SCOTUS not enough- prop 8 jerks trying to find another way

[Deleted]

The heart wants what the heart wants, Arch...

[Deleted]

Jul 16, 2013 11:56:11 GMT -5 @beerwench said:

The heart wants what the heart wants, Arch...

Then I would have no dog.

[Deleted]

Jul 16, 2013 11:51:59 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I see a difference; primarily, cats and dogs cannot make the decision to get married.  Human beings can.  Gays are just as human as anybody else, and they're fully capable of making decisions.

So Virgil, do you actually consider homosexuals to be less than human? 

<--- hopeful she's just reading into it

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 16, 2013 11:51:59 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I see a difference; primarily, cats and dogs cannot make the decision to get married.  Human beings can.  Gays are just as human as anybody else, and they're fully capable of making decisions.

If that's where you draw the line between the legitimate and the absurd, fine.

[mmhmm]

Jul 16, 2013 11:54:31 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Jul 16, 2013 11:51:59 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I see a difference; primarily, cats and dogs cannot make the decision to get married.  Human beings can.  Gays are just as human as anybody else, and they're fully capable of making decisions.

If my dog married a cat I would disown it.   

So would the dog. 

[Deleted]

Jul 16, 2013 11:56:35 GMT -5 ArchietheDragon said:

Jul 16, 2013 11:56:11 GMT -5 @beerwench said:

The heart wants what the heart wants, Arch...

Then I would have no dog.

Make sure to keep the cat indoors too.     

[mmhmm]

Jul 16, 2013 11:59:01 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

Jul 16, 2013 11:51:59 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I see a difference; primarily, cats and dogs cannot make the decision to get married.  Human beings can.  Gays are just as human as anybody else, and they're fully capable of making decisions.

If that's where you draw the line between the legitimate and the absurd, fine.

I draw the line with logic, Virgil.  If some woman wants to claim she's married to a bridge, and some country wants to go along with that, it's fine with me.  Since a bridge cannot possibly enter into any kind of contract, or commitment, logic tells me she's not married to any bridge.  I see it as quite simple.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 16, 2013 11:58:23 GMT -5 @beerwench said:

Jul 16, 2013 11:51:59 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

I see a difference; primarily, cats and dogs cannot make the decision to get married.  Human beings can.  Gays are just as human as anybody else, and they're fully capable of making decisions.

So Virgil, do you actually consider homosexuals to be less than human? 

<--- hopeful she's just reading into it

I see "gay marriage" as a perverse, useless facsimile of a sacred institution. The participants are as human as you or I.

Cats and dogs simply entered into the conversation as candidates for future "marriage" absurdity, such as Mr. Lagerfeld marrying his cat, etc.

[mmhmm]

Therein lies the rub, eh, Virgil?  You see marriage as a sacred institution.  Not everyone does, and not everyone puts the same connotation on the word.

[chiver78]

Jul 15, 2013 13:00:00 GMT -5 zibazinski said:

Gays have a lower rate because in a lot of states, it's still illegal and also there are still less of them than non-gays.

um, you do understand that a rate is a ratio between two things, right?    your "married" pool is going to be smaller than the heterosexual pool for the reasons you listed. doesn't mean the rate is lower because the pool is smaller.


ouch. that made my head hurt. going back to finish catching up....sorry if someone else already addressed this.

[kittensaver]

: "I see "gay marriage" as a perverse, useless facsimile of a sacred institution." :

=============================================

You (you Virgil, AND the "Big You") have every right to believe this. And you have every right to say out loud that your believe this.

What You (the Big You, Virgil has already said he reluctantly accepts what is happening) just don't have the right to do is allow this belief to create laws in a non-sectarian society that withhold civil rights, reponsibilities, protections and privileges that the legal institution of marriage confers on spouses.

Not hard to understand. Withhold all the religious goodies you want - most people who don't believe like You won't care anyway. They just care about access to the rights afforded by the institution that have been codified into the law of the land.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 16, 2013 12:01:14 GMT -5 mmhmm said:

Jul 16, 2013 11:59:01 GMT -5 Virgil Showlion said:

If that's where you draw the line between the legitimate and the absurd, fine.

I draw the line with logic, Virgil.  If some woman wants to claim she's married to a bridge, and some country wants to go along with that, it's fine with me.  Since a bridge cannot possibly enter into any kind of contract, or commitment, logic tells me she's not married to any bridge.  I see it as quite simple.

I, meanwhile, consider "contractual fitness" by itself an insufficient prerequisite to marry.

Others might posit that no joint contractual fitness is implied or required by "marriage" (whatever it ultimately becomes), and that a man should have the right to marry his cat in the pursuit of life, liberty, and happiness. You can claim this position is illogical until you're blue in the face, the fellow's supporters will tell you to pound sand.

[mmhmm]

*chuckle*  I don't really care if the man marries his cat.  I don't even care if it's illogical for him to do so.  It's not affecting me in any way.  I wish the man and his cat all the happiness in the world, chuckle to myself, and go on living MY life.

[Sum Dum Gai]

I see "gay marriage" as a perverse, useless facsimile of a sacred institution.

Good thing you'll never be in one then.  It still begs the question, why do you care?  You aren't gay.  Whether they have the right to marry or not won't effect you in any way?  Why is it so important to force your religious views on the broader society?

[kittensaver]

Jul 16, 2013 12:20:48 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

I see "gay marriage" as a perverse, useless facsimile of a sacred institution.

Good thing you'll never be in one then.  It still begs the question, why do you care?  You aren't gay.  Whether they have the right to marry or not won't effect you in any way?  Why is it so important to force your religious views on the broader society?

Good question! ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

Can we get an answer?

[zibazinski]

Chiver, that's what I was trying to say.

[Deleted]

DANG angry bear! 

Anyway, if I must choose between upholding the "sanctity" of an institution or granting rights to humans, the humans would win out.  Every time. 

[Sum Dum Gai]

um, you do understand that a rate is a ratio between two things, right? your "married" pool is going to be smaller than the heterosexual pool for the reasons you listed. doesn't mean the rate is lower because the pool is smaller.

The rate something happens is usually expressed as a percentage.  Teens have a higher accident rate than adults.  That means on a percentage basis they're more likely to be involved in an accident even though there are less of them.  Gays currently have a lower divorce rate (fewer divorces per one hundred marriages) than hetero marriages in the states where gay marriage is legal.  There are also far fewer gay marriages and divorces in total because they're a small minority of the population.

The most likely explanation for this is that gay marriage hasn't been legal for very long so the people getting married are committed couples who have been together for years and decades before marriage.  Once it's legal everywhere and accepted you'll start seeing young gay couples who've only known each other for a year or less getting married, just like straight couples do, and the divorce rates will probably be similar.

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 16, 2013 12:20:48 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

I see "gay marriage" as a perverse, useless facsimile of a sacred institution.

Good thing you'll never be in one then.  It still begs the question, why do you care?  You aren't gay.  Whether they have the right to marry or not won't effect you in any way?  Why is it so important to force your religious views on the broader society?

I care about the definition of the word, and I'm justifying my position in this thread.

As for "forcing my religious views on the broader society", I didn't author the DOMA legislation. I didn't lobby the US government to support it, and I didn't vote "Yes" on Prop 8. In this thread I'm simply explaining why Californians would have.

[steff]

Jul 16, 2013 12:22:03 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

Jul 16, 2013 12:20:48 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Good thing you'll never be in one then.  It still begs the question, why do you care?  You aren't gay.  Whether they have the right to marry or not won't effect you in any way?  Why is it so important to force your religious views on the broader society?

Good question! ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

Can we get an answer?

I already tried to ask that & got no answer back. 

so I'll add my question to these two.   Why is it so important to force YOUR religious beliefs on everyone? 

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 16, 2013 12:33:49 GMT -5 steff said:

Jul 16, 2013 12:22:03 GMT -5 kittensaver said:

Good question! ^ ^ ^ ^ ^

Can we get an answer?

I already tried to ask that & got no answer back. 

so I'll add my question to these two.   Why is it so important to force YOUR religious beliefs on everyone? 

See my reply above.

The rate something happens is usually expressed as a percentage. Teens have a higher accident rate than adults. That means on a percentage basis they're more likely to be involved in an accident even though there are less of them. Gays currently have a lower divorce rate (fewer divorces per one hundred marriages) than hetero marriages in the states where gay marriage is legal. There are also far fewer gay marriages and divorces in total because they're a small minority of the population.

I think her point is more that early "gay marriages" aren't a representative sample of the eventual status quo. In Canada, the "gay marriage" divorce rate started at 0.8% per year, then moved to 1.1%, 1.4%, and on as more data became available. I don't know what the latest figure is. The "rates" aren't considered stable or reliable.

In the US, the few states that report data can only report back to late 2011, thus considering only divorces that occur inside the first 20 months of marriage. I should think that any Americans pushing to be the first "gay couples" in the US would characteristically have the impetus to last at least 20 months.

[billisonboard]

Jul 16, 2013 12:29:54 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

... Once it's legal everywhere and accepted you'll start seeing young gay couples who've only known each other for a year or less getting married, just like straight couples do, and the divorce rates will probably be similar.

By less than a year you mean, down to like days and hours, right?

Yeah, the "sanctity" of heterosexual marriage.

[Sum Dum Gai]

Well you know how it is in Vegas... one thing just sort of leads to another and then you wake up next to a stripper with a ring on her finger.

[Deleted]

Jul 16, 2013 13:11:51 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Well you know how it is in Vegas... one thing just sort of leads to another and then you wake up next to a stripper with a ring on her finger.

Now can you all see why Vegas was my dream wedding?!? 

[steff]

And the divorce rate for hetero couples has hovered around 50% for years now.  

So what do the gay divorce rates have to do with anything?  

[mmhmm]

Jul 16, 2013 13:18:00 GMT -5 @beerwench said:

Jul 16, 2013 13:11:51 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

Well you know how it is in Vegas... one thing just sort of leads to another and then you wake up next to a stripper with a ring on her finger.

Now can you all see why Vegas was my dream wedding?!? 

LOL!  My late husband and I were married in Las Vegas.  We had a great time! 

[Virgil Showlion]

Jul 16, 2013 13:21:35 GMT -5 steff said:

And the divorce rate for hetero couples has hovered around 50% for years now.  

So what do the gay divorce rates have to do with anything?  

[steff]

In Canada, the "gay marriage" divorce rate started at 0.8% per year, then moved to 1.1%, 1.4%, and on as more data became available. I don't know what the latest figure is. The "rates" aren't considered stable or reliable.

In the US, the few states that report data can only report back to late 2011, thus considering only divorces that occur inside the first 20 months of marriage. I should think that any Americans pushing to be the first "gay couples" in the US would characteristically have the impetus to last at least 20 months.

What does this have to do with anything? 

[Sum Dum Gai]

What does this have to do with anything?

It's interesting to note that those depraved abominations (gay folks) have much lower divorce rates and are more committed partners than the pure and biblically correct straight couples.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the debate about whether gay marriage should be legal of course.

[steff]

Jul 16, 2013 13:37:36 GMT -5 Sum Dum Gai said:

What does this have to do with anything?

It's interesting to note that those depraved abominations (gay folks) have much lower divorce rates and are more committed partners than the pure and biblically correct straight couples.

It has nothing whatsoever to do with the debate about whether gay marriage should be legal of course.

But it doesn't back up his agenda & Biblical script.