responsibility) don't matter one diddly squat, and you therefore are saying nothing relevant here.


No you haven't. You've argued that, but your argument has been shot down. Heterosexuals have the right to marry the one whom they are likely to want to marry. Homosexuals do not have the right to marry the one whom they are likely to want to marry. That's discrimination.

That homosexuals (in California) are afforded most of the same rights granted to married couples is the issue of being separate (one group can marry the one they are likely to choose; one cannot) but equal (both are afforded many of the same rights).


No. What we have is a law which denies one group's right to keep to (marry) their own group. Can you not see that that is the same thing? Or are you, as you have refused to respond to my allegations of such in the past, deliberately looking for a reason you can use to deny homosexuals the right to marry, and for what purpose?

Why are you ignoring the big question, over and over and over?

Why shouldn't homosexuals have the right to marry eachother?

That question is what this decision is all about.

The judge said there's no rational reason. And you haven't said anything to the contrary, instead choosing to distract repeatedly and incessantly, to a degree that can only lead one to conclude that you are in clinical denial that you simply do not have a rational answer to that question.

Wood//Trees?

I've thought about this before. there's no biological reason why it shouldn't be allowed, like there is for heterosexuals. But in additional to the biological considerations, there is much anecdotal evidence that incest has very severe consequences to the social health of families. If there were evidence to the contrary, citing cases of incest that were socially healthy, than I might look at the issue again.

First and foremost Ton, I hate to break this to you, but an equal number if not more judges have ruled against this matter, even in California.


Sure it can. We have the right to self-govern. It is a basic fundamental right. The issue of homosexual marriage isn't really about marriage. It is about being able to define words at will to mean whatever you want. We are a country that lives by the rule of law. If the words that make up those laws become meaningless then we head toward chaos. We don't head there because of homosexuals, but because we cannot define our own language anymore.

Imagine if when civil rights for blacks were being debated someone suggested that we merely call black people white instead of black.

Think on that for a moment. The personhood and the rights would no longer be the true issue at that point. Your problem would be literally trying to convince people that the color they see in front of their eyes doesn't exist and isn't called the word they learned for that color.

Now I've stated repeatedly that instead of arguing that one word should cover all forms of relationships, be they homosexual or heterosexual that government needs to adopt new forms of recognizing relationships. People complain that civil unions are seperate but equal and rightly so when they assign the rights of marriage exclusively to heterosexual opposite gender couples and the rights of civil unions exclusively to same gender homosexual couples.

My contention, and I am consistant in this, is that I would never assign that distinction. I would allow both homosexual and heterosexual couples the right to civil union. Civil unions as a state licensing matter would be free from gender restrictions. They would also, if I had my way, be free of other historical baggage like Daddy as primary earner and Mommy as primary care giver that we tend to still associate with marriage, especially in family courts. I think the reason heterosexuals are clearly abandoning marriage is because of the historical baggage associated with it. Both homosexual and heterosexuals deserve something modern and better. We can give them that without having to argue people through their own history or word definitions.

We do this in a lot of other areas of life. We take something that has historical and religious baggage and simply create a secular alternative. It is much easier to creat Santa Claus than it is to argue that Jesus really wore a red suit and handed out presents.


I object because achieving a goal through the wrong means isn't really an achievement. It is a loss in the long run. People for example will argue that homosexuality is natural and genetic. I ask them what happens if scientists can isolate the gene and test for it and women begin having abortions on demand to remove their genetically different children?

Using that reasoning to attempt to achieve acceptance of homosexuality doesn't work so well in that instance does it? It may achieve a short term goal, but could result in a long term loss.

Nick

That's not the point. The truth is that this court trumps all others up to this point in time. So the decisions of other courts is moot except where it applies to this decision.


So damnit, why aren't you satisfied with governing yourself? READ MY SIGNATURE.

I'm certainly not taking that right away from you, personally. Why are you so afraid of letting other people believe differently than you do? As far as the state goes, no, the state does not have the right to define words as they see fit, by ballot or otherwise, when such a definition would have the effect of being discriminatory. As long as there is language in the law that gives certain rights to people who marry, defining marriage in a discriminatory way is unconstitutional, and it is not the right of the state to do so.

And if legal definitions lead to discrimination we are worse than in chaos, we are actually doing something that is actively harmful.

I ask again: Who is telling you what your definition is? Your definition can be different from the state's definition, and no one can stop you. Now, before you throw in another strawman, this does not compare to you say, redefining "murder" or "theft". You defining marriage as between a man and a woman and acting on that definition does not limit or affect anyone else but yourself. Go ahead, tiger. Act on your belief. I'm not stopping you.

Likewise, a church can act on their own definition, as well. A church has every right to refuse to marry a homosexual couple, bsased on their beliefs.


Non-sequitur to the ultimate degree. What a ridiculous, and irrelevant argument.


I agree wholeheartedly. Let the law deal only with civil unions, remove any mention of the word "marriage" from the law, and allow individual churches and non-governmental ministers and justices of the peace the right to their own definition of the word "marriage", and the right to marry whomever they want (even polygamists, family members or children, since it wouldn't matter in terms of the law).


That's a question of ethics, not law. As such, selective abortion for a non-disability, like gender, left-handedness, eye coloror sexual preferencewould never be accepted as ethical and such selective abortions would be illegal (just as gender selective abortions are illegal in many places around the world, where there would be a problem with gender skew). No question about it. This would not be allowed in a civilized country.

I disagree. And am I really to believe that you want homosexuality to become more widely accepted? Oh, please. How noble of you.

SIGH.

Heterosexual marrige is between a biological man and a biological woman. No one can take that away from them. Heterosexual marriage can be between a really masculine man and a really feminine woman, a really feminine man and really masculine woman, or any other combination.

IT IS NOT BASED ON GENDER. (for da billionth time yo!)

Just want to go on record as saying I'm very pleased with the court's decision but I'm concerned that the majority isn't ready for this yet. Why people are so scared of homosexual marrige is beyond me, but many are. Even if this passes all the way thorugh the court system, there is still the possibility of amending the constitution to prevent homosexual marriage.

trumptman:

No, because that is not a biological fact of all people.

The ruling, as tonton pointed out, was that the law provides freedom for women to marry men and does not afford the same freedom to men, and provides the freedom for men to marry women and does not afford the same freedom to women.

This psuedo protection under the law artificially creates two legal entities which are supposed to have equal rights but do not. Concerning the draft -- the constitution sets out the draft for all able body men before getting around to saying all people should incur the same freedoms. It is an irrelevent example. The basis of that gender differential is within the constitution....

I must have missed that earlier. But this is the lynch pin of the social conservative position.

Yes, we know. We also know that this was the position of social conservatives on the issue of inter-racial marriage. The law affords the right for blacks to marry other blacks but does not afford this right to whites, and the law affords the right to whites to marry whites but does not afford this right to blacks. Who cares, right? Both racial groups have the right to marry. Wrong! The parity isn't real: A white person isn't afforded the identical rights as a black person, nor is a black person afforded the identical rights of a white person, hence it is unconstitutional.

The reasoning here is identical: Under the current law, a woman isn't afforded the same rights as a man, and a man isn't afforded the same rights as a woman.

Same basic logic. Hopefully, same ultimate conclusion: when logic and social norms fight, logic wins.

This is one of those issues that has me convinced this country is going down the tubes. We're in a war, there are very tense situations going on in Iran, North Korea and Lebanon. The deficit is out of control. The government just screwed the population on bankruptcy and are looking to do the same with social security and yet everyone's all in a lather because two consenting adults who love each other want to enter into a contract. The hate behind the anti gay marriage side is just stifling. There's no logic, no reason just hate.

This country allows women to have abortions, but doesn't allow men to have abortions.

So far the arguments I've heard against gay marriage don't pass the laugh test.

Bottom line is if you decide to marry a guy or a girl, it has no negative effect on anyone except those who decide to make other people's business their business.

The same is not the case with issues of age disparity, polygamy, or incest where there is clear historical evidence of abuse and domination of will. Arguing that such prohibitions are irrational and are only adopted as tradition, so we should be free to enforce other traditions as morality is unbelievably silly.

I could accept this compromise, as long as the state also stops providing marriage licenses to heterosexuals only. Is that what you meant to imply? Let marriage be a religious ceremony performed as various religious organizations see fit.

edit [personal insult removed]

If you have noticed overpopulation is a real problem in this world. When I was a kid we were already approaching what is considered the maximum now we're over it. I don't think a few couples in the U.S. without children would hurt " The continuation of our society ". And what about hetero couples that choose not to. This really is a nonargument.

Yes but the tendency is for people to grow in wisdom as they get older. I'm almost 52 now and I shudder at some of the dumb things I did even in my 30's. Wisdom doesn't come with just experience. It also comes with time to put it all in perspective. Only time will do that. Otherwise you won't truly understand what's happened and how it impacts you. You can have too many adult experiences at a young age and it can be damaging because you don't have time to put it all togther. Anyone who says anything else is selling something.

I don't think there is really too much to discuss here once you sift through the rehtoric.

The marriage issue will serve several purposes for the gay community. The most important is that it would take a materialistic worldview and consistently apply that to cultural definition. (There is also a side effect that it would make Christianity, Islam, Judiasm in general to be officially intolerant as defined by the the State [the government]. Once you have the gay lifestyle codified as offically approved, any creed that differs will become at odds with that State's ethos.

The problem with the discussion, is that the 'the past as a source of social norms' crowd has, unwittingly approached this issue with an incoherent [as in inconsistent] worldview -- not realizing that you only have to ask the question 'why can't a man have the same marriage rights as a woman' and their argument falls to peices, becuase the term 'freedom' really means the same for a materialist as it does for a social conservative' political order is the core of both party.

My evangelical brothers, who form most of the opposition in America to gay marriage, have nearly as incoherent a worldview. When Christianity is reduced to a personal, private Jeeeeezzzzzuss trip, attempting to organize any cultural response becomes problematic. In fact, most Christians define themselves by taking the culuture around them and 'NOT doing certain things'. That is really all their worldview allows them, they have abstracted their "personal realtionship with Christ' to the point of being more clueless than just about any party in this debate. Maybe I'm being unfair in that statement, but I think they have lost their saltiness. Their opposition is inconherent andbasically a kneejerk reaction. They know "God said so" but they can't explain why that matters to their opposition.

So in the end you have a very small, intelligent, and highly motivated group that will 'turn this country on it's head', by officially switching 'the family' to a materialist-based (read: political) unit (not an order-comes-from-God unit) -- and they're doing it agianst a lethargic, muddled worldview.

Well that's the trick, one on side you have people who claim to make universal negative statements about God, and what He has said and done. On the other you have clueless people who are believers but who don't understand why order from 'above' matters.

I don't think either side is ultimately being very consistent.

I think 90% of the people who blame fundamentalist Christianity for these types of problems don't have any problem with God and what he has done. what we have a problem with is what various churches have done.

Church rhetoric does not equal the "truth" about God.
It is likely that the word of various versions of the Bible has been changed to reflect church rhetoric.

In my opinion, until one sees that they cannot be a true Christian.

The materialist lable is a fairly good one -- after all, it's for the people who [in practice] operate as though all that exists is matter and mathematical laws.

Two points:

The first is that the Consitution is the product of long train of thought that took law out of the hands of the despot and put it as coming from God. "endowed by thier creator' is the key here -- it took centuries to get to that point.

The other is that the common parlance of 'separation of church and state' is simply a tool to replace one worldview with another. The assumption that mankind is nuetral and that you introduce religion later is clever -- in this case it has nearly checkmated the Christian complaints.

Well, there is alot of postmodernist thought that is pervasive.........


WAIT!! DAMMIT!! I SAID NO THEOLOGICAL ISSUESS!!!!

FRELL!!

*shutting up*

It may be more practical, more in the way you approach the issue -- with your reason as the center and barring revelation.

But don't get me wrong, you ARE definitly being consistent.

But, enough! I'm falling behind here. More later.

Groverat is absolutely consistent. I've always respected him for that.

A memo to a higher office
Open letter to the powers that be
To a god, a king, a head of state
A captain of industry
To the movers and the shakers...
Can't everybody see?

It ought to be second nature
I mean, the places where we live
Let's talk about this sensibly
We're not insensitive
I know progress has no patience
But something's got to give

I know you're different
You know I'm the same
We're both too busy
To be taking the blame
I'd like some changes
But you don't have the time
We can't go on thinking
It's a victimless crime
No one is blameless
But we're all without shame
We fight the fire while we're feeding the flames

Folks have got to make choices
And choices got to have voices
Folks are basically decent
Conventional wisdom would say
But we read about the exceptions
In the papers every day

It ought to be second nature
At least, that's what I feel
Now I lay me down in Dreamland
I know perfect's not for real
I thought we might get closer
But I'm ready to make a deal

Today is different, and tomorrow the same
It's hard to take the world the way that it came
Too many rapids keep us sweeping along
Too many captains keep on steering us wrong
It's hard to take the heat
It's hard to lay blame
To fight the fire while we're feeding the flames

-NP

You may be amazed to learn that everybody else's world doesn't neatly divide into "thinks about God in precisely the same terms as dmz" and "the materialist godless hell bound".

You claim to understand and even appreciate the internal consistency of "materialist" philosophy while grossly distorting and truncating what is spiritually possible for people who don't happen to share your specific interpretation of what God would have us do.


For instance, you have opined that homosexuality is some species of self-indulgence, from which follows that people who are practicing homosexuals cannot be behaving as they believe God would have them behave because the act itself is a supreme act of self will. You posit this with the cool assurance of someone who is sitting at the table with God even now chatting about His intent.


You might consider some of those self seeking gays are, in fact, filled with love of God, and just don't happen to share your interpretation of the scripture. I believe it must be considered interpretation unless you are prepared to show me you follow every Bronze Age injunction and instruction to the letter, because if you don't you are picking and choosing.

I don't see how you can claim not to want to get into "theology" when you are basing your casual insults as to what gay people might be up to when they want to get married on nothing but. Maybe you think your notions are so righteous as to precede "theology" and simply exist as unassailable givens.

Please consider: gay marriage may not per force require capitulation to the forces of materialism. Gay people may not driven by a need to defy God, or indulge there own pleasure seeking.

The love of Christ may be better served by moving beyond Bronze Age prejudices and embracing who we are just as God made us. Notions of what constitutes sin may be open to change, grimly puritanical readings of very old books with vexed histories notwithstanding.

People may give themselves over to God and behave in ways that you personally disapprove of, or imagine that God disapproves of, based on your interpretation of very old texts with vexed histories.

There may be more ways to skin a cat than having to choose between your ideas about righteousness and your notion of some kind of soulless hell bound materialism.

dmz, I've asked this before so - in your own words,

is it OK for me to mix semen and faeces in my girlfriends rectum?

Even if she really enjoys it?