World Events
Topic: Gay Marriage Ban Overturned by CA Supreme Court

#	Author	Message
371	SingleParkPassholder Thu 5/29/2008 5:07a	"So regarding marriage, why wouldn't it be a reasonable solution simply to apply the same rules to all couples -- to say that unless a relationship can be consummated by a specific act, it cannot qualify as marriage?" Well, for starters, because courts are beginning to recognize that gay marriages (in this case, lesbians) CAN produce offspring) and that's what people like Scarborough are really getting at when saying things like this. http://www.google.com/search?q...=1&gl=us
372	WilliamK99 Thu 5/29/2008 5:07a	Unless a penis goes into a vagina, it's not marriage:<< Marriage as defined by what a church says, should not matter for our country, remember seperation of Church and state?
373	DouglasDubh Thu 5/29/2008 6:17a	<You disagree with that?> Yes. I don't pretend to know the will of God.
374	Dabob2 Thu 5/29/2008 9:26a	<<He says his experts (and who's to say he didn't find experts friendly to his point of view?) are "stumped." Yet they conclude it must be the gay marriages.>> <Well no, they didn't concluded that. That you claim so means you really didn't understand what you read.> More semantics, Doug? Okay, his experts were stumped, then HE (Kurtz) concluded it must be gay marriages. <<I don't like to throw the "l" word out casually, but here you're simply lying (or more charitably, misremembering). Because that's exactly what you said.>> <No, it wasn't.> Oh yes. Yes, it was. <You've shown many times that you remember things how you want to remember them, and not as they actually happened.> You're projecting. That's your M.O., not mine. <You should not be telling people they are lying.> Misremembering at best. I know what you said, because it was so outrageous, it was impossible to forget. We don't disallow post-menopausal women from marrying because we can't tell by looking if they're post-menopausal? That's what you said. It was outrageous, and unforgettable. I wasn't the only one who took you to task for it, either. I'm not surprised you're trying to deny you ever said it, but you did. Live with it. <<Meanwhile, as SPP noted, the case in Massachusetts (certainly a better indication of how the rest of US society might go) shows none of Kurtz's predicted effects.>> <Maybe, maybe not. We'd have to look at all the data, and not just a couple picked out by a proponent, to be sure.> Okay. Please show me some data from MA that shows us how gay marriage has hurt anything there. We'll wait. <<He chalks it up to gay marriage, of course, as a causative factor. Classic logical fallacy, but wait, it gets better.>> <Why is it a logical fallacy? Because you say so? > No, because the idea that correlation equals causation is a logical fallacy. And just because he addresses it and says "I'm not doing that. Really." doesn't mean he isn't doing that. He is. <And he doesn't "chalk it up" to gay marriage. He clearly states that gay marriage is only one factor contributing to the Netherland's out of wedlock birth rate.> There's the rub. He can't show that it is, even in part. He offers his OPINION that it has contributed to some vague mindset in Holland that marriage isn't as important as it used to be. But that's it. That's all he's got. And that dog won't hunt. You're confusing your agreement with his opinion for proof. <<And then he ignores the fact that out-of-wedlock births have increased steadily in the Netherlands since 1995, before EITHER the change in legal status for co-habiting straights OR gay marriage went into effect.>> <Again, no he doesn't. What he notes is that the rate was going up about 1% per year prior to gay marriage, and started going up 2% per year thereafter. You really don't appear to understand what you are reading. Or are you purposely distorting what he said?> You could also say that it started going up faster after the change in legal status for non-married straights. Which would make more sense. Even THAT would be correlation rather than any proved causation, though. He simply can't prove causation here. Sorry, but he can't.
375	alexbook Thu 5/29/2008 3:15p	Meanwhile... The latest Field Poll says that California voters are currently running 51%-43% *against* the proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage. http://www.field.com/fieldpoll...2268.pdf On a side note, I find it fascinating how the numbers vary depending on how the question is asked: "Do you approve or disapprove of California allowing homosexuals to marry members of their own sex and have regular marriage laws apply to them?" 51% approve, 42% disappove "Do you approve or disapprove of the recent California State Supreme Court ruling declaring the state's ban on same-sex marriage as being unconstitutional, thus allowing same-sex couples to marry?" 48% approve, 46% disapprove "Do you favor or oppose changing the California State Constitution to define marriage as between a man and a woman, thus barring marriage between gay and lesbian couples?" 54% no, 40% yes "There may be a vote on this issue in the November election. Would you favor or oppose having the state constitution prohibit same-sex marriage, by defining marriage as only between a man and a woman?" 51% no, 43% yes "Which best represents your views about what state laws should be regarding same-sex relationships?" 45% allow to marry, 32% allow civil unions, 19% no legal recognition
376	Dabob2 Thu 5/29/2008 3:34p	<"Which best represents your views about what state laws should be regarding same-sex relationships?" 45% allow to marry, 32% allow civil unions, 19% no legal recognition> Wow, that's the highest percentage I've seen outside of Massachusetts. We're moving!
377	Elderp Thu 5/29/2008 3:51p	"Marriage as defined by what a church says, should not matter for our country, remember seperation of Church and state? " This is why the state needs to get out of the marriage game. The fact is that we are all bouncing off different views of what marriage is and I can't really argue with what someone "thinks" marriage is. To me that is really just your opinion. There are tons of other legal remedies to handle the intricacies of what happens when two people are living together. Not to mention the fact that there are several situations that are not at all sexual in nature that need legal remedies as well. I am more and more coming to the conclusion that we need a lot more seperation of church and state.
378	Dabob2 Thu 5/29/2008 3:55p	<This is why the state needs to get out of the marriage game. > What about the non-religious? How do they get married? Or the religious who can't for some reason get married in their church (divorced Catholics not granted an annulment, for instance). One has always been able to get married at the courthouse in the US if desired.
379	Elderp Thu 5/29/2008 4:01p	"What about the non-religious? How do they get married? " If your not religious then why do you care? Have a party, print off a certificate on publisher,and away you go. If your Catholic you shouldn't be getting married again. Marriage in the civil arena has proven not to mean much. I blame society for that. The only meaning left in a marriage is what you give it, to me that is a religious contract, but not everyone shares my religious views. Besides, why should I have to compare my idea of marriage to anyone else's idea of marriage?
380	ecdc Thu 5/29/2008 4:34p	I actually agree that marriage is ultimately just a religious ceremony. Call social "marriage" a civil union and then let whatever organizations want to have a "marriage" recognized by god, snakes, or Yoda. But don't let that marriage have any kind of social or government benefits. For example: If I want to enjoy the benefits of social or government relationship, call it a civil union. I get a piece of paper from the government that tells them my partner and I are together. If I die unexpectedly, she's the beneficiary. If she needs to make a medical decision on my behalf, she can do it. We can file taxes jointly, etc., etc. But if I'm also a member of a church, then let me go to the church and have the pomp and the ceremony and have it be on the church records. But it doesn't change a thing about my civil relationship. If I choose not to have a civil relationship but get married in a church, then in the eyes of the government I'm still single. I think it's kinda lame that it has to be this way, but it seems like the only really fair thing to do.

All times are Pacific Time (US)

Note: Information on the discussion boards is sometimes based on rumors or incorrect information and should not be assumed true. Messages do not necessarily reflect the opinion of LaughingPlace.com or its editors.

More messages:	1-10	11-20	21-30	31-40	41-50
	51-60	61-70	71-80	81-90	91-100
	101-110	111-120	121-130	131-140	141-150
	151-160	161-170	171-180	181-190	191-200
	201-210	211-220	221-230	231-240	241-250
	251-260	261-270	271-280	281-290	291-300
	301-310	311-320	321-330	331-340	341-350
	351-360	361-370	371-380	381-390	391-400
	401-410	411-420	421-430	431-440	441-450
	451-460	461-470	471-480	481-490	491-500
	501-510	511-520	521-530	531-540	541-550
	551-560	561-570	571-580	581-590	591-600
	601-610	611-620

< Previous Topic

Next Topic >

You must be a registered user to post messages.
Click here to register.
After registration you will automatically be brought back to this topic

Laughing Place Podcast
The LPP are back to discuss Epcot's StormStruck, the KimPossible World Showcase Adventure, Miley Cyrus' Sweet 16 at Disneyland, their Disneyland celebrity encounters and more Disney Channel stuff with Brent plus reader mail, the Captain's Challenge, Stump the crew, FanBoy's Disney Myths and more.

What's on
The Latest
Michael Phelps at the Magic Kingdom Friday at 10:30a
Sara Lee Dances with Disney's 'High School Musical 3: Senior Year' in Extensive Film-Driven Campaign
The Little Mermaid: Ariel's Beginning premiere pictures added to LP Lotion
The Haunted Halloween returns to Hong Kong Disneyland
It’s a “Suite Life” on the Disney Wonder with Disney Channel World-Premiere Event
Miss America 2009 contestants visit the Magic Kingdom
Halloween, Disneyland Resort Paris Style! Oct 4 - Nov 2
Meet Santa this Christmas at Disneyland Resort Paris Nov 6 - Jan 9
Disneyland Half Marathon Runners Travel a Through Disneyland Resort Aug 29-31
Disney Finalizes Deal with Four Seasons to Anchor New Luxury Resort

Click here for The Latest