California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

Just ONE more thing:



Who wants to see my rant on how UNcommon divorce is these days -- especially, how the 50% figure that's bandied about is false? It's a rant I've ranted several times now but I'm happy to bring it out yet again, since I really adore misconception-shattering.

I thinl California rolls already changed the definition of sushi.

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
win.

T
K
O

Many same sex couples enter into a marriage with preexisting children. Gay people are not incapable of siring children. They just can't sire them with each other... Many straight people marry and find they cannot make a child either and thus they search for alternative ways to bring a child into their relationship in the exact same way gays do. The laws can amend the way marriage is applied without changing the word marriage into civil unions.

As for the legal definition of a man and woman. Some women are masculine and though married to a man they take on the male role in a marriage. Some men stay at home cook, clean and take care of the children and are effeminate. Today that is not frowned upon but in the past in the ideal world of marriage that you seem to subscribe to return to they were persecuted in society for doing so. That made for an unhappy environment to raise children.

So should their marriage be called a civil union because they do not fit the precise mold where roles are reversed. Just as in many gay relationships there are often male and female roles. Not all gays even want children just as many heterosexuals opt to not bring children into their union.

There is a higher divorce rate because in the past divorce was so socially forbidden. That instead of divorce couples were forced to stay in an abusive relationship. The children suffered horribly in those situations. Just as gays were persecuted in the same traditional society that they remained in the closet. Male and female gays were often so unhappy that they battered each other in a marriage situations...

Often suicide or murder of a spouse resulted. How many wives poisoned their husbands in the old days because they found they were gay? How many husbands beat their wives because they couldn't deal with their own inner gay person. This was why marriage was often referred to as a ball and chain. Wife swapping was much common in the old days. Today people just divorce and adjust their lives to more closely fit the person they really are. Isn't this better?



Homophobia is an "attitude" too. It was precisely the social stigma and attitudes that led to all of the repressed marital troubles in our societies past. The religious right forcing prolonged marriage on people after the love and tenderness was simply gone... Thus in turn this forced children to remain in hate filled parental situations with no hope of escape.

Today people feel more free to divorce and that is a good thing... Perhaps marriage also encompassing gays will allow heterosexuals to be even more open about where the really want to be. Bad marriages could then dissolve more easily and morph into a more loving situation for the children involved. As I said, two households give the children two choices rather than only one.

Some with "attitudes" feel sorry for children raised in gay marriages but is that any worse than children raised in an abusive heterosexual marriage? Especially when the children in the gay family are often raised in a loving and tolerant atmosphere in the gay couples household?

We will just have to agree to disagree Rex. I am not homophobic and have absolutely no problem with anybody gay, straight, or something in between except for those, gay, straight, or something in between, who are in my face about anything telling me what I am supposed to believe or think or who I am supposed to be in order to be respectable or successful, and/or who accuse me of going to hell or some kind of phobia or some kind of -ism or being stupid or irrational or hateful or extreme because I don't 100% share his/her views about something.

I don't see divorce, however necessary it sometimes is, as something to aspire to or think of as a good thing. I believe all children, gay or straight or something in between, benefit from having a loving mother and father in the home and I think that is an ideal that should be strongly encouraged and supported by society. I do think it is some of those who despise or hold marriage in contempt who most want to change the definition to something else. And, while I am not accusing you or suggesting that you are included, I also think the motives of those who want to change the definition of marriage are often something quite different than those who want to agree on a best solution that would allow committed gay couples the protections and benefits they need.

So, again we will probably just have to agree to disagree for now.

I think all redheads have a temper and therefore there should be laws allowing them to only marry other redheads so as to not endanger the sacred institution of marriage, and if you tell me that I'm not supposed to believe that or who I am supposed to be in order to be respectable or successful [yadda yadda], then we're just going to have to agree to disagree.

Except, to be fair, there'd have to be a chance for them to prove they are not real redheads before they were banned.

I mean, at present, I look like a redhead....but one look at the naughty bits....and I am free to marry a redhead like a shot!

Not so fast... what if you'd just dyed the naughty bits? Hmm? Hmm? Some sort of DNA testing is called for, I think.

I get red beards. Well, I got them. Before I got married (Mrs Walter would get a black beard, I think).

But obviously - a different culture and law here in Germany - balded red-bearded men can marry different coloured females.

Otherwise, I agree.

Oh...there'd be mandatory custody of suspected redheads for a "Root-revelation" period in which hair dye, any colour-altering substance, and razors and scissors etc would be banned, .....followed by re-inspection.

In the beginning was the word and the word was brunette but the brunette was not satisfied and it was the chosen brunette that slew the other brunette until a blond was born in a trailer home in Mobile Alabama and fun spread across the land and the Holy Clairol ruled the masses eschewing the brunettes for they kept the darkness and the gold. Red was then seen in the agora and the reds flaunted their redness in front of the blonds til the blonds could suffer no more for they feared for the blond children and the brunette children and a law was enacted banishing the reds to their closets, Clairol sales were better than ever but the closets were made of the ikea and the ikea was not strong so the reds returned to the agora where they multiplied. The last of days were nigh and soon the masses would be shorn.

That could work.

Angry red heads marry each0ther? Perhaps not a very civil union. We would have to come up with a whole new name to classify that. Attitudes would flair...

The error in your logic is that having red hair has nothing to do with the meaning and purpose of marriage, whereas gender does.

I suppose you plan to tell us the purpose gender has?

If you're tempted to say reproduction, you'll need to account for why heterosexual infertile couples or couples that choose to not reproduce should be allowed to marry.

Enlighten us. Please don't waste anyone's time with a that's-how-it's-been argument either.

Tell us how gender applies, specifically.
K
O

This all comes down to "I'm scared of it; make it go away!"

I fail to see how a gay couple getting married in Hawaii affects my marriage in the least. I fail to see how a gay couple getting married and moving next door to me affects me in the least, either.

Changing something from what is was means it is not what it used to be... Your point?

Your further extrapolation that changing it thus devalues it and then leads it ultimately to having no value is completely unsupported. What says that marriage's value doesn't rise with this change?

T
K
O

Maybe if gays are allowed to marry homophobic men won't be able to get it up with their wives.

if the cialis ads i see watching tv (about 2 hours a week for the national news) are any indication, most married men in america can't get it up anyway

glad i stayed single, no problems in that department so far

Rex - Hey where have you been? You've been gone for a while. If my memory serves me, didn't you have a surgery on your hand? Are things well?

Additionally(forgive me here), do I sense a certain change in your posts? The spirit of them (the few I have noticed in the last week) seems somehow different. For instance, I didn't exactly have you pegged as the type to advocate on behalf of LGBT people. Details through the cracks perhaps?

T
K
O