Gay Marriage Ruled Legal in Connecticut
 

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/10/11/nyregion/11marriage.html?bl&ex=1223870400&en=a2b95ae23454dd 8c&ei=5087%0A

Gay Marriage Is Ruled Legal in Connecticut

By ROBERT D. McFADDEN
Published: October 10, 2008
A sharply divided Connecticut Supreme Court struck down the state’s civil union law on Friday and ruled that same-sex couples have a constitutional right to marry. Connecticut thus joins Massachusetts and California as the only states to have legalized gay marriages.


The ruling, which cannot be appealed and is to take effect on Oct. 28, held that a state law limiting marriage to heterosexual couples, and a civil union law intended to provide all the rights and privileges of marriage to same-sex couples, violated the constitutional guarantees of equal protection under the law.
Striking at the heart of discriminatory traditions in America, the court — in language that often rose above the legal landscape into realms of social justice for a new century — recalled that laws in the not-so-distant past barred interracial marriages, excluded women from occupations and official duties, and relegated blacks to separate but supposedly equal public facilities.
“Like these once prevalent views, our conventional understanding of marriage must yield to a more contemporary appreciation of the rights entitled to constitutional protection,” Justice Richard N. Palmer wrote for the majority in a 4-to-3 decision that explored the nature of homosexual identity, the history of societal views toward homosexuality and the limits of gay political power compared with that of blacks and women.
“Interpreting our state constitutional provisions in accordance with firmly established equal protection principles leads inevitably to the conclusion that gay persons are entitled to marry the otherwise qualified same-sex partner of their choice,” Justice Palmer declared. “To decide otherwise would require us to apply one set of constitutional principles to gay persons and another to all others.”
The ruling was groundbreaking in various respects. In addition to establishing Connecticut as the third state to sanction same-sex marriage, it was the first state high court ruling to hold that civil union statutes specifically violated the equal protection clause of a state constitution. The Massachusetts high court held in 2004 that same-sex marriages were legal, while California’s court decision in May related to domestic partnerships and not the more broadly defined civil unions.
The Connecticut decision, which elicited strong dissenting opinions from three justices, also opened the door to marriage a bit wider for gay couples in New York, where state laws do not provide for same-sex marriages or civil unions, although Gov. David A. Paterson recently issued an executive order requiring government agencies to recognize same-sex marriages performed in other states.
The opinion in Connecticut was hailed by jubilant gay couples and their advocates as a fulfillment of years of hopes and dreams. Hugs, kisses and cheers greeted eight same-sex couples as they entered the ballroom at the Hartford Hilton, where four years ago they had announced they would file a lawsuit seeking marriage licenses.
One of those couples, Joanne Mock, 53, and her partner, Elizabeth Kerrigan, 52, stood with their twin 6-year-old sons, choking back tears of joy and gratitude. Another plaintiff, Garret Stack, 59, introduced his partner, John Anderson, 63, and said: “For 28 years we have been engaged. We can now register at Home Depot and prepare for marriage.”
Religious and conservative groups called the ruling an outrage but not unexpected, and spoke of steps to enact a constitutional ban on gay marriage. Peter Wolfgang, executive director of the Family Institute of Connecticut, blamed “robed masters” and “philosopher kings” on the court. “This is about our right to govern ourselves,” he said. “It is bigger than gay marriage.”
But the state, a principal defendant in the lawsuit, appeared to be resigned to the outcome.
Gov. M. Jodi Rell said that she disagreed with the decision, but would uphold it. “The Supreme Court has spoken,” she said. “I do not believe their voice reflects the majority of the people of Connecticut. However, I am also firmly convinced that attempts to reverse this decision, either legislatively or by amending the state Constitution, will not meet with success.”
Attorney General Richard Blumenthal said his office was reviewing the decision to determine whether laws and procedures will have to be revised — local officials will issue marriage licenses to gay couples without question, for example — but he offered no challenge and said it would soon be implemented.

(Page 2 of 2)

The case was watched far beyond Hartford. Vermont, New Hampshire and New Jersey all have civil union statutes, while Maine, Washington, Oregon and Hawaii have domestic partnership laws that allow same-sex couples many of the same rights granted to those in civil unions. Advocates for same-sex couples have long argued that civil unions and domestic partnerships denied them the financial, social and emotional benefits accorded in a marriage.
Skip to next paragraph Enlarge This Image
Shana Sureck for The New York Times
Hundreds gathered outside the State Capitol in Hartford, Conn.



The legal underpinnings for gay marriages, civil unions and statutory partnerships have all come in legislative actions and decisions in lawsuits. Next month, however, voters in California will decide whether the state Constitution should permit same-sex marriage.
The Connecticut case began in 2004 after the eight same-sex couples were denied marriage licenses by the town of Madison. Reflecting the contentiousness and wide interest in the case, a long list of state, national and international organizations on both sides filed friend-of-the-court briefs. The plaintiffs contended that the denial of marriage licenses deprived them of due process and equal protection under the law.
While the case was pending, the legislature in 2005 adopted a law establishing the right of same-sex partners to enter into civil unions that conferred all the rights and privileges of marriage. But, at the insistence of the governor, the law also defined marriage as the union of one man and one woman.
Arguments in the case centered on whether civil unions and marriages conferred equal rights, and on whether same-sex couples should be treated as what the court called a “suspect class” or “quasi-suspect class” — a group, like blacks or women, that has experienced a history of discrimination and was thus entitled to increased scrutiny and protection by the state in the promulgation of its laws.
Among the criteria for inclusion as a suspect class, the court said, were whether gay people could “control” their sexual orientation, whether they were “politically powerless” and whether being gay had a bearing on one’s ability to contribute to society.
A lower-court judge, Patty Jenkins Pittman of Superior Court in New Haven, sided with the state, denying that gay men and lesbians were entitled to special consideration as a suspect class and concluding that the differences between civil unions and marriages amounted to no more than nomenclature. The Supreme Court reversed the lower-court ruling.
“Although marriage and civil unions do embody the same legal rights under our law, they are by no means equal,” Justice Palmer wrote in the majority opinion, joined by Justices Flemming L. Norcott Jr., Joette Katz and Lubbie Harper. “The former is an institution of transcendent historical, cultural and social significance, whereas the latter is not.”
The court said it was aware that many people held deep-seated religious, moral and ethical convictions about marriage and homosexuality, and that others believed gays should be treated no differently than heterosexuals. But it said such views did not bear on the questions before the court.
“There is no doubt that civil unions enjoy a lesser status in our society than marriage,” the court said. “Ultimately, the message of the civil unions law is that what same-sex couples have is not as important or as significant as real marriage.”
In one dissenting opinion, Justice David M. Bordon contended that there was no conclusive evidence that civil unions are inferior to marriages, and he argued that gay people have “unique and extraordinary” political power that does not warrant heightened constitutional protections.
Justice Peter T. Zarella, in another dissent, argued that the state marriage laws dealt with procreation, which was not a factor in gay relationships. “The ancient definition of marriage as the union of one man and one woman has its basis in biology, not bigotry,” he wrote.
About 1,800 couples have obtained civil unions in Connecticut since the law was adopted three years ago, although gay-rights advocates say the demand has slowed. They cite complaints that the unions leave many people feeling not quite married but not quite single, facing forms that mischaracterize their status and questions at airports challenging their ties to their own children.
But marriage will soon be a possibility for gay couples like Janet Peck, 55, and Carol Conklin, 53, of West Hartford, who have been partners for 33 years. “I so look forward to the day when I can take this woman’s hand, look deeply into her eyes and pledge my deep love and support and commitment to her in marriage,” Ms. Peck said.


I'll bet that stupid cow on Youtube is ripping her hair out now.

I guess that's kinda nice.

lol the person in charge of marriage licensing in my town refused to do any marriages until the gay amrriage thing ws repealed

she also said that legalizing gay marriage would cost straight americans like a million dollars or something

i kind of wonder if it's really separate but equal to allow gays another instution for legal benefits (like civil unions). It's not like we're saying civil unions are equal to marriage, only that they give some similar benefits. Is marriage and the benefits it gives the same thing? If so, then marriage is already a legal institution. But if marriage is something different than just the (legal) benefits, then I don't think separate but equal applies to this.

ill have to read the whole article later.

It's like this reporter said on the Colbert Report: "So gays can have rights...as long as they aren't gay?"

And forgive my ignorance, but if gay marriage is outlawed, wouldn't gay people still just live together or something? If heterosexual marriage was banned, men and women who loved each other would just live together in secret.

yes zelda but the problem is that gays are all a bunch of queers and they have to have everything exactly like straights or it's not fair.

Mostly it seems like gays want to force t he world to admit that they exist or something ;. The ones that annoy me the most are t he ones who think the church deserves a big fuck you, and the ones who want to be a member of a church that says they are evil and will burn in hell and im pretty sure that they should be stoned ;/

Yeah, but just living together doesn't get you visitation rights to your partner's children, or tax benefits, or insurance benefits to offered to spouses, and all that other great stuff. Hence, civil unions aren't the same. Seperate but equal just doesn't work.

Yeah, everybody should have the chance to be miserable.

Precisely. :)

I don't see why they couldn't just extend the benefits to civil unions and make marriages obsolete. The only difference between marriage and a civil union should be religious/ceremonial bullshit.

I know, it's not the same. But my point is that just because you're trying to block gay nature doesn't mean it's not still going to be around.

Kind of like when abortion was illegal. Women who were desperate for one just went to an illegal clinic or something which meant that basically she was getting what they didn't want and it was being done in a way more dangerous to her health.

Why not kill 2 birds with 1 stone and just end marriage as a state sanctioned institution? Marriage is pretty much an arbitrary title with a bunch of legal bullshit added in and the possibility of losing 50% of everything you own.

BTW why is abortion legal but weed and prostitution not?

Abortion is not just used to drop an unwanted child. If the pregnancy is a danger to the mother's health, it is used as an option.

Anyway, I think abortion's a woman's choice. It's her own body.

Is the fetus inside her body her own body?

so how come the "my body" arguement doesn't work across the board?

and strangely it's from the same end of the fence that is also against hunting.

LEGALIZE SUICIDE

yah that one's sort of pointless. how can enforce it? lol you might as well make dying in general illegal

So give them the exact same protections and benefits. Exactly.

But don't call it Marriage. It's not. Not because gays aren't as good, but because marrige = man + woman. No need to change my thing to suit them.

Equal, not separate, just different.

Why not? Why give them the same thing but call it something else? Why so much concern over semantics?

Why is marriage only between a man and a woman? Because it accords with the traditional definition of marriage...?

I wouldn't give them the same thing but call it something else. that's why i said the benefits and the marriage aren't the same thing.
but that's just me.

Anybody care to respond?

i think they should just take away the benefits of being married, that would be more fair

if marriage didn't exist would you invent it?

Best idea of the year! :rock

I remember when I was little... If I got concerned about what the other kids were doing and thought I needed to throw a fit about about it, my parents or teacher would say something to the effect of "You dont need to worry about what they are doing. You need to worry about yourself". If you are not gay, gays getting married shouldnt bother you. It has nothing to do with you. I keep hearing these kinds of people go on and on about the "gay agenda", what gay agenda? There is no gay agenda only a bigot agenda.

It's my belief that people who are the most anti-gay, are secretly gay themselves. From their point of view, I could see how they would think homosexuality is an inclination, and how gay people around them may make them more comfortable with what they are taught is wrong (or in other words: catching the gay).

everyone forgets the most oppressed minority. Night People! Day people forcing us to go shop and do important stuff during daylight hours and leaving nowhere for us to gather other than bars, porn stores, and bowling alleys.

Nocturnal rights!

So I'm guessing you were suffering from insomnia when you posted at 2:45 in the afternoon?

Exactly! It's not other people's concerns. What DOES concern me is that the same people who go on about how nonsensical things like global warming and evolution are seem to think gay people are planning on rising up and enslaving the world or something :x

Oh, and watch this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o-id4GKsaQk

Legalize Gay Marriage

Ban Gay Divorce.

That'll teach 'em.

I don't know i think there are some reasons why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married. If you force churches that don't believe in marrying gays to marry them, then I think it would be wrong. For example. That is easily avoided, though.

The most common response to why straight people don't want gay people to get married is because they think it undermines their marriage. Which has to do with the sanctity of marriage notion...

So true.

Another reason is because people claim the Bible says it's wrong.

But seriously, just because gay people marry doesn't mean heterosexuals will die out or something. I think that there should be the marriage option though.

Traditional marriages in Europe were once an arrangement primarily done for economic purposes rather than love. That hardly means that we should return to that. The institution of marriage is not static.

I wasn't making a point with that. I was asking someone why they said what they said. Anyway I don't think the changing nature of marriage means that we should change it. I mean hey maybe love is stupid and that's a dumb reason to marry. And I know this is on the side (and a different type of economical) but weren't you mentioning earlier that the reason why gays aren't satisfied with civil unions for economic reasons? Isn't the same amount of love and devotion existent between civil unions?
If not, does that mean marriage (alone) creates true love? SANCITITYT MAYBE?

if you're going to respond to something i say at least do it to something interesting

No but they might not take their marriages as seriously or find any value or maybe they won't even be interested in getting married anymore. Potentially this could cause higher divorce rate and as a result o fthat a decline in family cohesion and the children will not receive a solid upbringing nor be in a stable social environment or something. It could wreak horrible devastation! banana

I never said there wasn't. My sole point was that the institution of marriage is not static.


Did racist people stop taking their own marriages seriously when the supreme court ruled that blacks and whites could marry?

Yep. And it still bothers a lot of (racist) people when they see a black and white walking around holding hands. Hasn't the divorce rate also climbed for a while with it being at about 40% right now? Maybe that's all due to blacks and whites being allowed to marry eachother. lol :( Plus hasn't there been less marriages over the years and more children born outside of marriages as well?
and also blacks and whites marrying isn't as common a thing as gay people marrying probably would be. Besides that, at least blacks and whites marrying was between a man and a woman. next thing you know we'll have a 90% divorce rate and people arguing for group marriages and other abominable marriages which i won't even touch on!

So are you arguing that we shouldn't allow interracial marriage on that basis?

This is an example of the slippery slope fallacy, the false assumption that one thing must automatically lead to another, more extreme example.

No actually the slippery slope was before when i said banana at the end.
That's not really a slippery slope. The fact is that if we allow gay people to marry because there is love (or most other reasons)-- what other kinds of relationships have love?

And if the divorce rate has jumped significantly from when interracial marriages were allowed than it probably follows that it would jump more when other types of marriages are allowed, which are considered unwholesome or whathaveyou.
If anything it's false cause because I was attributing the increase in divorce rates to interracial marriage when many other social changes have taken place during that time.

[quote]
...yes

and man why do you pick on such stupid arguments when i posted several actual thoughtful things. fuck you. You just want to blow yourself. And your counter-arguments aren't even good.

Right and my point regarding that was when we find out what's right maybe it will be static. And also the fact that it has changed in the past isnt a necessitation to change in the future. Maybe those changes were actually wrong.
You were indicating that love is the reason to marry. I merely pointed out that love is achieved in civil unions and it isn't any more meaningful because you have an official decree of marriageness.

They might not have liked seeing interracial couples walking hand in hand but did it degrade their marriage or make their marriage any less meaningful? I dont think so. A raciest man doesnt see an interracial couple and love his own wife any less. He isnt any more or less faithful to his own marriage. He might not like it but other than that it has no affect on him.

Then how come the divorce rate has steadily raised since interracial marriages were allowed? How come the rate of marriages has decreased? How come the age of marrying has increased? How come the children born ou tof wed-lock has increased?

and what are you even talking about racist people beat their wives whenever they see an interracial couple.

Plus, for many people, the importance of marriage is that it's a union under god with his blessings. Gay marriage is not a union under god with his blessing. It's actually with his curses. Interracial marriage isn't quite as horrible as gay marriage in that sense. It undermines the basic holiness of their marriage. If they are performing the same blessings on gays as on straights, and it's considered a sin for gays to be blessed in such a way, then it desecrates a holy blessing, making it vile and unattractive and you know is a total insult to god.

Anyway, I ask again: Why do gays even want to get married? Because the love is the same regardless of if they want to get married or not, what difference does it make? Why do they want to be a part of a religious institution that has historically you know stoned them to death and told them they would suffer for eternity for even looking at each other naked.

all you're going to say is for the benefits, or maybe one other thing. Well, then we go back to what I was saying earlier...

kahl is totally playing devil's advocate and schooling all of you at the same time. you should be ashamed.

ps: hi, pretty!

yea seriously and jeanette ignores the actual arguments I make and instead focuses on a question I asked someone else about their argument. Simultaneously ignoring the fact that the thing I said after the question was a response to her.

that was directed at you, jeanette.

Because the divorce rate has been steadily raised ever since divorce became as socially acceptable as it is. Doesnt necessarily mean it has anything to do with interracial marriages.

Way to make a blind generalization. Good job

I totally understand this argument from a church or similar institution. They are private organizations and if a priest or whomever decides they are not going to marry a gay couple that is their decision to make. However from a government and/or legal standpoint, gays should be able to go to the JotP and get a marriage license. What ever happened to "all men are created equal"? They shouldnt be given fewer rights just because of their sexual preference. By that logic anyone who has sex in any other way than the missionary position or for any other reason than reproduction should have rights stripped away from them.

This goes back to my previous statement that you shouldnt mind other peoples business and worry about yourself.

That is kind of between them and god dont you think? If they are committing a sin they have to answer for it when the time comes. Its not like they are murdering someone in the streets or even robbing from anyone. And this all on an "if", an "if" that implies god hates people of a certain race and/or sexuality. I mean god did make them who they are.

I think Jeanette answered this before. Its not so much about love or showing their love, they know they love each other. They could start their own church that accepted them and would marry them and they would be able to go threw the process of a formal ceremony for their own satisfaction/amusement or whatever. The problem is that its not a legally binding marriage. They are not granted the same rights as other married couples. If one gets insurance from their job that would normally cover a spouse, it doesnt cover them. If one of them is critically injured and in the hospital, the partner doesnt have the same rights and privileges as a married couple. Things of this nature are why they want to be legally recognized as "married".

dimnos, your name suits you.

In what way are you referring

I'll start with this since it is t he most important:
Okay but what I have said in probably at least ten posts on this subject is that instead of changing the law so that they can get married why not change the law so that they can get those benefits? The critically injured for example already has a modern solution in many states: a living will or advanced directive.

How come the rate of marriages has decreased? How come the age of marrying has increased? How come the children born ou tof wed-lock has increased?
also it started raising even more after it was legalized.
lol
All men are created equal does not mean everybody gets any priveledge they want exactly how they want it. The fact is, gay men have just as much of a right to marry a woman as anybody else.

That would be a typical argument to make if I said that procreating is the only reason why people should have sex. Which I didn't. Anyway the more applicable form of this argument would be that only marriages done with the objective of procreation should be allowed to marry. Which would limit menopausal women and otherwise infertile/incompatible couples to marry. Which i could say something about if i had made that argument and you had responded relevantly to.

and why only missionary style does the bible say only to do it missionary style i cant remember

They are worrying about themselves. They are worrying about the meaning of their marriage.
Furthmore that's the stupidest shit I've ever heard. If someone were raping and then killing somebody next door shouldn't you not mind your own business and call the cops? I'm just going to put etc. here because there are tons of examples...

Where in the bible does it say that you should let sinners continue to sin because god's going to deal with them? Cause actually im pretty sure it says you should cast gay people/other sinners out of your society and or kill the fuck out of them. And people who GO AGAINST GOD, or who don't obey his rules(like not upholding the marriage ideals or punishing sinners/gay people), are punished.
So it's not just about the gays it's about themsleves. I think that's why people usually bring up sadom and gammorha. Because that was a city that didn't obey god's rules and was punished for it. But it says all over the bible that societies that don't obey god's will will be fucked by god.

the ten commandments aren't the only rules of the bible.

So if there is a serial killer and he kills people god made him who he is and thus it's ok? Maybe he made him like that so that we would get the balls together to punish the bastard. did god give us freewill?
I don't know if it implies so much that he hates them (but he might) so much as he thinksk that they are a sick abomination and that they shouldn't exist and are corrupting the nature he gave to them or something i dont know. maybe he thinks it looks gross.
God made tsunamis to kill people.

jesus :(

SHUT UP!

Oh and glowbelly if your hi, pretty was directed at me hey lady ;P for some reason i thought the pretty would be directed elsewhere

Kahl, are you or have you ever been married?

I'm getting marrid on november first.
some people might consider it a gay marriage too ;)

Why wade through the legal labyrinth of changing all the laws that pertain to married couples to also cover same-sex unions when merely changing the marriage law itself would take care of the problem?

Fewer people feel the social pressure that they once did to get married. Is it so bad that people are marrying out of personal choice rather than social pressure? And is it so bad that single women have chosen to have babies on their own without the social pressure of marriage? Isn't this a matter of changing perceptions regarding marriage allowing individuals to make their own choices on their own terms without being ostracized?

And you have every right to marry a man (I assume you are a man) in the state of Massachusetts, so what would you care if I took away your right to marry a woman?

If a person's marriage was so weak to begin with that a gay or interracial couple getting married destroyed it, then perhaps that person wasn't meant for marriage to begin with.

There's a huge difference between rape and murder and consensual sex between adults.



I'm quite sure it doesn't. Unless you want to start quote mining from the Old Testament, which as I recall, also prohibits the consumption of pork and shellfish. Do you want to cast lobstermen out of society and/or kill the fuck out them too?

If you read the Bible, you will find that Gd agreed to spare the city if ten good people were found. Yet there weren't even ten there. Do you think that there are fewer than ten good people in any of our cities?

By that reasoning we should demolish the Buddhist temples for idolatry. Do you think that is a good idea?

And hi, Glowbelly.

*snip* Double post.

So in other words, people are allowed to be gay...as long as they're not gay? :confused:

That's what Pope John Paul II said - Homosexuals are called by God to a life of celibacy.

Or something like that.

I don't know, because it would be more fair and correct? Do you really have to change every law..?
and no offense but enough time has been spent arguing this legalizing it delegalizing it etc. that i think finding an actual solution and investing some effort into it might be worthwhile. Expedience :(

Well, yes. For the most part the most abuse occurs among co-habitating adults. Short-term relationships are usually worse than that. Children also have less of a stable relationship to look up to and form values based on. There's a lot of other problems associated with being born into a household without both parents.

I don't know isn't law about limiting people's freedoms to some extent so that society can function more evenly and fairly? Isn't it accepted to some degree that people don't have the right to make certain choices/?

This is a good response. The only problem is that you could only bring this up if I complained that the rights aren't equal. Which I haven't done. Instead, I've been bringing up reasons why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married.

It's not just about divorce but about the value they attach to their marriage. And it's not just about their marriage, either, it's about the institution of marriage -- which they just happen to be a part of. In effect I think they take it as a type of mockery of their own marriage. Most people don't like it when other people mock things which they hold dear.
In i n truth, it's exclusivity may have a large part to do with their feelings on the issue. Do you want to be part of a club that lets everybody in and has no restrictions? And the value society places on it, as well; they think that it shows society holds less of a regard for it. And thus their marriage, which maybe makes them feel bad about themselves.

I don't really know if marriage is necessarily about people loving each other and being together. If so, a lot of people would never marry. Maybe part of the reason why we should keep the institution of marriage as cohesive as possible is so that the less stable elements in society will still have something to come together for.

We're talking about humans but ok. Regardless, a reason dimnos had (who i was talking to and you are taking this out of context) was that we should let gay people do whatever they want and mind their own business because it's not harming us. I think. That should be pretty close and at the least is charitable.
The fact is, one of the main concerns regarding this is that it is harming some people. And there are a lot of victimless or harmless things which we would consider wrong. That is not a reliable method for determining right and wrong ;/

Well the typically quoted verses like this are in deutoronomy and romans i think. the one about lying with men lying with men and dressing like a woman or having sex with an animal being bad is towards the end of it ;o i think the other one is romans
but yea shellfish can make you sick and pork gives you worms.

Maybe. But anyway, he was saying that sin is between man and god, and that humans have no right to intervene or pass judgment. Which is clearly ridiculous. I was presenting a moral imperative related to the example I previously used. There's another similar argument he made, too, like the thing about not interfering when you think something is wrong. Sometimes we have to stop wrongs in order to be right :(

i was totally saying hi to kahl because no offense, jeanette, but he is way prettier than you (and me for that matter) :D

If that's the case, then perhaps it would be better for families to outlaw divorce entirely.

This is a good response. The only problem is that you could only bring this up if I complained that the rights aren't equal. Which I haven't done. Instead, I've been bringing up reasons why gays shouldn't be allowed to get married.

If its about preventing marriage from being mocked, then I think that the first point of order would be to shut down the 5 minute wedding chapels in Las Vegas where the marriage is performed by Elvis impersonators rather than to stop gay marriage. Furthermore, if someone mocks a religious person's beliefs, does that mean that they stop going to church? Lord knows religion has been mocked mercilessly in this country, yet fully half of it identifies as Christian.


It isn't a matter of society holding marriage in less regard, it is a matter of them holding marriage in less regard. Would I want to be a part of a club that only let in single Ashkenazi Jewish women with plantar faschitis and anthropology degrees who are stuck in shitty retail jobs? I could be part of it, but what is the point? The exclusion of everyone who isn't like me from the club does not mean that it is somehow a great club to be a part of, its just arbitrary.

Marriage is about entering a recognized social contract with a person who you love and want to be with. It is loving a person to the point where you are willing to enter into this legally binding agreement with them.

I think we could benefit from the less stable elements of society NOT getting together and raising children.


But do you try to intervene and keep people from eating pork and shellfish because of the health risks? Is is your place to say we can't have Red Lobster? The negative health risks from these foods present a more obvious and uncontestable danger to public health than gay marriage ever could, yet there is no controversy surrounding them. Why the double standard?

I agree. Especially if there are children in the household! but you could ask which would be in their best interest... and anyway, there is a difference between having two parents in your life for the first ten years and then them divorcing, than never having two parents.

Okay I can agree with that but I don't necessarily see why this means we should let gays get married. If anything it means both of them should be stopped.

This isn't just about some person sitting on the side going, "MARRIAGE IS STUPID" or something. This is about the church itself becoming a mockery, not merely people mocking the church. I can guarantee you, if a church was a mockery and there were always people inside the church mocking the people coming to church they probably wouldn't go back to that church unless they liked jokes.

Oh ok i guess i forgot that you were the one making these arguments.

What is the point? Why would you want to be part of a club that doesn't let people like you in? Why should gays want to be part of a group that doesn't want them in?

That's total horseshit. When you hang out with your friends do you want a bunch of douchebags coming along and trying to hang out with you? Aren't there clubs specifically for black people? Do you think they should have to let white people into the club?
Do you think chess clubs should let in people that don't play chess?
What's the point of clubs if they are for everyone?
no girls allowed ok
EXCEPT regular girls

So if you want it, then you should be able to have it? Is that what marriage is about? Should pedophiles be able to marry youngens because they both think they love and want eachother? And why do they have to have marriage when they could have other social contracts?

Maybe marriage has as much to do with individuals happiness as it does with societies functioning ;/ cause again marriage isn't necessary for love or happiness.

Yea, well, unfortunately it's going to happen anyway.

People eatting pork and shellfish won't actually be detrimental to social institutions :( Plus I'm not exactly sure what the restriction on pork and shellfish is, only that the uncleanliness and unhealthiness of them is one potential reason. especially when it comes to pork

anyway, i gave you a secular reason why we should interfere when people are doing wrong so there you have it...

gay marriage is a threat to public health?

and you know what from now on if you're going to respond to me when I'm talking to someone else read what they said first before-hand, because what they say is important as to how you can criticize me without being accurate.

nevermind

Before we continue, do you actually, seriously believe that my counterexamples of divorce and interracial marriage should be outlawed for the same reasons that you use to support your positions against gay marriage, or are you simply taking those stances just for the sake of this debate in order to neutralize my arguements against gay marriage?

Because I suspect that its the latter, and I'm frankly beginning to tire of this rhetorical dance. Most people opposed to gay marriage would not take the stances you've taken when the subjects of divorce and interracial marriage when faced with my arguements. Is this the best debating strategy that you can come up with?

This thread is making my tummy hurt. :x

On the whole divorce issue: Yes, I think that families should ultimately remain together and provide a healthy, nurturing environment for their children. But many times divorce would help out. What if the parents wind up not getting along at all and the children actually suffer from it? My best friend grew up like that and now lives with another relative and loves her stepmother much more than her birth mother. My point is that many times lust is mistaken for love and things don't work out the first time around. My belief is that if that happens, there's no shame in parting.

Another thing about divorce is what about abusive or bad relationships? Before women began gaining rights, they couldn't get divorces if their husbands hurt them or cheated on them.

And about people marrying underage children: I might be mistaken but isn't parental consent required for someone under the age of eighteen to be married? If that's the case and an underage child is married then I'd blame the parent for the immorality of the situation.

Interracial marriages are between a man and a woman. There's a significant difference between them and gay marriage.
many people have argued that interracial marriage did weaken the institution of marriage. And while it's not one you might hear when you are debating suzy jackass in her cozy church surrounding on your weekly ego trip, it's a perfectly good argument and is actually an answer to your question.

you didn't use the divorce argument properly. Here's the context of the argument: isn't
therefore divorce should be outlawed by families. SOCIETY SHOULD BE FAIR SO OBVIOUSLY FAMILIES SHOULDNT GET DIVORCED :rolleyes

What you should have said is that divorce points to the fact that society has already decreased the sanctity/value of marriage -- and or reduced it to a purely legal or economic institution. I'm not really sure what I'd say after that. I'd have to think about it for a while but I'm sure I could draw some distinctions and make some fun arguments.
also i might take advantage of that fact to argue why marriage and the benefits should be separate.

and you so took t his out of context

;/

i agree with this, actually, and kind of alluded to it. The sad thing is that often these relationships are replaced with other abusive relationships. But anyway, this is probably the type of response I'll give to jeanette in a little while if she keeps arguing about what is most good for the family institution.

Certainly you could argue something like that. But you could also ask if giving the parents the rights to allow their kids to marry at a young age makes society unjust.

but that's actually not the point I was getting at. The point is that if we allow anybody who has love and commitment to one another to marry, then we should allow many types of marriages we wouldn't normally allow: Group marriages, pedophilean, and incestual just to name a few because these person's can love each other just like gay people can. I guess focusing on group marriages and polygamy is better because it doesn't seem as ridiculous...
This merely indicates that the love persons have for eachother isn't the sole reason they should be allowed to marry. Many people's arguments boiled down to something like this, or that people should have the priveledge of marriage however they want and we shouldn't interfere because it's not our business.

That is a valid counterpoint. Much better than your initial arguement that interracial marriage devalued the institution of marriage for bigots and therefore should be illegal. You're getting better at this.

I'd also like to point out that recent studies have shown that the children of divorced parents are no more likely to have emotional problems than other children.

i havent read anything in this thread but yay for gay marriage

:lol Guess i've been good at this all along, huh?
And, actually, the point was never that it devalues it for BIGOTS ONLY, but that it devalued it as an institution period and caused the divorce rate to climb.

Oh, yea? Which study is that? And what about children born out of wedlock, another scenario which I focused on. In fact, I even mentioned on this page of the thread that NEVER HAVING TWO PARENTS is much different than having parents AND THEN them getting divorced.

Jeanette your problem is that you like to use stock arguments which you've memorized, so you tend to focus on the arguments which spark those stock arguments. Usually you don't even apply them correctly, though.

and learn to take a joke for fucks sake.

Why do you keep trying to insult my intelligence?

I will return to this thread and give your arguements proper attention when I am no longer suffering from diarrhea brought on by the consumption of aspertame-laden Diet Red Bull. :x

alright :O

I think Jeanette X has a valid arguement to excuse herself from most any debate right now, including presidential. :x

uhhhh alright :O

it's not like she's being forced to sit at the dinner table till she finishes her plate of debate

Correlation doesn't equal causation. Simply because the divorce rate went up after interracial marriage became legal doesn't mean interracial marriage caused it. Its like saying that ice cream sales cause drowning because they both go up in the summer. Furthermore, if we were to extend your arguement, would you say that schools should still be segregated because integration devalues the institution?

http://www.usatoday.com/news/health/...behavior_N.htm


What about it?

Eh, perhaps I do. :\

Because:
A. You insult mine
B. Your arguments are rather preposterus
C. This is I-Mockery.

Yea, I told you it was a false cause like a whole page ago ;/ Good job catching up.

There's lots of things that could be said about segregation of the school and the military, but the most important is probably that race is not the same as gender and education or military don't have any reason to be oriented towards a specific racial group.

Uh they are different than children born in divorced homes?

from your study:
lol. You see the problem with this is that it actually fits into what I was saying. Some families should be divorced. The fact is that some of the families that should be divorced already have problems which have affected the children. The divorce doesn't make much of a difference when there has already been problems ;/
there's a lot to be said about this study, but there's at least one. Another is that it says divorce doesn't necessarily cause bad behavior, but how many problems are there beside that? and aren't we also talking about long-term effects which extend into being an adult -- and then are passed onto the future generation? His study didn't really say anything about this ;/

being born into a parentless family is way different than this. Which again, I already mentioned.

A. Not as much as i should.
B. Then how come they aren't easily refuted. You can't just say something is preposterous because you don't agree with it.
C. So what? You act like a complete dipshit and then insult my intelligence? THAT seems a little preposterous.

And I might have been able to find it if you didn't write such convoluted prose.

But why does your arguement that interracial marriage devalues marriage even between people of the opposite sex not apply to these other racially-mixed institutions?

Didn't you argue earlier that divorce ought to be illegal? How can I debate you when you aren't consistent?

I shouldn't have to refute something as stupid as your arguement that racial marriage devalues the institution of marriage. You're just being contrary for the sake of being contrary, you haven't once revealed your real views on these issues. How can I be expected to duel you blindfolded?

No. I didn't argue anything ;/ Actually what I said was smething like, "I a gree, but then you could ask w hat would be worse for the family" and then I went on to mention that there is a difference between divorced families and families without two parents. All in the same paragraph. It's on this page, scroll up and read.

Well, for one, because race is irrelevant to this entire issue (which I pointed out in my first p ost but you guys kept arguing over) and like 80% of the shit I said about racial marriages was an obvious joke that idiots like yo u and dimnos couldn't pick up on and continued to argue over because you knew you couldn't counter any of the other arguments.

and I'm sure if I thought about it a while I could figure out why they are different. I could probably just point out that they are different institutions which serve different purposes, and that education isn't as much of an umbrella institution as marriage.. Or I could point out that there wasn't any long-term effect on school attendance (even though I'm sure there was one at some point). Or that there was still a lot of segregation. Or that black people aren't fucking white people with books. I don't know.

Yea, ok. That post I made in response to you was like two paragraphs. If you had bothered to read it rather than skim it for crap your stock arguments applied to you would've noticed it.

At least I have the gumption and intelligence to argue something I've never argued before or even read arguments about. You on the other hand argue things everybody has heard probably ten thousand times.
Ok. ITS JUST TWO STOPID. you're a jackass. Go chase your tail elsewhere. Besides begging the question, what are you appealing to here?

Nobody here would argue against gay marriage. Just like nobody here would really argue for that whole futurism thing. All y ou're doing is representing the cliche, and your arguments are so mainstream right now ;/ This thread wouldn't have gotten past page two without me arguing something I don't even really believe in.

I don't have to believe in my counter-arguments for them to be relevant criticisms.

and actually I did state my views (or a view anyway) on this issue a couple of times and you ignored them like a jackass because it wasn't something you could throw your stock arguments out at. I've only mentioned this in like 30 posts in this thread but apparantly you're too much of a dipshit to realize it.
Go fuck yourself.
If you're going to argue, argue, but fuck this crap. I'm not going to sit around and justify myself to you any further.

And you're not arguing blind folded :rolleyes

and don't tell me you are arguing your view, that's ridiculous ;/ Nothing you have said is new or novel. You are adopting a view just as much as I am.

I'm not scrolling up and reading anything for fear that I may shit my brains out through my eyeballs from your typing.

Now you tell me it was a joke and not some crazy attempt at an argument. How am I supposed to tell when you're serious or not?

I don't know either. That's why I asked you.

I certainly agree with the last part of that sentence.

Then what were you trying to do during this entire thread?

No, but you certainly have to be consistent, and you aren't.

How was I supposed to realize what your real views were next to all that bullshit about race?

It is my view, my dear. So sue me if it sounds cliched.

U DONT TYPE GUD. What's with dipshits on the internet talking about spelling and typing? I notice it's always people of mediocre intelligence who attack spelling and typing -- probably because they have no other route of attack. Also I'm on a brand new laptop so I haven't adjusted to this keyboard.

Cause I put LOLs in the middle of them? What are you, retarded? And you know, one of the most important philosophical principles is the principle of CHARITY. You could try exercising it. Otherwise you look like a jackoff. I mean jesus I said that whenever racist people see an interracial couple they BEAT THEIR WIVES. Oh yea and I put exclaimation points out of place.
The principle of charity and really of arguing in general is to attack the most crucial and strongest element of a person's argument.

also when you asked me if i was saying that interracial marriages should not be allowed my response was, "...yes."
HOW CAN YOU TELL JEANETTE HOW CAN YOU TELL I DUNNO JEANETTE I DUNNO.
Well, maybe you could do what I do and use your brain to think up ideas. I gave you a few ideas to go off of. I would most likely stick with the fact that the institution of education is not the same as marriage, and it is not essential for them to be married. Denying people to marry whoever they want is not the same as denying people from the chance at education. There is a large difference between the goals of education and the goals of marriage.
You can't say it devalued the institution of education or military when the purpose of those insutitutions has nothing to do with race or gender.

I've been consistent in this thread. Consistency doesn't mean sticking by one broad argument with no exceptions.

Um cause I said it before everything else: before I started playing devil's advocate and making hypothetical arguments of people who are against gay marriage? And also I asked you like two or three times and even tried to draw your attention back to it? hmmMMMMmmmMMMmmmMMM'
HOW ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO REALIZE IT JEANETTE HOW ARE YOU SUPPOSED TO REALIZE IT.

ok this is seriously the last time im justifying myself. it's so tiring. Now we are arguing about ME. That's what always happens when jackasses can't defend their views.

How hard is it to type properly? Jeez, I asked for proper spelling, not a kidney.

Well given the fact that your other arguements were pretty stupid, the fact that I barely know you, and the fact that people have said far stranger things on this forum in all seriousness, I think my confusion was justified.

You made the statement, I asked you to back it up with solid arguements, and then you inform me that I have to figure out your arguements for you? No darling, it doesn't work that way.

Now why didn't you just make this arguement before instead of telling me to figure it out for myself?

You could have fooled me.

Oh, I'm supposed to intuitively understand that those aren't your real views and are merely hypothetical because you said them first! Silly me.

I merely expressed my confusion and asked for clarification, you freaked out and became extremely defensive. Sure, I broke your balls a bit, but I haven't been nearly as vitriolic as you have.

Does you need a diaper change? :wah

I already answered this question. this is i-mockery, you should at least be able to tell when something's a joke. And again, you should practice the principle of charity.
And i said things like, "...yes." It should've been obvious. But i guess you're oblivious.

My spelling isn't that bad.
You spell argument wrong every time you spell it. lol.

They weren't stupid. your arguments were stupid. You can't even apply stock arguments properly: THAT'S PRETTY STUPID.

I gave you plenty of solid arguments, you're just such a vagina that you can't argue the solid, more relevant ones. You have to argue against the weaker ones. Sounds VAGINAISH.
Then I clarify my arguments and you have nothing to say. I did clarify, almost immediately after you asked me to do so. You're so dumb you can't even think of an effective criticism for things you haven't heard before.

I did, kind of (remember I gave you like five examples of arguments that could've been made against it). I also told you that race was irrelevant to the whole thing. I didn't make this argument because really it wasn't essential to anything I was saying and it was an unnecessary side-tracking (see red herring) of all the other arguments which you lost. You know I can't hold your hand while you are arguing, sometimes you have to use reading comprehension and other skills which are basic for most 7th graders.
The only reason you are alluding back to this argument is so that you can feel like you won SOMETHING.

And for fucks sake:
I ToLD YOU TO USE YOUR BRAIN TO THINK UP IDEAS THE SAME TIME I TOLD YOU WHAT YOU QUOTED AND YOU SAID, "WHY DIDNT YOU JUST TELL ME THIS FIRST INSTEAD OF TELLING ME TO THINK IT UP ON My OWN. THATS NOT HOW IT WORKS." I TOLD YOU THOSE TWO THINGS SIMULTANEOUSLY. YOU"RE FUCKING RETARDED. SHuT THE FUCK UP. :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol :lol
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA oh man you're a classy fucking arguer.

Obviously, it's pretty easy to fool you. I don't even have to TRY to fool you and you get all confused and fall apart.

I was pretty polite to you the first 3/4s of this thread, considering how stupid you were being.
but then i realized it was IMOCKERY so I should call you stupid every chance I get.
stupid.

I got to admit justifying myself is turning out to be more hilarious than I thought it would be!

whoah, deja vu


I am now on THE EDGE OF MY SEAT
Are you gonna roll over now Jeannette

Are you

i edited my post :O
so she couldn't get all semantical on me.

still i laughed so hard at her telling me I should've told her that argument first instead of telling her to figure it out for herself, and I had actually told her that argument at the same time that I told her she should use her brain to figure things out.
I guess she's right though technically it was CHRONOLOGICALLY first. I so lost this thread.

this thread should be renamed straw grasping :(

I seem to remember The Great Grislygus v. Kahljorn Inter-Thread Argument ended with straw grasping and milhouse telling us to shut up

I don't remember that :( what did we argue about?

arguments always end in straw grasping ;o

I can't find it now :( We were arguing about Geggy in one thread and journalistic ethics in the other, and it quickly ended up as one big, pointless argument about how the other guy was wrong about everything

It had good quoting and citation, though

Mm. Not meaning to knock on anyone, but Jeanette kind of has a point on people saying stupid stuff in all seriousness. Case in point - There was a fine moron on IMDB who believed that "the only place there'd be a sequel for [the Golden Compass] was in hell". This sparked a bunch of religious debates with him, where he basically made stuff up. When I pointed out that since after Adam and Eve were banished from Eden there was a limited number of people, there'd be genetic inbreeding. I also pointed out the same problem with the Ark (inbreeding with animals). He then said that God made more people after Adam and Even and that there was genetic inbreeding but God fixed it (and he claimed it was all in the Bible). He also claimed that Jesus was now in control of the movie industry because Fireproof did better than Religulous did.

Point is, silly stuff does come up. I've been fooled meself. :hypno

yea ok

anyway the sad fact is she couldn't even defeat the arguments i was making. Then a whole page later she brings it back up like I didn't defeat them properly when she totally abandoned them. They weren't really THAT crazy.


and grislygus i totally remember that now.

I think that there's some part of everyone who, upon entering an arguement or debate, feels the need to continue fighting and not just bow out. That goes for both parties. I myself have fallen prey to it. I even was on the obvious losing end once. :\

I at least make an effort.

If you didn't want me to argue the weaker arguements, why did you present them in first place? Besides, I see nothing wrong with attacking the weak points first. If you're in a fist fight with a guy, where do you punch first, his chest, or his testicles?

I've slogged through prose in sociology books that would make your head explode. The difference between you and someone like Roland Barthes (attempting to read his work is like trying to inhale a Buick) is that he presented a point in what he wrote. You presented me with no central thesis, no point, no core values, deliberately made arguments to that clashed with previous ones, and then you expect me to sift through this mountain of rhetoric and find the hidden meanings like a Kabbalist studying Torah.

Don't project your vindictive tendencies onto me. I'm doing this because its a lot of fun, not because I'm petty the way you are.

I certainly is. I'm quite amused.

I think this sums it up:

So... you are saying that having an intellectual conversation with an Asian is the same as having one with a donkey. Very nice.

Whatever, jeanette.

My arguments didn't really "Clash" and I'd like you to point it out where they did. Go ahead, jeanette.
the only thing you really brought up was the divorce thing which I qualified when I made the statement. So you really have no ground to stand on there, and obviously you haven't been standing on it because you abandon every argument that you make. You know, sometimes when people argue they will argue the same point for a while but each time their points will change gradually...
I've been way more consistent than you've been.

In an argument, if somebody is attacking your testicles and you block the chest attack unfortunately that doesn't mean you've won or even made a good point. Analogously, you would be on the ground in the fetal position crying and pretending you have won.

and you know what's the most annoying about this? I posted that shit about interracial marriage a whole two pages or something ago and there was only one or two responses to it, which I responded to. Then you didn't say anything about it until a whole page later and tried to act like you won on that subject. I made a whole two posts about it after that and you acted like t he argument dragged on forever. I clarified myself when you asked me to. You have no further arguments to make on those clarifications because you're mentally retarded or something.

It's really sad that you asked me to make those points and i did and now you have nothing further to say except this bullshit.

Aside from the issue of race? Lets see, referring to Sodom and Gommorah and stating that societies that do not follow Gd's law are punished, and then waffling when I pointed out the apparent double standard of your attitudes towards the consumption of pork and shellfish rather than try to justify why one Biblical law is more important than the other. Then you claimed that divorce should be outlawed, and then said that some families should be divorced.

You do realize that you were the one getting punched in the testicles in my allegory, don't you?

I asked what your real stances were and told you I was tired of your constantly shifting position. You refused to tell me what your real stances on the issue were, insisted that I should intuitively understand when you were making a joke and when you weren't, and told me that I should be able to glean your real beliefs from your ramblings rather than outline them for me clearly. That isn't clarification, that's obfuscation.

Asian hater

The kid's race has jack shit to do with the joke.

(See Kahl, when someone misunderstands you, you explain yourself. This is how its done. :didactic)

Donkey hater

Dimnos said that people should be able to do whatever they want and they only have to answer to god. I said that god expects people to punish sinners. It was a simple counter-argument. I explained this. I also gave a secular example for his secular portion of that argument.

Obviously I turned it around used you in the example since there was plenty of times I punched you in t he testicles.

You said that divorce should be outlawed because I said that keeping family cohesion for the well-being of the children in the family is important. I said I agree, but you can ask what is worse for the family. Implying that it might be worse for families to not get divorced, and therefore they should. I explained this. There's nothing inconsistent about it. My argument was always that family structures exist for the well-being of the family, and that gay marriage weakens this. If divorce doesn't weaken the family structures, then there's no reason for it to be outlawed.
Then I pointed out that there is largely different effect on a child who never had a family / stable family structure and somebody who had one that only lasted ten years.

all of this was explained. You never argued that I was still inconsistent, despite this. You need to move on.

I didnt say people could do whatever they wanted and only answer to god. I said IF two gay people being together is wrong in the eyes of good and they are only hurting themselves and have nothing to do with anyone else... then they only have god to answer to. This debate started out talking about whether or not gay marriage should be legal, somehow it got taken off on a tangent on whether or not it is morally acceptable to god and the bible. :\ We have a separation of church and state, the moral issues of one religion (even if it is the religion of majority) shouldnt be taken into account when making policy and/or law. Oh and congratulations on your engagement. I wish you two the best and I really hope gay or interracial couples cant influence your marriage as much as you seam to think.

Theoretical argument versus low flying airplanes :lol

Eh, I believe I will. I'm bored with this thread.

asian donkey lover