California Proposition 8

[Chip]

Dear California State Supreme Court:

Regarding State Attorney General Jerry Brown’s recent decision to request that the California Supreme Court overturn Prop 8 on the grounds "it violates the rights to liberty and privacy which the court decision in May includes the right to marry", he has hereby committed a breach of trust with the public, in that he has failed to defend Prop 8 as his job requires. I trust you will refuse his request that Prop 8 be overturned, and send him back to do his job to the best of his ability.

Furthermore …

… The court was in definitive propriety egregious error on that matter back in May ... which is why the Prop 8 ballot measure was requested and allowed. No matter what the court did on that matter, it's not relevant here, and we the people are always free to correct judicial mistake.

The long-standing, time-honored, cross-cultural traditional definition of marriage supported by the overwhelming vast majority is "between a man and a woman as husband and wife". Marriage between a man and a woman is thus DEFINITIVELY APPROPRIATE ... and marriage between two men or two women violates this DEFINITIVE PROPRIETY.

Codependent acquiescence merely because someone has a gay/lesbian friend or friend of a friend, etc., is irrelevant in the face of the truth of the aforementioned foundational definition, and should thereby really cause Jerry Brown to be removed from office on the grounds of inappropriate bias.

As for the privacy part, because marriage is a socioeconomically, government registrationally and freedom of information act "public" condition, this cannot be a "privacy" matter.

As for the freedom (liberty) part, does that mean I as a man am "free" to enter the women's dressing room at my gym to change clothes and scream bloody discrimination when they throw me out? No, because it is NOT DEFINITIVELY APPROPRIATE for a MAN to use the WOMEN'S dressing room.

And does that mean that cat owners are "free" to enter their cats in a dog show and then scream bloody discrimination when the dog show administrators refuse those entries? No, because it is NOT DEFINITIVELY APPROPRIATE for a CAT to be in a DOG show.

The list of OBVIOUS violations to definitive propriety that thus render the "freedom" test unconjecturably inapplicable goes on and on.

DEFINITIVE PROPRIETY must be first respected and tested in a matter for intelligence to rule the day. One cannot rationally cry discrimination until the definitive propriety test is first passed.

It is obviously DEFINITIVELY INAPPROPRIATE for two men or two women to marry, as the DEFINITION of marriage is "between a MAN and a WOMAN as HUSBAND and WIFE".

Thus the "freedom" argument in attempt to overturn Prop 8 is unconjecturably inapplicable.

It is sad when a state official, such as Mr. Brown, lets his personal idiosyncratic pre-conceived ideology and codependency override intelligent application of definitive propriety.

I hope you do the right thing and immediately refuse his recent request that the California Supreme Court overturn Prop 8 … and order him to do the right thing by the people of California and go back and create a complete defense of Prop 8.

Chip

 

[Dawkinsrocks]

Defintions evolve and you have made a good case for the defintion of 'marriage' to evolve into meaning 'between consenting adults'.

Otherwise you might end up sounding bigoted and out of touch.

 

[Mr. Shaman]

I am a straight guy happily married etc etc.

I have no problem with gay or transgender of bi people forming any relationship that rocks their boat provided all parties consent.

I wonder why Silhouette and co on this thread are so concerned about the subject.

Relying on the prevailing-rhetoric seems to fit their needs. ​

"Engle and Garlow, like many other evangelical pastors, preach that homosexuality is a sin.

"The Bible is very, very clear . . . that that kind of perversion will not get people into heaven," Abel said. "They're fallen people, broken people, hurting people."

Gay marriage, he said, is a threat to heterosexual marriage".​

 

[top gun]

You see...
You have to make me hateful/afraid/bigoted etc because without those names sticking to me, your position falls woefully short...


I'm just calling out the gay lifestyle and putting it under the microscope, which is where it should be when it prays to become part of the legitimized fabric of society.

I want to know all about gays, not to fear them, but to understand everything there is to understand about them....what makes them tick...how they got to be gay...what their underlying hopes and motivations are...

Call it fear if you like. Most people run from what they're afraid of. I'm sticking around and getting to know it. Does that scare you?

I'm still waiting to hear how NAMBLA members are only "11" strong, in spite of evidence presented and how their mindset of legitimizing another sexual deviance diverges radically from homosexuals mindset of "love" justifying deviant sexuality?

Still pretty silent from the gay crowd on those issues...

If it's your belief that being insanely homophobic, running around in the streets yelling out clinically proven misinformation to make yourself feel safer inside your own sexuality makes you somehow "not afraid"... then yes... you're definitely that type of "not afraid".

Bottom line still remains and will continue to remain... gay people being in monogamous relationships married hurts no one.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Ya' know... <scratches crotch>...I've heard that ****ing "coarse" bull**** all my ****ing life and I just don't get where those ****ing ***holes get that ****. Poise? Refinement? Ma-****ing-turity? Who the **** needs that ****, anyway? <picks nose> All a real ****ing man needs is an itchier trigger finger and better aim that the son-of-a-***** that's schemin' to take his beer, barbecue and booty! <flicks booger absentmindedly into audience> Yep... beer, barbecue and booty... Why the **** would anyone want anything more than that? All that other ****'s just a waste of time. Men are ****ing simple because life's a whole ****ing lot simpler than folks make it out to be and it's our ma-****ing-turity that allows us to see this simple point. "Feelings"? Lemme' tell ya' about ****ing "feelings"..."I feel like a beer!""I feel like some barbecue!""I feel like gettin' some booo-tay!" 'Nuff said.

Yes, there are people who believe that, but it's not true. As Dr. Brizendine points out in her book, there are differences in the way male and female brains develop--doesn't make one more refined or evolved, it just makes them different. There are hardwired pathways in people's brains that tend to make them behave in certain ways, some of those tendencies can be over-ridden, but the basic structures remain.

 

[Sihouette]

Like Chip said...

The rights of marriage already apply to gays.
They are free to be married to members of the opposite gender any day they choose.

Otherwise, call it something else, which is what it is, and be done with the squabbling. We can't call purple orange. We can't call cats dogs.
And we can't call gays married.

The voters have spoken. Let the status quo for marriage remain.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Dear California State Supreme Court:

Regarding State Attorney General Jerry Brown’s recent decision to request that the California Supreme Court overturn Prop 8 on the grounds "it violates the rights to liberty and privacy which the court decision in May includes the right to marry", he has hereby committed a breach of trust with the public, in that he has failed to defend Prop 8 as his job requires. I trust you will refuse his request that Prop 8 be overturned, and send him back to do his job to the best of his ability.

Furthermore …

… The court was in definitive propriety egregious error on that matter back in May ... which is why the Prop 8 ballot measure was requested and allowed. No matter what the court did on that matter, it's not relevant here, and we the people are always free to correct judicial mistake.

The long-standing, time-honored, cross-cultural traditional definition of marriage supported by the overwhelming vast majority is "between a man and a woman as husband and wife". Marriage between a man and a woman is thus DEFINITIVELY APPROPRIATE ... and marriage between two men or two women violates this DEFINITIVE PROPRIETY.

Codependent acquiescence merely because someone has a gay/lesbian friend or friend of a friend, etc., is irrelevant in the face of the truth of the aforementioned foundational definition, and should thereby really cause Jerry Brown to be removed from office on the grounds of inappropriate bias.

As for the privacy part, because marriage is a socioeconomically, government registrationally and freedom of information act "public" condition, this cannot be a "privacy" matter.

As for the freedom (liberty) part, does that mean I as a man am "free" to enter the women's dressing room at my gym to change clothes and scream bloody discrimination when they throw me out? No, because it is NOT DEFINITIVELY APPROPRIATE for a MAN to use the WOMEN'S dressing room.

And does that mean that cat owners are "free" to enter their cats in a dog show and then scream bloody discrimination when the dog show administrators refuse those entries? No, because it is NOT DEFINITIVELY APPROPRIATE for a CAT to be in a DOG show.

The list of OBVIOUS violations to definitive propriety that thus render the "freedom" test unconjecturably inapplicable goes on and on.

DEFINITIVE PROPRIETY must be first respected and tested in a matter for intelligence to rule the day. One cannot rationally cry discrimination until the definitive propriety test is first passed.

It is obviously DEFINITIVELY INAPPROPRIATE for two men or two women to marry, as the DEFINITION of marriage is "between a MAN and a WOMAN as HUSBAND and WIFE".

Thus the "freedom" argument in attempt to overturn Prop 8 is unconjecturably inapplicable.

It is sad when a state official, such as Mr. Brown, lets his personal idiosyncratic pre-conceived ideology and codependency override intelligent application of definitive propriety.

I hope you do the right thing and immediately refuse his recent request that the California Supreme Court overturn Prop 8 … and order him to do the right thing by the people of California and go back and create a complete defense of Prop 8.

Chip

It's too bad that you didn't see fit to apply your "definitive propriety" proces to the US Constitution, the highes law in the land, because you would find that your basic premise is flawed.

At one time your widely accepted, culturally diverse, definition of longstanding, "definitive propriety" said that blacks weren't fully human too, but things change despite the best efforts of the dinosaurs. May they rest in peace.

I have posted numerous examples of marriage being defined broadly enough in historical times to include same sex coupling. You catagorically denied these examples, saying that they represented a fringe of society and not the mainstream. You didn't support your assertion however so it cannot be accepted as anything but your opinion. Read the American Nazi Party website or the Klan website and you will find that they diverge widely from you on the meanings of many words. Yours is an argument for the status quo because it works for you and your fear/hatred (carefully concealed behind a cloud of rhetoric) is thereby assuaged by denying to others the rights you enjoy for yourself. Very "practice of Christianity" in today's world.

 

[Mare Tranquillity]

Like Chip said...

The rights of marriage already apply to gays.
They are free to be married to members of the opposite gender any day they choose.

Otherwise, call it something else, which is what it is, and be done with the squabbling. We can't call purple orange. We can't call cats dogs.
And we can't call gays married.

The voters have spoken. Let the status quo for marriage remain.

The same argument that was used against interracial marriage: everyone has the same right to marry a person of their own race. It was stupid then, it's even more stupid now because you'd think that we'd have learned from last time. Dinosaurs don't learn, they die of old age, and are replaced by faster, smarter mammals. May the dinos rest in peace.

 

[Sihouette]

No, it isn't the same argument and here's why: blacks and whites and any other color are able to have sex to procreate. Whereas the first argument was one of prejudice, the other argument is one of function. Gay sex steps outside the natural function of the human body, regardless of skin color, race, religious affiliation or what have you. Gay sex cannot result in the natural function of sex, to procreate children. Being a wholesale deviance. Interracial sex (the implied result of interracial marriage) still results in offspring and is therefore a natural human function. If for some reason blacks and whites were different species (which they are not) then it would something akin to beastiality for one to have sexual contact with the other.

Gay sex is a deviant use of the sexual organs for pleasure only, as is pedophilia and bestiality. We cannot make distinctions from one deviation to the other once a precident is set. It will simply be a matter of time and a few teams of shrewd attorneys from NAMBLA or what have you, to either reverse the original "bonus" won by the gay community, via the outrageous insistance causing people to wake up to deviance in general, in order to make "all equal"; or they will get their "equal rights" to have sex with minors (to practice the sexual deviance of their choice via the precident set by gays). The one area that really comes to mind that will follow directly on the heels of gay marriage will be polygamy. There will be no more argument against heterosexual polygamy since gay sex is deviant, then with marriage "rights" and polygamy is not deviant, but rather just not currently accepted.

It will have to be if gay marriage is ratified.

If this is the direction we want to go, then we must accept that this too will happen. I'm telling you, we're opening pandora's box. The deviants say "great!". Me, I'm not so sure...

 

[top gun]

Like Chip said...

The rights of marriage already apply to gays.
They are free to be married to members of the opposite gender any day they choose.

Otherwise, call it something else, which is what it is, and be done with the squabbling. We can't call purple orange. We can't call cats dogs.
And we can't call gays married.

The voters have spoken. Let the status quo for marriage remain.

While it's obvious that there are many that want a "religious" ownership of the word marriage. That is not in line with our government's legal recognition of a marriage contract... which is by the way what this about "a legal contract".

Hence I see the the courts stepping in... or regardless I'm positive this issue will continue to be up for re-vote until it passes.

But even foregoing that... if some clarification of the sexuality of the persons bound by this legal contract is the only issue then the obvious fair compromise would calling it something else "as in Civil Union" but having every single legal aspect be identical to heterosexual marriage.

But if people were really being honest they'd just admit this whole... don't let gay people say they're married... because we want to protect the word "marriage" (can't call cats dogs thing) is really quite a bit a Red Herring.

They still for the most part wouldn't want the full legal recognition of gays in a "mirror to marriage" even called something different. If it had all marriage's full legal benefits and personal responsibilities they'd still oppose it.

And that pretty much is because as soon as enough exact same things as marriage, "Civil Unions" are established and the entire general public sees that there is no harm caused...

people would just for ease of explanation say in general conversation... they're married.

Then this whole ridiculous word-smiting thing would just fade into obscurity.

 

[Sihouette]

You are advocating opening pandora's box.

If I understand the gay argument for their being included in marriage, it is based on two entities being "in love" as the foundation for their inclusion.

I assume you've heard of precidents? How would gays then exclude other entities "in love" from the same inclusion in marriage without themselves seeming prejudiced?

It's a bit of a brain teaser.

At the very least the new definition of "marriage" would have to include very specific language about what constitutes "being gay". We have a fine example right in this thread of a person who is on the fence with sexuality having first been born male, deciding to change to "female" and then having no little ambiguity about who they are attracted to. Do we include transgenders? Do we exclude bigamists? Do we include or prohibit pedophiles? Should it be between members of the same species or are non-offspring producing orgasmic ativity of all walks open to inclusion? Why or why not?

The language should be very specific.

Now, who will step up and offer the new "marriage" language to be written into law?

 

[Segep]

the false slippery slope argument is a tired one. And arguing against it is like beating your head against the wall. There are none so blind as those who will not see and all that....

homosexuality does not equal pedophilia or bestiality and your attempt to draw parallels is both foolish and transparent.

No doubt people said the same thing to argue against blacks marrying whites. Blacks were considered animals then, and not even of the same species as humans. Been there done that.

 

[Sihouette]

the false slippery slope argument is a tired one. And arguing against it is like beating your head against the wall. There are none so blind as those who will not see and all that....

Only in the sense that setting a legal precident is "a tired argument". Oh, that's right...oopsies...that's the foundation of American law...

Once the marital door has been opened for one type of deviant sexual behavior, we will stand on precarious legal ground to deny other types.

And the consideration isn't a "false slippery slope". Many many sticking and binding laws have been forged on previous legal precident and determined attorneys who are good at arguing law..

So that's why I ask the gay community to now provide compelling reason and language as to why other deviant sexual unions outside the type that has the potential to result in offspring, cannot also join in marriage? What, specifically, shall be the clear and concise line(s) drawn, in language, to bar bigamists and other sexual devaints that are now illegal? Is it that they are now illegal? So only those forms of deviant sexual unions that are legal today may marry?

And yet the other foundation of american law is that it is progressive and inclusive of potential future modifications...and that is not a "tired" foundation kiddo. That is THE foundation of our legal process.

The only thing that is tiring about the whole thing is gays coming up with catchy little phrases to browbeat others into normalizing their abnormal pleas. Calling things "a tired argument" is a smokescreen device. The gays really don't have clear language to offer that factually defines where we would draw the line on deviances. I'd like to see that language offered up here. And yes, I'm calling you out. This is a challenge right here on this thread. And I won't take diversion as a sufficient reply..

 

[top gun]

You are advocating opening pandora's box.

If I understand the gay argument for their being included in marriage, it is based on two entities being "in love" as the foundation for their inclusion.

I assume you've heard of precidents? How would gays then exclude other entities "in love" from the same inclusion in marriage without themselves seeming prejudiced?

It's a bit of a brain teaser.

You mean if that brain is really, really small, right?

At the very least the new definition of "marriage" would have to include very specific language about what constitutes "being gay". We have a fine example right in this thread of a person who is on the fence with sexuality having first been born male, deciding to change to "female" and then having no little ambiguity about who they are attracted to. Do we include transgenders? Do we exclude bigamists? Do we include or prohibit pedophiles? Should it be between members of the same species or are non-offspring producing orgasmic ativity of all walks open to inclusion? Why or why not?

You do come up with the most of the most when it comes to strawman arguments. Were talking about one thing "gay people being allowed to have a legally binding marriage contract". Not your lonely farmer barnyard sodomy scenarios you kinda bizarrely too often bring up. Or anything to do with children.

These diversions exemplify someone floundering in a loosing argument.

The language should be very specific.

Now, who will step up and offer the new "marriage" language to be written into law?

Be it recognized that any two adults over the legal age of 18 years old can enter into a nationally recognized MARRIAGE CONTRACT and receive both the Rights and Responsibilities contained therein.

Short, sweet, to the point, establishes legal protections and hurts no one else... easy!

 

[Sihouette]

Were talking about one thing "gay people being allowed to have a legally binding marriage contract". Not your lonely farmer barnyard sodomy scenarios you kinda bizarrely too often bring up. Or anything to do with children.

OK.

But you're saying that only two people can enter into a marriage. Why only two? If more than two are "in love" why can't they bond in marriage?

I await your answer.