Hurray for San Francisco!

Meowster · Sun 22/02/2004 20:15:05

San Francisco (my future home and all that) has been in the news a lot lately. In case you're dumb, here's why; the Mayor of San Francisco, Gavin Newsom, has defied the state law against Gay Marriages, and has allowed officials to hand out over 2,800 marriage licenses to gay couples in the past 10 days. San Francisco plans to take California to court on the grounds that the banning of Gay Marriages is unconstitutional.

To quote Arnie:

Quote"In San Francisco it is license for marriage of same sex. Maybe the next thing is another city that hands out licenses for assault weapons and someone else hands out licenses for selling drugs, I mean you can't do that,"

What the hell? First, Gay Marriages. Next, Machine Guns. Right. Maybe he means that a law is a law and shouldn't be broken. But to compare Marriage Licenses to Gun Licenses is at the very least, stupid.

It's not just the symbolism of marriage that Gay people are being denied; there are certain tax reductions and insurance benefits that only married couples can obtain.

So it may not be 'christian'. Does it not say in the bible to "Live according to the Sign of the Times"?

President Bush 'the monkey' Jr has called for a federal ban on Gay Marriages. That should not happen. The American Constitution says that people are entitled to live, to love, and to pursue happiness. Gays are pursuing happiness and love in their struggle to be equal members of society. It is unconstitutional to disallow this. They are entitled to right for their rights.

The American Constitution, and the bible itself, claims that all people are equal. But how can some people be more equal than others?

To the Christians that don't believe in gay marriages; consider that the bible instructs to live according to the sign of the times. Also consider that god made everybody equal, apparently, and it is not our place as mortals to judge others. It is not OUR decision whether a Gay Marriage is valid or not. All people are sinners according to Christian belief, and therefore Gay people are no more or less 'dirty' than the rest of us.

Of course, I'm agnostic. So my belief is based soley in human rights.

What do you think?

Totoro@school · Sun 22/02/2004 20:18:31

Gay mariages? Have been legal here for the last 5 years or so, so whats all the fuss about?

I don't want to get married to a person of my sex, but if somebody does, wonderful. And I love all the gay guys for not stealing my girlfriends

Meowster · Sun 22/02/2004 20:21:13

Where do you live?

I'm talking about (most of?) America, because of the situation in San Francisco at the moment.

Trapezoid · Sun 22/02/2004 20:23:55

Massachusetts was going to start allowing gay marriages a while back, but I haven't been following the news... (yes, in my own state. I'm dumb.) Anyone know whatever happened to that?

MrColossal · Sun 22/02/2004 20:42:50

and ya know.. seperation of church and state and all that...

Matt Brown · Sun 22/02/2004 21:46:47

trap: yes, mass will be allowing gay marrage soon, per the court order. there might be an admenmant that outlaws it in all the usa, so that might be moot tho.

I really dont know what to think about gay marrage. my religion forbids homosexuality, and I know its a sin....but so is lying and stuff, and our politicians do that! what two consenting adults do in their house isnt really my bussines...and I do stuff that my religion considers a sin too sometimes, so who am I to judge? or rather, who is anybody to judge? certainly not the US goverment. I normally ally myself with the liberals, since the thought of me being on the same side as the conseritive radical chirstain right annoys the hell out of me.

that being said, I disagree with what SF is doing right now. if they have a beef with the law, fine, take it to the courts. I bet the 9th circurt, (based in SF) would rule in their favor. for the mayor to ignore the law however, isnt the right way to go about it. for the sake of law and order, the major, and the gay's lawyers, ought to express their greivences like anybody else.

I dont have a problem with civil unions...if 2 gay guys want to hitch up and live together, fine. aint my problem. I dont really see the difference between that and actually being "married" are

Darth Mandarb · Sun 22/02/2004 21:54:26

I've come to the realization that people (especially in America) NEED stuff to pick fights over. This is just another example. [ramble ...]Now people are complaining about camera phones in locker rooms. Like people haven't been takin' locker room pictures for YEARS!!! It's just something else to complain about ...[/ramble]

Back on topic ...
I'm not a huge fan of gay marriages but that's only 'cause I'm not gay. It just seems wrong to me, but I'm open minded enough to know that when you're in love you're in love and want to get married. Love is human nature and blah blah blah ... and all that shit.

If two homosexuals want to get hitched, I say power to them! Who, really, does it hurt?

[offtopic]Yufster - are you going to work for TechTV? They're located in San Fran and it would be such (to me) a dream job![/offtopic]

shbaz · Mon 23/02/2004 00:31:34

People who are against homosexual marriage are akin to those who are against black people being allowed to use the same restroom as white people. They probably don't care so much that it's part of their religion, but rather tout that as a good excuse to ban it so they don't need to create a logical argument. If this fails, I guess they could try to ban atheist marriages or something, since they tell you to swear before god in the vows. I know they make you swear on a bible in court, which is outdated these days as well.

Goldmund · Mon 23/02/2004 02:42:06

I think all your senators should come to a consensus and ban all marriages alltogether.
Futuristic fun!

OsUltimo@TAFE · Mon 23/02/2004 02:59:14

I want to know when they are going to mkae the law that eautiful and hot women MUST walk around naked... for me, any other laws are pointless, but this would make everything better, except that maybe Rape would go up, which is very very bad... $:-\$

MillsJROSS · Mon 23/02/2004 04:04:47

I just recently, (last night), got into a conversation with my roomate about this. Where I said that by banning gay mariage, the goverment is persecuting the gay community. He thought the word persecution was too strong for what was being done. I disagree. The word persecution means:

"To oppress or harass with ill-treatment, especially because of race, religion, gender, sexual orientation, or beliefs. "

-http://dictionary.reference.com/search?r=2&q=persecute

To me this is outrageous to call a country "free" and have in the constitution "Seperation of Church and State," and have a situation like this. Why is it, persecution? Because we are denying a people their right to something, we're saying because you're a women and your a man, you guys can have this cookie, but we won't serve anything to you two men/women.

My roomate then went to argue (mind you, he was just arguing to argue, and probably doesn't believe this, as he is liberal), that if we allowed gay marriage, why not allow a man to marry a dog? At first this kind of threw me off. If you say a person should be free to marry whomever they wish, and they wish to marry a dog, why shouldn't they be allowed to? Simply because a dog has no way of telling you that it would like to marry you, and isn't really aware of the lifelong "bond" that is marriage.

The thing that really bothers me about it, though, is it in no way effects me. I am not effected if two men in San Fransisco get married. If two men next door get married, I am not effected by it. Whether I'm offended or not (I'm not), it in no way makes my life better or worse. So why make a law that doesn't give a people a right given to everyone else?

-MillsJROSS

DGMacphee · Mon 23/02/2004 06:20:43

Why would anyone want to marry their dog in the first place?

That's a stupid argument.

You see, it's logical for a guy to marry another guy, or a woman to marry another woman -- both have the capacity to go to work, pay taxes, adopt, commute, and interact with other humans on an insightful and intelligent level.

A dog spends most of its days sleeping, licking its nads, and trying to fuck the next-door neighboor's on-heat poodle.

What I'm trying to say is this; human rights (such as marriage) don't apply to dogs, cause DOGS AREN'T HUMAN.

Meanwhile, gay people (despite what some bible-basher say) are.

So tell your roommate he's nuts for even coming up with that.

remixor · Mon 23/02/2004 09:35:28

Quote from: DGMacphee on Mon 23/02/2004 06:20:43
A dog spends most of its days sleeping, licking its nads, and trying to fuck the next-door neighboor's on-heat poodle.

Hey man, don't knock it 'til you've tried it.

panda_unplugged · Mon 23/02/2004 10:55:13

actually, my history teacher used the exact same arguement

Ali · Mon 23/02/2004 14:09:44

Are you sure he wasn't talking about Henry VIII's little-known seventh "wife" ?

Robert Eric · Mon 23/02/2004 14:41:55

Perhaps the human and canine want to get married just to have legal interspecies sex.

SSH · Mon 23/02/2004 14:51:37

Quote from: DGMacphee on Mon 23/02/2004 06:20:43
You see, it's logical for a guy to marry another guy, or a woman to marry another woman -- both have the capacity to go to work, pay taxes, adopt, commute, and interact with other humans on an insightful and intelligent level.

By this argument, you would be implying that it would NOT be logical that 80% of the people on IRC and the forums (especially IRC) shoudl get married , as they fail to meet any of your criteria (capacity to go to work, pay taxes, adopt, commute, and interact with other humans on an insightful and intelligent level)

DGMacphee · Mon 23/02/2004 16:51:28

RE, that logic fails for two reasons: (1) It's easier to pass a law allowing legal sex with dogs, instead of marriage with dogs (as dogs can't apply for the rights that humans can) and (2) Wanting sex is a stupid reason for marrying a dog anyway.

SSH, you obviously didn't carefully read what I wrote, did you?

SSH · Mon 23/02/2004 16:58:40

Quote from: DGMacphee on Mon 23/02/2004 16:51:28
SSH, you obviously didn't read what I wrote carefully, did you?

When everybody is being ironic, it can be difficult to have a meaningful discussion. So let's resort to dogma instead, wahey!!!

n00bs are teh spawn of satan and should not get married ... it was Adam and Eve, not Adam and PhilRoberts!

oh, hang on, we were talking about gay people. No, they shouldn't be allowed to marry dogs.

What? Are you saying that I'm not reading this thread properly?

DGMacphee · Mon 23/02/2004 17:05:02

*sigh*

I said:

Quoteboth have the capacity

In other words, the 80% you mentioned DO have the capacity to go to work, pay taxes, adopt, commute, and interact with other humans on an insightful and intelligent level.

Sure, they may not always do those things, but the capacity is still there just the same as any human beings.

What I was trying to say was: your joke doesn't work.

So.... p\/\/n3d!

Anyway, you are right though, this topics headed into silliness!

BACK TO GAY PEOPLE EVERYONE!

Hurray for San Francisco!

Totoro@school

OsUltimo@TAFE

panda_unplugged