California: Prohibition on gay marriage

[Tiassa]

Quit your pathetic complaining, Max

No, you didn't! You listed a bunch of nonsense comments by some people who's opinions are just opinions just like my opinions are opinions.

You're getting so worked up, Max, you're confusing yourself:

• I included nobody else's "opinions", as such, when I responded to your comments; see #37 above.

• What you describe as "someone else's opinion" that is "worth the same" as yours seems to refer to your prior rejection of the basic overview of the concept of equal protection written by scholars at the Legal Information Institute at Cornell University Law School. Are you proclaiming yourself a scholar on constitutional law? (If so, why don't you include more of that study in your posts?)​

I'm ask for reasons why YOU are so willing to allow some discriminations, sexual and otherwise, yet adamantly claim that gay marriage ban is discrimination that should be abolished.

And, Tiassa, the more you try to hide all of your reasons and explanations in long, involved garbage, with long, silly footnoting, is just more evidence for me that you're simply so fuckin' biased that you can't explain any of it yourself.

Wow, you did a two-fer there. Not only did you demand an explanation, you re-stated your reason for not reading it.

If you were more honest, Max, we could try going through it point by point, using as few words and syllables as possible in order to accommodate your demands. However, you're not honest, which typically means that splitting an argument into its components is unwise, since it usually results in useless digression when you step away from the issues and decide to take on a personal dispute you have with me.

In the meantime, we can certainly try the short form:

(1) The purpose of our government. (U.S. Constitution)
(2) Recognition of the different thought processes of juvenile and adult brains. (cf. Roper v. Simmons)
(3) The individual self is not the sole priority within society.​

Two points of constitutional law, Max, and what is observable in the mere fact that societies exist within the human endeavor. Now, since you disdain longer explanations, I'll leave it to you to figure out.

 

[Baron Max]

So, Tiassa, in effect, for you, it's okay to discriminate against some people for some things, but not gay people on marriage rights. Is that about it, Tiassa?

Baron Max

 

[Asguard]

barron are you really a bigot or are you just THICK?

the prohabition on marriages between people under age for the same reason as the prohabition on people who are "non compitant" getting married. That is they have no ability to understand the terms of a contract and there for CANT SIGN ONE. its as symple as that

 

[Repo Man]

I also wanted to mention that the incest taboo has been found in cultures all over the world. Considering the increased likelihood of recessive genes being expressed, it's no real surprise. It also seems likely that we have evolutionary psychology that makes incestuous attractions relatively rare. The Westermark effect shows that children reared together from an early age are rarely sexually attracted to each other, regardless of whether or not they are related.

 

[distantcube]

barron are you really a bigot or are you just THICK?

the prohabition on marriages between people under age for the same reason as the prohabition on people who are "non compitant" getting married. That is they have no ability to understand the terms of a contract and there for CANT SIGN ONE. its as symple as that

That's a bit of a generalisation, isn't it?

And who's to say that all legal adults are capable of understanding the terms and consequences of a legally binding contract?

 

[James R]

Males can't legally use the public female restrooms. And that is also sex discrimination ...

Underage girls can't marry older males. ... Yet it's still age discrimination.

...

So, Tiassa, in effect, for you, it's okay to discriminate against some people for some things, but not gay people on marriage rights.

Pardon me for butting in. I'll speak for myself and not for Tiassa, of course.

The simple answer is: yes, it is okay to discriminate against some people for something, but not ok to discriminate against some people for other things.

In the first two examples you cite, there are clear protective impulses behind the laws that discriminate. For example, society wants to protect women from sexual assault in restrooms. And it wants to protect underage girls from sexual exploitation by older males.

Now, you tell me, Baron Max, what harm-minimisation principle justifies the gay marriage ban, since I assume from your other examples that this is what you have in mind.

 

[Roman]

Um, it keeps our sensibilities safe?
God won't strike down California with earthquakes?

 

[distantcube]

Pardon me for butting in. I'll speak for myself and not for Tiassa, of course.

In the first two examples you cite, there are clear protective impulses behind the laws that discriminate. For example, society wants to protect women from sexual assault in restrooms. And it wants to protect underage girls from sexual exploitation by older males.

Now, you tell me, Baron Max, what harm-minimisation principle justifies the gay marriage ban, since I assume from your other examples that this is what you have in mind.

So you wouldn't mind if we had separate bathrooms for gay males and heterosexual males, in order to protect males from sexual assault in restrooms?

 

[one_raven]

Baron,

What I found most interesting is that I have seen you say a thousand times that the world would be a much better place if people would just "mind their own fuckin business" and let people live their lives.
Yet you want to tell people they can't get married, even though it could not hurt you in any way.

 

[joepistole]

Too much is made of homosexuality. I don't loose a minute of sleep over the topic. I could care less about someones sexual preferences. I think we as a society make entirely too much of this issue. I served in the military with gays, no problem (I am hetersexual).

I don't know why any one would want to get married, but if they want to get married so be it.

 

[distantcube]

Baron,

What I found most interesting is that I have seen you say a thousand times that the world would be a much better place if people would just "mind their own fuckin business" and let people live their lives.
Yet you want to tell people they can't get married, even though it could not hurt you in any way.

Married couples receive extra financial benefits. That will come out of the taxpayer's pocket. So people 'getting married' does hurt Baron in an indirect way.

The answer to this debacle is to just abolish marriage as a government institution. Leave it a purely religious/personal affair.

 

[James R]

So you wouldn't mind if we had separate bathrooms for gay males and heterosexual males, in order to protect males from sexual assault in restrooms?

If you can show, for instance, that heterosexual males are more likely to assault gay males in bathrooms than other heterosexual males, then maybe.

Married couples receive extra financial benefits. That will come out of the taxpayer's pocket. So people 'getting married' does hurt Baron in an indirect way.

That would be an argument to ban all marriage, though, wouldn't it?

 

[joepistole]

That would be an argument to ban all marriage, though, wouldn't it?

Now that is an idea I like!!!

 

[one_raven]

Now that is an idea I like!!!

I could go along with that.

 

[one_raven]

People can get married at their churches and join in legal civil unions via the government.

 

[distantcube]

If you can show, for instance, that heterosexual males are more likely to assault gay males in bathrooms than other heterosexual males, then maybe.

I'm simply pointing out that heterosexual males may be sexually assaulted by homosexual males, much as you pointed out that women may be sexually assaulted by heterosexual males.

So if we follow your logic to its conclusion, we should have separate bathrooms for homosexual males and heterosexual males, in order to protect those heterosexual males from sexual abuse at the hands of homosexual males.

That would be an argument to ban all marriage, though, wouldn't it?

Yes. How is that relevant to my observation that homosexual marriage does effect Baron?

 

[distantcube]

People can get married at their churches and join in legal civil unions via the government.

Sounds good, so long as civil unions don't offer financial incentives which come out of the taxpayer's pocket.

 

[James R]

I'm simply pointing out that heterosexual males may be sexually assaulted by homosexual males, much as you pointed out that women may be sexually assaulted by heterosexual males.

Sexual assaults by homosexual men are rare, I think. Whereas, sexual assaults by heterosexual men on women are not uncommon.

Am I wrong?

 

[distantcube]

Sexual assaults by homosexual men are rare, I think. Whereas, sexual assaults by heterosexual men on women are not uncommon.

'Rare', 'not uncommon'. Those are vague and conveniently undefined terms.

The fact is that sexual assaults against men aren't obscure events, and it has been postulated that males are more likely to be raped than females. It has also been observed that men are more likely to be gang raped, especially where a pack mentality is likely to exist, such as in institutions.

There is some controversy as to whether many of these rapists are actually homosexual, or whether they are heterosexuals asserting their dominance.

In either scenario, my point still stands. If the rape of heterosexual males by homosexual men is 'not uncommon', then by your logic homosexual and heterosexual men should have separate bathrooms.

If the rape of homosexual males by heterosexual males is 'not uncommon', then by your logic homosexual and heterosexual men should have separate bathrooms.

Quite simply, I don't agree with your assessment that separate bathrooms are needed for males and females. The claim that it is done to 'protect' females from sexual assault is nonsense IMHO. The reason they are separate is because of society's outdated prudishness.

 

[Simon Anders]

'Rare', 'not uncommon'. Those are vague and conveniently undefined terms.

The fact is that sexual assaults against men aren't obscure events, and it has been postulated that males are more likely to be raped than females.

Talk about vague and conveniently undefined.....