California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

@Thomas,

and what's so great about traditional marriage, it seems pretty messed up

@dlowan,

dlowan wrote:

I thinl California rolls already changed the definition of sushi.

And it's a good thing too. Let's hope it will survive the upcoming Californian referendum to protect traditional sushi.

PS: My local Italian restaurant offers a series of appetizers called "Sushi Italianao". One of their creations is octopus tentacles cut into Sushi-sized chunks, filled with some risotto-ish mix. Another is simply Ricotta and a few herbs wrapped in barbecued Zuccini stripes. The customers love it. Nobody ever quarreled with the Italian restaurant calling it Sushi.

0 Replies

@djjd62,

djjd62 wrote:

and what's so great about traditional marriage, it seems pretty messed up

It's not my decision whether it's great or not. It's not your decision, or Foxfyre's decision either. It's the couples' decision. Which is the whole point.

1 Reply

@Brandon9000,

Brandon9000 wrote:

No, it's just ordinary common sense. How in God's name are you going to know if someone who requests suicide has had subtle pressure applied? Once the state sanctions assisted suicide, who knows where it might end?

No.

It might be common fear, but it's not common sense. How would physician-assisted suicide (with counseling and professional oversight) be any more dangerous than people living at home with these predatory family members?

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

djjd62 wrote:
and what's so great about traditional marriage, it seems pretty messed up

It's not my decision whether it's great or not. It's not your decision, or Foxfyre's decision either. It's the couples' decision. Which is the whole point.

i take my position on gay marriage from bill hick's views on gays in the military

"anybody, stupid enough to want to be in the army, should be allowed to join"

1 Reply

@djjd62,

Hmm. I know plenty of smart people in the military, and I'm glad they made the decision to join. I'd rather have a smart military than a dumb one.

And while I'm being contrarian, I'm quite fond of traditional marriage, too. (My fondness for it doesn't make me want to squelch gay marriage, though.)

1 Reply

@sozobe,

true, my uncle was in the armed forces, very bright, i never said the actual people joining were stupid, only there actions, something i agree with the late mr hicks about

after all lot's of bright folks do stupid things

as for marriage, not for me that's for sure, but as i say, anybody that wants to do it should be able to

1 Reply

@djjd62,

Or, as Kinky Friedman so aptly put it: "I believe love is bigger than government. And besides, they have a right to be as miserable as the rest of us."

0 Replies

@jespah,

Road to hell?

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Foxfyre wrote:
Once the traditional marriage is safe

False choice. Traditional marriage is safe. Gay marriage does nothing to abolish it.

Oh goody....Thomas is going to go a few rounds with Fox re her mind-numbing belief that gay marriage does something awful to HER marriage.

We've all tried to instill some basic logic, but I can't wait to see Thomas have a go!

2 Replies

@dlowan,

actually if foxfyre holds true to her posting history, she will be too busy to respond and then accuse everyone of using ad hominems to attack her.

1 Reply

@dyslexia,

i couldn't find an ad containing a Houyhnhnm

but here's a colour plate from Gulliver's Travels

http://4umi.com/image/book/swift/gulliver-houyhnhnm-yahoos.jpg

1 Reply

@dlowan,

dlowan wrote:

Thomas is going to go a few rounds with Fox re her mind-numbing belief that gay marriage does something awful to HER marriage.

In all due respect, Deb, what do you know about Foxfyre's marriage? For all we know, her husband could be obsessing about that hot, 18 year-old organist in church. For all we know, the only thing keeping Mr. Foxfyre from running away with him is that he can't divorce her to marry him. If that were the case, then gay marriage would do something awful to Foxfyre's marriage. We just don't know.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

You said "organist".

0 Replies

@djjd62,

0 Replies

@Thomas,

Quote:

In all due respect, Deb, what do you know about Foxfyre's marriage? For all we know, her husband could be obsessing about that hot, 18 year-old organist in church. For all we know, the only thing keeping Mr. Foxfyre from running away with him is that he can't divorce her to marry him. If that were the case, then gay marriage would do something awful to Foxfyre's marriage. We just don't know

You can be as insulting as you want to be, you have that freedom. Fox also has the right to object to changing the definition of marriage. Only an idiot would not see that changing the definition of marriage would change what marriage is going forward, all marriages. No man in an island, no relationship is insulated from the collective opinion about what their relationship is. Those of us who are in marriage or desire to be in what is now known as marriage have every right to object to expanding the definition marriage. The more people who can claim to be married the less special those who are married are from the rest of the population. This is a big deal. This is about identity, to identify as married will not mean the same thing from now on if we allow this redefinition to happen.

If the majority objects to this changing of the definition then it should not happen. If the courts force this upon us anyway then the correct path is to reform the courts, as they have become defective.

3 Replies

@hawkeye10,

Quote:

You can be as insulting as you want to be, you have that freedom. Fox also has the right to object to changing the definition of marriage.

True- I don't want to be insulting to Foxfyre, but I'm confused as to how anyone could see this as changing the definition of marriage.

Quote:

Only an idiot would not see that changing the definition of marriage would change what marriage is going forward, all marriages. No man in an island, no relationship is insulated from the collective opinion about what their relationship is.

But this doesn't change the definition of what a marriage is - this just makes what by definition a marriage IS available to more people. Just like integrating the schools didn't change the definition of what a school is or does.

Quote:

Those of us who are in marriage or desire to be in what is now known as marriage have every right to object to expanding the definition marriage.

I have no desire to discriminate against anyone, although I guess as you say, I have the right to object to sharing anything with anyone-but I don't- but even if I did, what sort of power are you giving married people? It's not some exclusive private club. What you're communicating sounds akin to the students of a school being able to say, 'Those of us who go to this school only want this sort of student admitted' - I can't say I've ever been in any sort of institution or environment where that was the case or I was given that sort of power over someone else's life.

Quote:

The more people who can claim to be married the less special those who are married are from the rest of the population.

Sorry, but all I can do at this is chuckle - married people 'special'? what?

Quote:

This is a big deal. This is about identity, to identify as married will not mean the same thing from now on if we allow this redefinition to happen.

It still means EXACTLY the same thing.

Quote:

If the majority objects to this changing of the definition then it should not happen. If the courts force this upon us anyway then the correct path is to reform the courts, as they have become defective.

What do you think about integration of the schools in the south Hawkeye? Should the people have held sway there too? Do you think the courts should have been reformed there? Were they defective?

1 Reply

Marriage is a contract. Nothing more, nothing less...

1 Reply

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

Fox also has the right to object to changing the definition of marriage.

Sure. So what? Nobody said she can't have an opinion.

hawkeye10 wrote:

Only an idiot would not see that changing the definition of marriage would change what marriage is going forward, all marriages.

Oh chicken little, so cute.

The sky is not falling. Gay couples are married elsewhere in the world right now. I bet you can actually feel your marriage just falling apart. The idiots claim is that someone somewhere is married that you don't approve of and that even though you do not know them or have met them that they are causing you harm without them knowing you or doing anything to you. A laughable argument.

hawkeye10 wrote:

No man in an island, no relationship is insulated from the collective opinion about what their relationship is.

One major difference here. If I disapprove of your marriage, you flip me off and go do as you please. You think your approval is needed. You aren't that important.

hawkeye10 wrote:

Those of us who are in marriage or desire to be in what is now known as marriage have every right to object to expanding the definition marriage.

Those of us who are not in marriage or desire to be in what will still be a known as a marriage have every right to object to the redefinition of marriage to exclude gays.

Remember how language had to be ADDED to define a marriage as being "a man and woman?"

hawkeye10 wrote:

The more people who can claim to be married the less special those who are married are from the rest of the population.

WOW! A supply and demand argument!

Your selfishness was already apparent but to draw up a comparison that would illustrate so well is yet another irony that evades you.

hawkeye10 wrote:

This is a big deal. This is about identity, to identify as married will not mean the same thing from now on if we allow this redefinition to happen.

And when interracial couples were allowed to marry?

hawkeye10 wrote:

If the majority objects to this changing of the definition then it should not happen.

A majority of people can't decide that 1=8. People in numbers does not equate to rational, and ethical. It does often equate to self serving effort to maintain a status quo.

hawkeye10 wrote:

If the courts force this upon us anyway then the correct path is to reform the courts, as they have become defective.

You'd be wrong. Again. It took the courts to let interracial couples marry. The wisdom of the majority turned out to be bogus.

T
K
O

0 Replies

@aidan,

Quote:

True- I don't want to be insulting to Foxfyre, but I'm confused as to how anyone could see this as changing the definition of marriage

Old def "the intended life long commitment of mating between a man and a woman"

Intended new def " the intended life long commitment of mating between any two adults"

not the same

Quote:

But this doesn't change the definition of what a marriage is - this just makes what by definition a marriage IS available to more people. Just like integrating the schools didn't change the definition of what a school is or does

it makes the label more available....because the definition of the label has been changed. Two sides of the same coin. Thing is that I don't see those who advocate for not changing the definition stonewalling the other sides claim that what is desired is a change of rights. They agree that there is a rights question, they simply think that the answer should be no when the other side thinks that it MUST BE yes. I do see an almost a universal unwillingness of those who argue the rights side to acknowledge that what they want is for the meaning of the word to be changed. And yet it is the anti change people who are tarred for being closed minded. We should not let the pro gay rights crowd get away with their lack of acknowledgment of the legitimacy of the opposing argument. Their claim that the other side is morally unfit to render judgment and thus can be ignored is a nonstarter, any opinion that is supported by more than half of the souls is legitimate, irregardless of any pondering on the morality of those who hold the opinion.

Quote:

I have no desire to discriminate against anyone, although I guess as you say

we always discriminate, we will always discriminate, we should always discriminate. What is missing is an honesty about the way we are, and any debate about what is appropriate discrimination. We are acting immature. We can fool our conscious minds into thinking that we do not discriminate, which drives the activity into the subconscious where we can not work with it, we should cut that out.

At the end of the day claiming that such and such is discriminatory is not a deal breaker, the correct response is "and so what is your point? Why is that bad in this case?"

Quote:

Sorry, but all I can do at this is chuckle - married people 'special'? what?

You were not aware that two people who are married have special rights and privileges, both social and legal??

Quote:

What do you think about integration of the schools in the south Hawkeye? Should the people have held sway there too? Do you think the courts should have been reformed there? Were they defective?

the south lost the war, as such they had no choice but to conform the the collective will of the United States of America, which was that integration take place. The courts affirmed the collective will in this case, they did their jobs correctly.

1 Reply

California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know