California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[Philbert]

I do believe johnnystyro just got owned Rep points for you D-rock :bowdown:

@ johhnystyro: I want you to stop posting here because your posts deminish the specialness of my posts

Oversimplification settles nothing...johnnystryo didn't get owned, you and D-Rock just had a small Mutual Admiration Society meeting...
Chef has explained it to you clearly and correctly...you prove his point by continuing to ignore the equivalence of your theory and and how every other participant in the debate feels.
You fuck with the Bull, you get his horns. The road ahead is gonna be a hard one.
Whatever your finessing of the facts accomplishes in your mind, there will not be an easy path to Gay Marriage, and if laws are passed there will not be a compliance in the World's societies, here included.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

The only thing special about your posts are.....oh, no. I'm not going to get sucked into anything here. I'm not going to be responsible for a flame war.

I will continue to post wherever and whenever I feel like it, however.

I don't think I'm as biased in my opinion as say, Fred Phelps. I'd never agree with that idiot and I rarely if ever get personal with my posts. And I could really care less about someone perceiving someone getting owned. It doesn't consume me with a burning desire for vindication. That's the thing about people with liberal views. If you disagree with them pretty consistently they get so riled up and angry with the thought of someone thinking for themselves that they have to shout them down and spew all kinds of vitriol about them being hate mongers or phobic when I think of myself as considerate and thoughtful. I don't care if I change someone's mind about a certain issue but if I do, great. If not, they're entitled to their own opinion and I don't delve into the issue further.

Judging by the positive rep and feedback I've received because of my posts there are several people who share my sentiment. You have a great night, now.

 

[Boothbabe]

Chef has explained it to you clearly and correctly...you prove his point by continuing to ignore the equivalence of your theory and and how every other participant in the debate feels.

Under Dutch law I have the right to get married so it doesn't matter how every other participant (especially those who are against gay marriage) in this debate feels. There's nothing you can do about it no matter how much you'd like to be able to stop me

 

[Rattrap]

I'll bite on this one, Chef...because it's a valid point.

But wouldn't it still be hypocritical?

You could say that about any two people who want to get married though. Gay, straight, bi-sexual, trans-sexual, pedophile, rapist, murderer, cousins, etc.

If a man wants to marry his daughter and she wants to marry him, their potential marriage wouldn't effect you or I in any way, shape or form (which is your own argument), but that's just "silly", right? Believe it or not, the way that you feel my example of inter-family marriages is silly is the same way some people feel about gay marriage.

I honestly don't have any problem with two consensual adults doing this, regardless of their status to each other or otherwise (except in the cases of you mentioned of individuals who've gone out and violated the rights of others, such as the rapists and murderers, et cetera - I don't feel they should or really can be lumped in with this discussion). Don't get me wrong, I think it's a bit weird and unnatural, as you perhaps see gay marriage - this is, if I'm not mistaken, the point you're trying to make and I certainly accept it. I don't see it as a good argument for banning same-sex marriage as it isn't harmful to you or me or society as a whole. These cases are and would continue to be so far in the fringe as to cause any societal problems.

Of course, there are good biological reasons why two members of the same immediate family shouldn't reproduce. Some believe that opening that avenue of marriage up would invite such reproduction and that's something I haven't put much thought into/researched to validate or not - though if it is valid, it does differentiate this demographic from the gay, straight, bi, trans, et cetera population as producing children at high risk for deformities does affect us, society, and is frankly cruel to the child.

The point I was making is that people are set in their ways. If somebody doesn't agree that two homosexuals should be allowed to get married, nothing is going to change their mind (and vice versa).

This is regrettably true. I often feel like a whole generation or two need to die off so we can make some progress.

 

[ChefChiTown]

Under Dutch law I have the right to get married so it doesn't matter how every other participant (especially those who are against gay marriage) in this debate feels. There's nothing you can do about it no matter how much you'd like to be able to stop me

With that mentality...

Under American law, you don't have the right to get married, so it doesn't matter how you feel.

You know, for someone that is asking for everybody to be completely open minded to your thoughts and ideas on what rights people should be given, you certainly are quick to dismiss everybody else's opinions. Isn't that a little hypocritical?

:dunno:

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

Under Dutch law I have the right to get married so it doesn't matter how every other participant (especially those who are against gay marriage) in this debate feels. There's nothing you can do about it no matter how much you'd like to be able to stop me

By that logic it doesn't matter how you feel about the subject as it pertains to the people of California.

 

[Mr.Bungle]

If it pisses people off, it's good.

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

If it pisses people off, it's good.

Canada SUCKS! Did that piss you off? Well then it must be good.

 

[Boothbabe]

Under American law, you don't have the right to get married, so it doesn't matter how you feel.

I don't live in America so American law is irrelevant to me

you certainly are quick to dismiss everybody else's opinions. Isn't that a little hypocritical?

People who don't want other people to have the right to get married even tho they do have that right is hypocritical.

 

[afkallthetiem]

no it isnt cause thats not what the word hypocritical means

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

I don't live in America so American law is irrelevant to me

Then why on Earth do you care about this thread? By your own logic your posts are irrelevant to this topic.

 

[Lethal]

lol u people are really fuckin salty over marriage

 

[afkallthetiem]

lol u people are really fuckin salty over marriage

just what do you mean "you people" ? trying to say some racial stuff, Lethal?

 

[Lethal]

just what do you mean "you people" ? trying to say some racial stuff, Lethal?

im not fuckin white

 

[ChefChiTown]

I don't live in America so American law is irrelevant to me

Well, with that mentality: Not everyone is gay either, so your opinion is irrelevant to straight people. Honestly, we could play this game all day.

People who don't want other people to have the right to get married even tho they do have that right is hypocritical.

Kind of like how you want the world to take your thoughts, opinions and way of life to heart, but then turn around and completely dismiss everyone else's thoughts, opinions and way of life?

 

[Boothbabe]

Well, with that mentality: Not everyone is gay either, so your opinion is irrelevant to straight people. Honestly, we could play this game all day.

That's the first thing we agree on :1orglaugh

Kind of like how you want the world to take your thoughts, opinions and way of life to heart, but then turn around and completely dismiss everyone else's thoughts, opinions and way of life?

The world would be a better place if everyone were to be like me because I'm awesome

 

[darkwarrior3007]

All I want to know is, when can we start to marry aliens from other galaxies?

 

[Ace Boobtoucher]

Boothbabe, you really got pwned by Chef. Over and over again, really. I just keep posting to stir the pot to see your reactionary views. In all honesty, I don't care about who marries anyone but your ego-driven posts declaring everyone should agree with you because...you think so, are so entertaining. It's like watching a three year-old throwing a temper tantrum in the mall food court.

I find it to be that way with the liberal contingent in America as well. If someone says something they disagree with they plug their ears and attempt to shout them down to the point where arguing about any topic is like head butting a brick wall.

And your last few posts were less about the topic at hand than you shouting to everyone who'll listen, "Look at me!" Well, I looked and I didn't like what I saw.

The people voted, the court overturned it and then they reversed their decision, deciding that judicial tyranny wasn't the best course of action in affecting liberal social change. It really is simple. The majority of people don't want it. Even our liberal president believes that a marriage is defined as being between a man and a woman. When he was ordained, I mean elected, I thought everyone was going to agree with him about everything he believes. Do you mean to tell me the people who voted for him disagree with him about something? That sounds like treason.

Common sense prevailed in California. And it will in other states where they leave the matter to the voting public, as they should.

 

[bustybbwlover]

The people voted, the court overturned it and then they reversed their decision, deciding that judicial tyranny wasn't the best course of action in affecting liberal social change. It really is simple. The majority of people don't want it.

judicial tyranny?
the people voted to ban gay marriage. then the california courts found that since the california constitution didn't include a gay marriage ban it was unconstitutional. however, then a constitutional amendment was voted upon and passed by the people. then when the case got up to the california supreme court again, they ruled that as the constitution included an anti-gay marriage amendment, gay marriage was no longer legal. i'd say this seems short of judicial tyranny myself.

 

[bodie54]

The people voted, the court overturned it and then they reversed their decision, deciding that judicial tyranny wasn't the best course of action in affecting liberal social change.

That isn't what they decided at all. They never supported "judicial tyranny" in the first place, nor did they experience some sort of ethical catharsis that brought about a change of hearts and minds

Here's a pretty broad spectrum view of what came down, why, and where things might go from here
http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-marriage27-2009may27,0,7752874.story?page=1

judicial tyranny?

Standard right wing hyperbolic rhetoric