Liberal FASCISM in California

[AllieBaba]

No, but that's really a good name for a horse! I may have to name one that....
Unfortunately, for the time being, I'm stuck with one named "Rascal" and another named (unfortunately for him) "Greasewood".

I've always gone for short, to the point names....Lilly, Gray Mare, Red, Day, Boom, Annie, Wheels, Bart, Ali (she was named when I got her. AliBaba, in fact...) Filly, Colt, New Horse, etc.

But Shogun is a great horse name....

 

[Dogger]

I've decided that I believe in traditional marriage. If I ever get married again, it will be for the purpose of consolidating political power and building a family dynasty.

 

[AllieBaba]

Perfect.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

There are gay animals as well. It might seem unnatural to you, but that doesn't mean it isn't part of nature.

Gay animals are abnormal...just as gay human animals are abnormal.

If you are going to base your claim of "rights" to gay marriage on abnormal animals, then you must also accept plural marriage and incestuous marriage.

 

[Ravi]

Gay animals are abnormal...just as gay human animals are abnormal.

If you are going to base your claim of "rights" to gay marriage on abnormal animals, then you must also accept plural marriage and incestuous marriage.

I wasn't basing my claim on that, just an observation. I have no real problem with the other two...not that I'd personally engage in them. Well, if I could get a couple of hot husbands, maybe.

My opinion is civil unions for whoever wants them and churches can perform marriage ceremonies for their members.

 

[mattskramer]

Gay animals are abnormal...just as gay human animals are abnormal.

If you are going to base your claim of "rights" to gay marriage on abnormal animals, then you must also accept plural marriage and incestuous marriage.

That which is normal is not necessarily right. That which is abnormal is not necessarily wrong. Stating such is a typical common fallacy.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

I wasn't basing my claim on that, just an observation. I have no real problem with the other two...not that I'd personally engage in them. Well, if I could get a couple of hot husbands, maybe.

My opinion is civil unions for whoever wants them and churches can perform marriage ceremonies for their members.

Civil unions are just another government approval ticket to abnormality which will destroy society just as much as actual gay marriage.

That which is normal is not necessarily right. That which is abnormal is not necessarily wrong. Stating such is a typical common fallacy.

Thus...in our democracy.... it comes down to the decision of the majority what they wish to have for a society....not 4 activist judges.

 

[Ravi]

It comes down to what is constitutionally sound.

 

[ScreamingEagle]

It comes down to what is constitutionally sound.

You mean it comes down to how many loopholes there are in the constitution.

That's why the People of CA now have to change their constitution....and put it into explicit words so activist judges cannot twist things around to their point of view.

 

[Dogger]

Civil unions are just another government approval ticket to abnormality which will destroy society just as much as actual gay marriage.

Thus...in our democracy.... it comes down to the decision of the majority what they wish to have for a society....not 4 activist judges.

How does creating stable personal relationships adversely affect you or society? What is the benefit of forcing people who are different to choose between public scorn and loneliness? If you can't articulate an answer to these questions, why should you be able to inflict your moral choice on a minority?

What other than fascist tendencies drives you to care?

 

[AllieBaba]

Let's see some stats that show gay marriages are more stable and not less stable than hetero marriages.

 

[jillian]

Ummmm... you'd have to have a representative sample first.

 

[Dogger]

Let's see some stats that show gay marriages are more stable and not less stable than hetero marriages.

I never said any such thing. It might be true, but given that gay marriage is new, how could such stats exist?

And that is not the relevant question. Show me stats that show unmarried gay partnerships are more stable than gay marriages. You might be surprised to learn this, but gay people tend to behave like other people, and if marriage promotes stablility for hetero couples, it should also promote stablility for gay couples.

 

[jillian]

I never said any such thing. It might be true, but given that gay marriage is new, how could such stats exist?

And that is not the relevant question. Show me stats that show unmarried gay partnerships are more stable than gay marriages. You might be surprised to learn this, but gay people tend to behave like other people, and if marriage promotes stablility for hetero couples, it should also promote stablility for gay couples.

And remember Pam Anderson and Britney Spears of 12 hour marriage fame get factored in.

Yep, I do so love the sanctitiy of heterosexual marriage.

 

[Shogun]

I dont know that id be using hetero marriage as a gauge of stability given this age of divorce. Meanwhile, even if a huge percentage of hetero marriages fail why should that restrict OTHER heteros that want to be married? Similarly, even if a healthy sample of married gays do not reflect nuptual bonds of 1950's yesteryear why should that impede those who DO want to attempt family stability via marriage?


Also, defining "normal" sure is a steep climb up a treacherous path. Though, I just don't seem to see where the Constitution suggests we maintain "normalcy" anyway.


anyway, I support gay marriage but I don't agree with the judicial method of nullifying legislation. I hope this doesn't blossom into the same bowl of shit that we saw happen in 04 when this exact same subject lit up the electorate like magnesium burning.

 

[Dogger]

anyway, I support gay marriage but I don't agree with the judicial method of nullifying legislation. I hope this doesn't blossom into the same bowl of shit that we saw happen in 04 when this exact same subject lit up the electorate like magnesium burning.

An unexpected moment of clarity, to say the least.

Judicial nullification, as you put it, is the means of preventing the tyranny of the majority. How would you protect fundamental liberty if courts could not overturn laws?

 

[Larkinn]

Cute.

However, if it must be known, there are animals that mate for life.

Who says homosexual animals are "natural"?
They are the exceptions, the unnatural, the abnormal, the weird…

LMAO...so basically your defintion of natural is "what SE things life should be like"?

Sorry, but nobody gives a shit about what you like, and nobody is going to run their life based on your opinions.

That's why the People of CA now have to change their constitution....and put it into explicit words so activist judges cannot twist things around to their point of view.

Except that it won't happen. Check out polls of Californians who agree/disagree with the decision.

 

[Larkinn]

Let's see some stats that show gay marriages are more stable and not less stable than hetero marriages.

Gay marriage is more stable than gay relationships. Banning gay marriage isn't going to make them straight, its just going to make them not get married.

 

[RetiredGySgt]

Gay marriage is more stable than gay relationships. Banning gay marriage isn't going to make them straight, its just going to make them not get married.

Wasn't the question. Though in all honesty it is a dumb question. I do not care what the break up rate is for marriages of any group, if I did I would not have married my wife, She is Filipino. I married her in the PI. The stats back then were that with in 5 years 80 percent of those marriages failed and that the next 5 had something like a 70 percent failure rate. Been married almost 25 years now.

 

[Dogger]

How does creating stable personal relationships adversely affect you or society? What is the benefit of forcing people who are different to choose between public scorn and loneliness? If you can't articulate an answer to these questions, why should you be able to inflict your moral choice on a minority?

What other than fascist tendencies drives you to care?

Asked, but unanswered. I wonder why.