No repeal this year to Gay marriage ban in California

[Father Time]

Poor babies can not win at the ballot box so keep trying to subvert the American process with lame court attempts.

Gay marriage fails to get on California ballot - Yahoo! News

Unlike the Prop 8 folks who had to lie all the time to get it passed.

 

[Dr Gregg]

Two consenting homosexuals marrying has no effect on anybody else

Two siblings having sexual relationships can lead to inbred, genetically messed up children, and that effects the child.

Big difference there. But we know that's all the homophobes have, bullshit to try and justify their bigotry and dislike for homosexuals.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Two consenting homosexuals marrying has no effect on anybody else

Two siblings having sexual relationships can lead to inbred, genetically messed up children, and that effects the child.

Big difference there. But we know that's all the homophobes have, bullshit to try and justify their bigotry and dislike for homosexuals.

Once again you ******* retard birth defects only start to occur after GENERATIONS of inbreeding. And you dumb ass siblings are not the only family members not allowed to marry. In some States STEP siblings can not marry, even though neither is even blood relation. Cousins can not marry either.

Your entire premise is BULLSHIT. Over 40 women having children have a higher chance of a defective birth then a first generation incestuous relationship. Yet you do not complain about that. There are people that carry KNOWN defects that give as much as a 50 percent chance any offspring will be born with the defect, yet you do not complain about that.

Incest is uncomfortable to talk about but if we are going to claim GAY sex and marriage is normal then so is Incest amongst consenting adults. Both involve two loving consenting adults. Which was all the criteria you liberal dumb asses claimed was needed to make gay marriage and sex normal.

 

[Father Time]

Anyone else just want to strip marriage benefits away all together and end this debate once and for all?

 

[Dr Gregg]

My premise is bullshit, yet there is not one valid argument ever presented as to why homosexuals can't marry.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

My premise is bullshit, yet there is not one valid argument ever presented as to why homosexuals can't marry.

Same argument applies to Incest. If you want to label abnormal abhorrent sexual practices as normal then you have no grounds for opposing incest amongst consenting adults.

But to the point, your genetics argument works more against making homosexual behavior normal then incest. If a society embraces and shifts in any large number to homosexual couplings they run the very real risk of ending the species. Incest would require generations and then would just make some genetic defects occur.

 

[Dr Gregg]

My premise is bullshit, yet there is not one valid argument ever presented as to why homosexuals can't marry.

Same argument applies to Incest. If you want to label abnormal abhorrent sexual practices as normal then you have no grounds for opposing incest amongst consenting adults.

But to the point, your genetics argument works more against making homosexual behavior normal then incest. If a society embraces and shifts in any large number to homosexual couplings they run the very real risk of ending the species. Incest would require generations and then would just make some genetic defects occur.

The issue is homosexual marriage, not incest. You want to **** your siblings, that's a different matter that has nothing to do, nor is anyway comparable, to homosexual marriage. Start the movement up if you want that ability.

it's just the typical bullshit argument like I stated.

6 billion people and rising, tiny percentage are homosexuals, so the human species is not endangered. And heterosexuals are not going to "catch the gay" and suddenly become attracted to the opposite sex, biology doesn't work that way.

Yet another stupid argument, not sure why you morons even bother arguing nor even care what others do that harm nobody, just show's your true colors

 

[bodecea]

Anyone else just want to strip marriage benefits away all together and end this debate once and for all?

That would be an equitable solution. Sure, why not?

 

[bodecea]

My premise is bullshit, yet there is not one valid argument ever presented as to why homosexuals can't marry.

Face it...they are Segregationists who support gender discrimination.

 

[Oddball]

My premise is bullshit, yet there is not one valid argument ever presented as to why homosexuals can't marry.

Gays can get married under contract law all they want.

I have yet to hear one intellectually valid argument for the state being involved in the licensing of marriages.

And speaking of segregationists, the marriage license was used as a tool in the deep south to prevent inter-ethnic marriages...Interestingly ironic that gays are now demanding to get in on a lingering vestige of Jim Crow.

 

[bodecea]

My premise is bullshit, yet there is not one valid argument ever presented as to why homosexuals can't marry.

Gays can get married under contract law all they want.

I have yet to hear one intellectually valid argument for the state being involved in the licensing of marriages.

And speaking of segregationists, the marriage license was used as a tool in the deep south to prevent inter-ethnic marriages...Interestingly ironic that gays are now demanding to get in on a lingering vestige of Jim Crow.

So...you are saying traditional civil marriage was to prevent inter-ethnic marriages....there's our true marriage tradition for you.

 

[Qball]

My premise is bullshit, yet there is not one valid argument ever presented as to why homosexuals can't marry.

Gays can get married under contract law all they want.

I have yet to hear one intellectually valid argument for the state being involved in the licensing of marriages.

And speaking of segregationists, the marriage license was used as a tool in the deep south to prevent inter-ethnic marriages...Interestingly ironic that gays are now demanding to get in on a lingering vestige of Jim Crow.

So...you are saying traditional civil marriage was to prevent inter-ethnic marriages....there's our true marriage tradition for you.

What do you care? You're the one begging for gays to be allowed into the marriage tradition.

Perhaps this is why a lot of social conservatives wont relent in their opposition to gay marriage. Because the majority of liberals pushing for it seem to have such a glib, dismissive regard for the institution itself only to the extent that they can blather on about gays not being included in it.

 

[Qball]

One other point I think is important:

I hear a lot of people say, "the government needs to get out of the marriage business." While I understand the sentiment, as an argument this fails on a few levels. First, realistically, what are the odds that the government is going to just "get out of the marriage business"? Do the people who say that really think it's going to happen? My guess is it's highly unlikely that will ever happen (at least in our lifetimes), so as a point it's mainly a cop-out because it's never going to happen.

Second, rhetorically, this seems like a cop-out because it's always mentioned in relation to the "gay marriage" question. No one asked if you think the government should, generally speaking, recognize marriage. Do you agree with legal gay marriage, yes or no? My guess is many people who make this argument don't want to seem like bigoted homophobes by truthfully saying they don't believe in it, so they go for the scorched-earth approach that offends no one.

Third, and perhaps most important, the government isn't in the "marriage business" anyway. The problem is a lot of people who don't understand the law (activists and bleeding-heart liberal douchebags on message boards) get to frame this issue, and they rationalize points that aren't realistic. There is no marriage entitlement program you're kissed into when you get a marriage license. "Marriage" in the legal sense exists as any number of legal stipulations in state and federal law. You can't generalize these stipulations as being "rights", "protections" (for those of you who try to link this social issue to some invisible constitutional tenet) or even "generally significant" to most couples -- even straight ones. For one, there are too many of them and no one has gone over each iteration of "marriage" to determine it's effects on a couple; two, it would relatively impossible to do that because individual couples vary greatly, not just from person to person, but year to year (there is no uniformity even among straight couples, except the legal part); and three, most of these iterations exist within a larger framework that matters more than just marital status. For example, a mere count of the times marriage is mentioned in Veteran's Affairs policy might be in the hundreds, but the larger point is those can only pertain to spouses of veterans. Ditto Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and tax policy. So if a list is compiled of all the instances of marriage in federal law, it's easy for someone to just conclude that there are hundreds, if not thousands, of rights and benefits gay people can't receive, but that's not the case.

 

[ihopehefails]

In my opinion, people should break california into two small states. The gay half can have their own state while the normal half can have their own state. Gays in their state can marry whoever they want and be 'free' while the other state can be left alone. This should be all anyone wants and that is the right to conduct their life the way they want to.

PS. The gay state can have its own flag and can be of a guy bending over while the other state's flag can depict a guy standing waving his hand in the air saying 'no way'

 

[csbarry]

The great majority of the people in the United States wish to live in a Country where marriage is the union of a man and a woman. That is how we want our Country to recognize the institution of marriage. Regardless of what some misguided justices have imposed on the good citizens of this Country, gays do not have the right to marriage, nor should they have the right to adopt children.