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

#	Author	Message
401	Elderp Tue 6/3/2008 11:52a	^ Ok, this is JUST out of curiousity. I am not trying to be insensitive, although I realize I often am. If this all goes through do you have a ceremony again? If it doesn't what does that mean to you about your previous ceremony?
402	Kar2oonMan Tue 6/3/2008 11:58a	>>she was like Fran Drescher without the subtlety<< haaaaaaaaahahahahahahahaaaaa!!!!!
403	DAR Tue 6/3/2008 11:59a	<<Actually, X-san, I didn't see DAR's questions as smallminded. I'm willing to take them as genuine curiosity. They may (or may not) be rooted in a misperception some straight folks have, i.e. "which one of you is the girl?" Of course, it doesn't work that way - we're both men and glad to be so, thank you. But if they were asked in the spirit of genuine curiosity - like respectfully asking one of our Mormon LP'ers what a "temple recommend" is, for instance - here goes:>> Yeah I wasn't asking "who's the girl" or "who's the man". It was funny after I posted that I heard a story on the news about George Takei(Mr. Sulu) wanting to propose to his boyfriend but he didn't know if he was supposed to propose or his boyfriend. And that's a funny story Dabob2.
404	Dabob2 Tue 6/3/2008 12:06p	<^ Ok, this is JUST out of curiousity. I am not trying to be insensitive, although I realize I often am. If this all goes through do you have a ceremony again? If it doesn't what does that mean to you about your previous ceremony?> If New York institutes marriage equality we plan to make it legal in the eyes of the state down at city hall with a witness or two. The ceremony that married us in the eyes of our church and our loved ones already happened. This would just be for the state. Maybe we'd throw a party just for the sake of throwing a party, but we'll cross that bridge when we come to it.
405	BlueDevilSF Tue 6/3/2008 12:16p	DAR: I didn't find your comment smallminded, either. ElderP: >>Ok, this is JUST out of curiousity. I am not trying to be insensitive, although I realize I often am. If this all goes through do you have a ceremony again? If it doesn't what does that mean to you about your previous ceremony?<< I don't think this is an insensitive question at all. I'm just glad you are asking a thoughtful question. I can't really speak to this because we won't be going to California (or Canada, for that matter) to get married. (I'd rather not explain why in a public forum, but if you or anyone else would like to talk about it, e-mail me directly. Address is in profile.) However... I guess it just depends on the couple. Some I know in San Francisco who were part of the big marriage blitz a while back are planning to do it all over again. Others aren't they don't want to be disappointed all over again if the amendment passes. As for what it means...again, it depends on the couple. I am confident in saying that the couples I know would not feel their relationships are invalidated in their hearts. They would simply like legal recognition of their relationships and commitments because the relationships are no different from those of straight folk.
406	DAR Tue 6/3/2008 12:23p	<<DAR: I didn't find your comment smallminded, either. >> Thank you I appreciate that.
407	DouglasDubh Tue 6/3/2008 8:55p	<More semantics, Doug?> It's not semantics to point out when you get the facts wrong. <I'm not surprised you're trying to deny you ever said it, but you did.> Repeating your mistatements doesn't make them true. You're wrong here, just as you're so often wrong about other things. <Please show me some data from MA that shows us how gay marriage has hurt anything there.> Show me the data from Massachusetts that shows none of Kurtz's predicted effects have happened or will happen. I'll wait. <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.> If he was, you could show how. You can't, because he isn't. <You're confusing your agreement with his opinion for proof.> I'm not naive enough to think that such a thing can be "proven" over so short a time. Unfortunately for you, "proof" is not required. The evidence, however, is there. And you can't present evidence to the contrary.
408	DouglasDubh Tue 6/3/2008 8:58p	Meanwhile, the Constitutional Amendment just made the ballot. I guess we'll see what happens.
409	Dabob2 Wed 6/4/2008 7:17a	<More semantics, Doug?> <It's not semantics to point out when you get the facts wrong.> But I didn't get the facts wrong. Kurtz says his experts are "stumped" and then he concludes that gay marriage is the culprit, or at least a contributing factor, but can show nothing but correlation and a vague sense that gay marriage has devalued marriage in straight people's minds. That's all he has - correlation and non-sequiturs. <<I'm not surprised you're trying to deny you ever said it, but you did.>> <Repeating your mistatements doesn't make them true. You're wrong here, just as you're so often wrong about other things.> Please. I'm not the only one who remembers you saying this. Man up, for once. <<Please show me some data from MA that shows us how gay marriage has hurt anything there.>> <Show me the data from Massachusetts that shows none of Kurtz's predicted effects have happened or will happen. I'll wait.> Or WILL happen? LOL!! What a sign of desperation. Meanwhile, in the real world, straight marriage seems to have suffered no ill effects in MA. Can you show me any? If so, you should be able to point them out. <<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.>> <If he was, you could show how. You can't, because he isn't.> Yes, he is. He shows declining rates of marriage in Holland. Then he says that because gay marriage happened at the same time, it was a contributing factor. But that's "correlation equals causation." He claims he's not doing that, but that wouldn't be good enough for a freshman rhetoric class. Apparently, it's good enough for you though, since you want to believe his conclusion. All he offers as "proof" is a vague sense that gay marriage devalues marriage in the eyes of straight people. But that's it - no real proof, just an idea. Or and ideology, if you will. <<You're confusing your agreement with his opinion for proof.>> <I'm not naive enough to think that such a thing can be "proven" over so short a time. Unfortunately for you, "proof" is not required.> Just the opposite. For me, proof is required of something negative if we're going to deny equal protection under the law. <The evidence, however, is there. And you can't present evidence to the contrary.> The evidence is not there. And sure I can present evidence to the contrary - no negative effects in Massachusetts - you know, our own country.
410	Kar2oonMan Wed 6/4/2008 7:58a	>>Meanwhile, in the real world, straight marriage seems to have suffered no ill effects in MA. Can you show me any? If so, you should be able to point them out.<< Sme people have gotten divorces since gay marriage has been legalized in MA. So, using the Kurtz methodology, gay marriage must be a factor. LOL! It ain't worth the time with this guy anymore. He's got nuthin'.

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
A Happy New Year from the LPP. This week it's Lion King in Vegas, new Johnny Depp movies, Adventurer's Club last night, recent dining experiences, our favorites at Hollywood Studios, reader mail, the Captain's Challenge and more.

What's on
The Latest
2008 Disney Legends
Tales from the Laughing Place Issue #13 coming in late October
Disney Cruise video podcast focuses on new iteneraries
New book from Disney animator Don Hahn
A Frightfully Good Time Awaits Disney Cruise Line Guests this Halloween
Disney’s Animal Kingdom Welcomes Fourth Baby Giraffe This Year
El Capitan Theatre presents The Nightmare Before Christmas Oct 17-23 and Oct 30-Nov 1
The NAMM Foundation and Disney Channel Announce Sequel to 'Disney's High School Musical: The Music in You' Grant Program
“Entertainment Facility Project” To Be Discontinued
Disney & More One Day Sale October 18th

Click here for The Latest