That is why I only mentioned NATIONAL LAWS, as I am aware of STATE LAWS due tot he fact I know how to read, and I lived in California two decades. I'd love to debate this with you, but I need a more challenging argument.

Please someone lend their Logic 101 notes out to explain slippery slope.

Cheers.

What a joke, you know you are wrong, and what Newsome did was illegal not to mention completely immoral.

Colonist, does it make you feel better to call people names like "fool" in your replies?

That really helps out your argument man, lemme tell ya.

---

I don't see the 'slippery slope' here. If we allow homosexual marriage, what's to stop a transgendered-homosexual-crack-whore from being the next President? (yeah, I know, that's a straw-man:D ).

I have certain moral reservations about this. However, I also believe that you should not legislate religious beliefs. Essentially, this is not a "societal value". This is a religous belief that we're trying to legislate.

Last I checked, this was a Democracy, not a Theocracy.

Were you actually justifying your stance on homosexuality by citing what they do in certain Asian and Islamic cultures? Just a question...

---

I'm still torn on this issue though. I generally believe that if someone wants to do something that has no effect on me whatsoever, let 'em. Well, this will effect my pocketbook. The only drawback that I can see to homosexual marriage is that gay couples will now have access to their spouse's benefits at work. Currently, diseases such as HIV are still more prevelant in the homosexual population, so I would envision that healthcare costs would probably rise.

On the other side of that coin, there are many children that live in households with same-sex parents. They could potentially be denied benefits because the wrong parent works. That is just plain wrong.

If you forced me right now to say whether I'm for or against it though, I'd be for it.

Yes it is against a specific state law. This is being done to accomplish a legal challenge to the CONSTITUTIONALITY of that state law. You have to have a case to fast track to a court judgement of that. IE, Brown Vs Board of Education...
a complaintant who feels that the law is violating their constitutionally protected rights.

from http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/.const/.article_1

"CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy."

"CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SEC. 7. (a) A person may not be deprived of life, liberty, or
property without due process of law or denied equal protection of the laws; provided, that nothing contained herein or elsewhere in this Constitution imposes upon the State of California or any public entity, board, or official any obligations or responsibilities which exceed those imposed by the Equal Protection Clause of the 14th Amendment to the United States Constitution with respect to the use of pupil school assignment or pupil transportation. ...

(b) A citizen or class of citizens may not be granted privileges
or immunities not granted on the same terms to all citizens.
Privileges or immunities granted by the Legislature may be altered or revoked."

"CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS

SEC. 31. (a) The State shall not discriminate against, or grant
preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of
race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of
public employment, public education, or public contracting."

These sections alone bring may questions into the fray.

Re: Re: Re: Re: my 2 cents
 

You never make sense. Don't ever use the word logic again.

-Rudey

Re: Re: Re: my 2 cents
 

Two people of the same sex getting married is ILLEGAL in my state too. It's only a civil union - so that "spouses" can get benefits and recognition. Who says you have to be in love and have sex to get married? Incest is sexual relations with a family member. You could marry your sister and just not have sex. If we are going to disregard the laws pertaining to two people of the same sex getting married, why not disregard the laws pertaining to incest and animals? In some states, sodomy IS still a crime, and therefore illegal. I was referring to the "buffet" style suggested by a former poster. If you are going to have a buffet, next thing you know, there will be all kinds of new stuff on the menu.

Colonist - you said it much better than I. Thanks!

Re: Re: Re: Re: my 2 cents
 

Actually, someone correct me if I am wrong but didn't the U.S. Supreme Court just rule opposing laws like these? I vaguely remember a ruling by the Supreme Court dealing I believe with some aspect of homosexual relationships. I think it was concerning a gay couple somewhere in the south.

I checked this, and looks like you are correct. This also means that the following could be decriminalized since it takes place between consenting adults in private:

Adultery
Father-daughter/mother-son consensual sex
Fornication
Spouse swapping
Threesomes
Sadomasochism
Taking pictures of the act
Buying sex toys

So how come those fathers and daughters can't get married? It is consensual. They love each other. They just want to have the same benefits as other married couples. This should work for siblings too, or mothers who want to marry their daughters etc.

Since my logic is obviously so faulty, I'd like to know WHY it is so important for gay people to be able to get married, and why the same argument can't apply to siblings, and father/daughters or other family members.

ok, my heart wants to go with, "eh....it's not hurting me in any way. i know ppl who are gay and i have fabulous amazing gay friends....i know i wouldn't want to be denied the rights of other Americans just b/c of a personal preference or a choice i make for my pillow talk, so....ok"....but then there's my conservative republican southern baptist up-bringing that says, "eh....the Bible clearly states that 'a man lying with another man as one would with a woman' is an 'abomination'......and seeing as though i believe in the Bible and in God....and seeing as though so did those who built this country and wrote this very constitution......it's a tough one. get back to me later...."

i believe that, yeah, technically marriage is only btwn a man and a woman......however, i don't think that ppl should be denied rights of other human beings. yeah, technically what they are doing is a "sin", but i also sin...as does everyone. should i have my right to marriage taken away b/c i engage in pre-marital sexual activity--a sin? :eek: ppl's choices that directly harm others are the only choices i see as worthy of rights being taken away (killing, raping, etc. etc)....but a gay couple gettin hitched....how does that directly effect/affect me? (and i'm honestly asking, b/c i am just ignorant and don't know the answer to that....ktsnake, fill me in)

PSA: here are my personal rules about being flamey to other posters:
1) never be the one to throw the torch (ie: start with name-calling, be-little-ing, or just plain mean).
2) always carry an extinguisher (if flamed, come back with nice quips to shut the flamer up/explain in better detail your point....and a few GC homies to back you up aren't bad, either...right, annie? ;) )
3) attempt to always follow through with rules 1 and 2. we are not perfect, but remember: to have respect is to gain respect.
play nice! :D

What Jefferson says about equality:

"To unequal privileges among members of the same society the spirit of our nation is, with one accord, adverse." --Thomas Jefferson to Hugh White, 1801. ME 10:258

Okay this is all I have to say before go to bed, because hey, some people just don't GET IT.

1) Even people of opposing views will support me when called names because it is immature and childish
2) AXO Mom I have NO BEEF WITH YOU, as you are having an adult discussion, and that I respect, but you may want to disassociate yourself from those with troglodyte brains.
3) What Newsome did is wrong is illegeal in YOUR EYES and until you are a registered voter of San Francisco you need to STFU because my birth certificate is of that city and county and your opinion means not a whit of anything until you are registered to vote there.
4) Get an argument that does not involve name calling or saying "you are wrong because I say so" because no one, even people that AGREE WITH YOU will support you until you are respectful and learn a tad about arguments and logic. Seriously now, does calling me a fool really aid your side? NO it makes you look like a member of the genus Equus asinus and for those who are mouth breathers with a small vocabulary that means ASININE. When people from your side don't even agree with you, GIVE IT UP UNTIL YOU PASS LOGIC 101. With props to damasa "homage to the ownage" so put that in your pipe and smoke it because your arguments show that you are higher than Benjamin Franklin's Kite and when you form something solid for an argument I will reply to you TATA.

Kevin you know I adores ya, but I believe (and please someone that has the EXACTS back me up to make others happy) is that HIV is spreading fastest among heterosexual women that are Black, and not in the male homosexual community. Chaos, CT4 Lovelyivy, Jill1228, I know you are the Divas with the facts.

Umm, many of those things are not illegal. Adultery is, in most (maybe all) states. The other thing on your list that is illegal in every state is the father-daughter/mother-son consensual sex and the reason for it is genetic. Buying sex toys, engaging in threesomes or S&M is not illegal in most states. Neither is taking pictures of the act.

I absolutely don't see a Constitutional amendment passing. The ERA was first proposed in 1923 and hasn't become a part of the Constitution yet and that one seems like it should have been a no brainer.

Dee

Not really a "transgendered-homosexual-crack-whore", but I think this person would make a great president. I can see the State of the Union being more colorfull.

http://www.birthscopes.com/images/rupaul.jpg

Vote Rupaul 2004