One Judge vs 7 million votes

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

On the other hand if the majority actually takes away the rights of the minority, what do you call it?

Where is it written that gays have said rights to GAY MARRIAGE to be taken away to begin with?

[Aramike]

If a straight person has the right to marry the person of his/her choice, and a gay person doesn't, they do not have the same rights, period.

Wrong. You mis-stated it. A straight person has the right to marry a person of the opposite sex of their choice. The same as a gay person. Whether or not you "like" reality doesn't make the principle unreal.

Frankly, I really don't give a damn one way or the other on the issue. That being said, this judge was out-of-line. I guess that most people have an inability to reconcile what they WANT to be true with what reality dictates is true.

If it were up to me, gays would have the same rights to unions as heterosexual couples, but it would be termed differently, and I think it is small and trite of gay activists to repudiate such a gesture repeatedly simply because they want a term traditionally applied to straights.

[razark]

How does it harm anyone if gays are allowed to marry?

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by razark

How does it harm anyone if gays are allowed to marry?

I myself would like to know the answer to that, but nobody has presented one yet.


EDIT: What I've been able to surmise so far is that it scares the bejeezus out of those who oppose it. That leads to another question of: Why?

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by krashkart

I myself would like to know the answer to that, but nobody has presented one yet.

From a report on a pre-trial hearing last fall:

In a San Francisco courtroom two weeks ago, a prominent lawyer opposed to same-sex marriage made a concession that could mark a turning point in the legal wars over the purpose and meaning of marriage.

The lawyer, Charles J. Cooper, has studied the matter deeply, and his erudite briefs are steeped in history. He cannot have been blindsided by the question Judge Vaughn R. Walker asked him: What would be the harm of permitting gay men and lesbians to marry?

“Your honor, my answer is: I don’t know,” Mr. Cooper said. “I don’t know.”

Apparently they were never able to come up with anything better than that.

Oh wait, I 'member now. Gay marriage will destroy and de-sanctify all straight marriages! For those already-married heteros out there, this ruling has nullified your unions in the eyes of God and the state. Also, the Keepers of the Gay Agenda will be sending you the contact info for the same-sex partner you will now be required to marry instead. (Some of you unlucky ones will have to be paired up with animals and the occasional inanimate object, but you know how it goes... slippery slope and all that.)

Only, you know, NOT.

[TLAM Strike]

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

(Some of you unlucky ones will have to be paired up with animals and the occasional inanimate object...)

So for people in New Zealand, Wales and who use the Internet nothing much will have changed right?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

So for people in New Zealand, Wales and who use the Internet nothing much will have changed right?

Comment of the year material there!

[frau kaleun]

Originally Posted by TLAM Strike

So for people in New Zealand, Wales and who use the Internet nothing much will have changed right?

You are baaaaaad.

I know because the sheep pressed charges.

[krashkart]

Originally Posted by frau kaleun

From a report on a pre-trial hearing last fall:

That is an interesting read. It confirmed what I had already suspected, which is that same-sex marriage is wrong on a level that cannot really be described. Without a rhyme or reason to it, it is simply wrong to some. I can understand that to an extent. But society is always changing and it's time to adapt and let go of the phobias (or whatever it is).

This could be ongoing for some years yet, I suppose. Thanks for the link. Still reading through the half I haven't read yet.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by razark

How does it harm anyone if gays are allowed to marry?

How does it harm anyone is gays are allowed the same exact rights as marriage but it is termed something else out of respect?

[mookiemookie]

Originally Posted by Aramike

How does it harm anyone is gays are allowed the same exact rights as marriage but it is termed something else out of respect?

Because separate but equal is inherently unequal.

[Aramike]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Because separate but equal is inherently unequal.

Umm, no, because it IS separate by nature - please don't make me get into how all the "parts" work here...

[Takeda Shingen]

Originally Posted by Aramike

Umm, no, because it IS separate by nature - please don't make me get into how all the "parts" work here...

Homosexuality does occur in nature.

[August]

Originally Posted by mookiemookie

Because separate but equal is inherently unequal.

Then i'm sure you are in favor of unisex public toilets.

[razark]

Originally Posted by Aramike

How does it harm anyone is gays are allowed the same exact rights as marriage but it is termed something else out of respect?

It is what it is.

Personally, if you want to call it something other than marriage, that's fine. Just so long as it is open to all. If you want to call everything that happens in a religious setting "marriage", then that's fine. After the couple finishes their "marriage" at the church, they can go to the courthouse and have their civil union ceremony. Of course, until they have the civil ceremony, they won't have the benefits that are currently reserved for married people.

That way, everyone is happy. Churches don't have to deal with gay marriage, and people who are not religious will be able to have a civil union without the church. People who are against the government having anything to do with it can have their marriage, and the government won't get involved.

By the way, what was the answer? Who does it harm if gays get married?