Gay marriage in California (stats, moving, bars)

[LeftyTrav]

Originally Posted by TrueTimbers

Really????????
I do not believe you... The vast majority opposed have some religion based reasoning. The only other ones I have ever seen opposed, and sometimes in a violent way, are those that have issues/fears about their own sexuality... They are the gay haters in this world...

Is that what your extensive research has told you....or do you just parrot what others tell you?

[LeftyTrav]

Originally Posted by DynamoLA

The good news is that "comfort" has no legal bearing on anything.

50 years ago a lot of people were "uncomfortable" with the idea of people of mixed races marrying each other, and used many of the same arguments that people who oppose gay marriage are using today. "Think of what it will lead to", "not God's will", yadda yadda yadda.

Of course those were injustices, and they were, and appear to be overturning. But....you're also helping to make my point for me.....what else will become acceptable in another 50 years??

[DynamoLA]

Originally Posted by LeftyTrav

Of course those were injustices, and they were, and appear to be overturning. But....you're also helping to make my point for me.....what else will become acceptable in another 50 years??

Actually, you are making the point for me.

The issue of what people are "comfortable" with has no bearing in terms of what is "right".

I have yet to see a single valid reason against gay marriage that is not:

- religious based, or
- has something to do with people just not "liking" it

In 50 years people will be amazed that it was illegal for two gay people to get married, just like today it is amazing to think that 50 years ago people of differing races were barred from getting married.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by LeftyTrav

Of course those were injustices, and they were, and appear to be overturning. But....you're also helping to make my point for me.....what else will become acceptable in another 50 years??

No telling ... but would be neat if "intelligence" made the list ... just sayin'

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by Flame Angel

I have conducted no surveys, nor quote statistics, but the premise of same-sex marriage is like saying cold hot. It it is cold, it isn't hot.

Marriage, has, in contemporary times, been a legal privilege granted and recognized by the state to establish the basis of society, i.e. the family - a chief function thereof is to create and raise children. It is neither a "right" (requires a license), nor intended as a status intended for doling out bennies.

Tolerance or intolerance of homosexuality aside, allowing legal marriage between two members of the same sex, be they homo or hetro-sexuals, for convenience or other purposes, is to be avoided at all costs.

Marriage is an important institution and needs to be preserved, not perverted .

Again, thanks be that you have wandered over here to the California forum ... it will be so very much fun to watch you interact with a number of folks here who actually have a brain

Hey, and you picked a really non-sequitur kinda post to enter the fray ... nothing you say really follows at all your quote of what I posted

Originally Posted by nullgeo
Oh, here we go again ... the C D forum anti-gay crusader has saddled up to sound the alarm ...
Back up your statement with actual data, statistics ... not just your survey of your own local parish anti-gay supporters. I would be curious to review ... and I don't even contend what you say ... it may or may not be so. What I do note is that you have a history here of trying to speak for others without being appointed spokesman. So if the interior is anti-gay -- show us how you know such to be true.

In any case though, with regard to your statement I bolded above: we should follow your advice because, well, Flame Angel says it is so?

[jaijai]

Originally Posted by LeftyTrav

You do not think that 50 years ago....hell, even 30 years ago, the mere thought of two people of the same gender legally marrying each another wasn't thought of to be absurd?

Also, to assume that because a person isn't comfortable with marriage between homosexuals....that it must be this persons religious beliefs that are holding him/her back....is just ridiculous. I know plenty of individuals who are about as anti-religion as you can get, and they aren't at all comfortable with it. It's just as foolish and ignorant to label one way as it is the other.

I don't think that i stated that it's only religious beliefs that create intolerance toward homosexuality.
And actually, like TrueTimbers said, it's people's discomfort with their own sexuality and/or sexuality in general that is the root of the intolerance.
Religious doctrine, beliefs, dogma, etc. simply support the intolerance .... toward homosexuality as well as other aspects of human expression / behavior.
And yes, the notion that government sanctioned marriage between homosexuals will lead to the allowance of a brother marrying a sister (as an example) is totally absurd. It won't happen.
And coming "out of the closet" as a gay or a lesbian is a healthy expression / manifestation of human freedom and is part of a process of getting beyond intolerance toward those who are different ... not harmful!
Incest is harmful (on a number of levels) and comparing the two is just stupid.
Your basic argument is semi-intellectual, abstract nonsense.

[LeftyTrav]

Originally Posted by nullgeo

Again, thanks be that you have wandered over here to the California forum ... it will be so very much fun to watch you interact with a number of folks here who actually have a brain

Folks would probably have a better outlook towards liberals such as yourself if you didn't consistently browbeat others perceived lack of intelligence when attempting to argue a point. Is it an insecurity issue with you?

[jaijai]

Originally Posted by Flame Angel

I have conducted no surveys, nor quote statistics, but the premise of same-sex marriage is like saying cold hot. It it is cold, it isn't hot.

Marriage, has, in contemporary times, been a legal privilege granted and recognized by the state to establish the basis of society, i.e. the family - a chief function thereof is to create and raise children. It is neither a "right" (requires a license), nor intended as a status intended for doling out bennies.

Tolerance or intolerance of homosexuality aside, allowing legal marriage between two members of the same sex, be they homo or hetro-sexuals, for convenience or other purposes, is to be avoided at all costs.

Marriage is an important institution and needs to be preserved, not perverted.

Like i said in a previous post, marriage isn't threatened by homosexuals taking part in it.
I personally don't see why they'd want to join the fun but certainly it's understandable that two people want the same rights that marriage provides ... like knowing that they have the same legal say and rights in a medical decision regarding their partner for example.
It's also socially healthy and natural to be recognized by others for love and union with another.
And marriage is already threatened (it has been for a long time) and it is not a sacred "institution" to most and there's a divorce rate in this country that exceeds 50% and only a relative few take their marriage vows seriously.
What are you trying to preserve? Certainly reproduction isn't threatened!
If the vast majority of stupid people would stop mindlessly reproducing because they have some ego driven need to pass on their dna and see themselves reflected in another being, we'd all be in better shape ... certainly the planet would be. Give the being a break!
There are too many darn people in the world and there are millions of little ones who need loving people to care for them ... gay or straight.
So you want to continue to mindlessly reproduce, you don't want homosexuals to marry and are, i imagine, against gay and lesbians adopting children.
Right on.

[nullgeo]

Originally Posted by LeftyTrav

Folks would probably have a better outlook towards liberals such as yourself if you didn't consistently browbeat others perceived lack of intelligence when attempting to argue a point. Is it an insecurity issue with you?

You may label me a liberal ... though I have never -- ever, in any context at any time -- considered myself such ... and I could give you quite a lot of fun reasons why ... but we'll skip that ...

Insecurity issue? Oh, not at all ... it is an entertainment issue. I reserve my caustic comments for people who are flaming bigots, or who demonstrate great perseverance with attacking others or myself. And since you don't know anything at all about why I made the statement you refer to at the poster I aimed it at, I'll just let it pass ... hint, read above and consider whether the poster and I have crossed paths previously.

For most others -- perhaps ALL others -- neither ignorance nor stupidity bother me hardly at all ... and I don't take offense at them in the slightest ... and I never feel much call to drill someone just for being a dork. Just bigots and aggressors.

[katnip kid]

Originally Posted by Flame Angel

Marriage, has, in contemporary times, been a legal privilege granted and recognized by the state to establish the basis of society, i.e. the family - a chief function thereof is to create and raise children.

Marriage is an important institution and needs to be preserved, not perverted.

Really? What about all those folks who choose not to have children? I remember nobody telling me that the reason people get married is because the state wanted children. Maybe in totalitarian societies. I was always told it was because 2 people loved one another enough to stay together. How is 2 people of the same sex enjoying that same privilege a perversion?