Schwarzenegger calls for same-sex weddings

yes, because that then reads to me that male is the head, and joining with a woman makes marriage.

Or you just couldn't bother to refer to the OED and the link I provided that breaks down the Latin. You don't get to make up the origins or meanings of any word. But again, to do so (and assign importance to it) is to argue from antiquity and is logically fallacious.

The point is that arguing over semantics is an intentional distraction from the real issue; it's not about a word and those who insist that it is are in deep denial.

I dont understand the hatred either. I dont think its related to religion, for me, or is inclusive. In a sense the naming of it doesnt matter-yk its a good thing to take marriage seriously. But if you called a doctor a whack-as is sometimes referred to where I come from-it would seem wrong to the patient. Civil partnership, huh. Isnt there something that can be derived from all those older languages, or even a different language, that can sound.....prettier? Or is Arnie, just talking about a wedding?

Well, in the UK where I come from, it is perfectly legal for two people of the same sex to 'marry'. The legal name for this joining of two people is called a 'civil partnership'.

If it bothers you that much, I am sure nobody would mind if it was renamed to that in the press of the US (and on here). Doesn't really matter what it is called, now, really does it. The main thing is it is a step in the right direction.

I have never understood where this hatred of homosexuality comes from; never experienced it in my life at all, but I guess I am lucky enough to come from a country not obsessed with Christianity (any more).

yes, because that then reads to me that male is the head, and joining with a woman makes marriage. I dont find it so hard to identify a difference between male and female, I guess, and therefore take offence. Cant you think of another word for heavens sake? And Mist Wizard watch who youre calling conservative! Dont you think male and female are different?

Dubya,

The word marriage implies maternity (and paternity, I assume).

You know what they say about what happens when you assume.

The word is derived from marītus which comes from mās which is "male"

I'm curious. Do you still find the etymology relevant? Do you still think "same-sex marriage" is an "oxymoran"?

http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/maritus#Etymology

The word marriage implies maternity (and paternity, I assume).

No, that would be parenthood. Why do conservatives have so much trouble with definitions, and then come on here and try to dictate definitions to us? There comes a time when you grow up, accept your limitations, shut up, listen and accept. That time is now.

So-called "gays" have exactly the same rights as everyone else (although, they should have fewer);

If they had the same rights we would not be having this discussion. Your appeal for a tiered society where some have fewer rights is a conservative sickness for which I hope you one day find a cure.

"Same-sex" marriage is an oxymoran. The word marriage implies maternity (and paternity, I assume). I refuse to accept this totalitarian, thought-control takeover of our language. So-called "gays" have exactly the same rights as everyone else (although, they should have fewer); why do they demand special, pervert privlige?

I am all for Same-Sex Marriage.

If you love another person, and want to be able to marry them, then that is fine by me.

Surely you guys can see that only good can come of this?

Marriage reduces the act of promiscuity across the board (not that I am opposed to that either, but we are living through a pretty major AIDS epidemic (and no, I am not saying it is a gay disease, before you freak out!).)

Giving the same options to homosexuals as there are for heterosexuals makes perfect sense, and allowing for a certain sector of humanity to take part in the signed and sealed monogamous lifestyle that heterosexual marriage entails, is all good!

We are, are we not, all humans?

Judge Vaughn Walker (who is gay) struck down California’s VOTER-APPROVED gay marriage ban as unconstitutional.

A majority opinion doesn't mean it's just. Fortunately, that's just not how our government works.

And pointing out how many people haven't supported gay marriage throughout history or in California isn't an argument--it's logical fallacy sandwich (argumentum ad populum/argumentum ad antiquitatem).

Ok, quick answer.

Why the countries that have accepted gay marriages did so, because they separate church and state and that is more than just on paper.

"Moderator: All readers back on topic please. No further references to the bible."

My sentiments exactly!

Judge Vaughn Walker (who is gay) struck down California’s VOTER-APPROVED gay marriage ban as unconstitutional.

Naruhodo! Last post. I don't think anyone will change their minds on this one.

Sorry Zenny if I got too rough.

Yasukuni.

The answers you are asking for would require novels and going into socio-economic factors, etc.

HTH.

Yasukuni.

Give it a rest you want a fight and you won't get it.

Take my comments or leave them. Same to me.

Moderator: Readers, please focus your comments on what is in the story, not at each other.

illsayit.

No-one is talking about upbringing.

But in europe we do have centuries old jokes like "how to you separate a greek/turkish boy from a man - With a crow-bar."

It is open knowledge(historic facts) that crusaders, roman commanders, etc took male teens with them for the sole purpose of sex.

Maybe we are more aware of it as it is not a taboo subject for us.

Just try to rent an apartment male/female = good, female/female = getting tougher, male/male = nearly impossible.

As for how families deal with it that is case by case.

zenny,

"Read the Bible in their original Hebrew or Greek versions and your eyes will open, some VERY different things written in there."

If you want to give a lecture on how masturbation is forbidden in the OT based on your wonderful understanding of Hebrew, or in the NT based on your Greek knowledge, go ahead. But it's irrelevant.

"Never said homosexuality was main-stream but it always existed across the world and always will."

So have lots of things, but most societies today and in history haven't legalized them, or berated and attacked those who don't see the need for their legalization.

"World Histories are pretty clear on how widely homo-sexuality was spread and accepted(same for adultery, etc)."

On how widely it was spread?? Spread by whom? Anyway, now you are talking about adultery. First it's gay marriage, then you talk about masturbation, then adultery. And etc, whatever etc is. Yes, there are many sexual practices that people have engaged in throughout history. Can't argue with that. Happy?

"Funny there only 3 religions that widely discriminate against home-sexuality and all 3 got the same base(Judaism, Christianity and Islam)."

Okay, so I get that you don't like Judeo-Christian teaching, and now Islam on the basis that they discriminate against homosexuality. Good for you.

What I have said or tried to say in TWO posts now, is that countries that have very few Jews, Christians or Moslems have failed to legalize gay marriage. Any communist countries that legalize it? Can you show me the acceptance of gay marriage in Aboriginal, American Indian, Papau New Guinean society?

If you can I am all ears. So once again, listen to what I am saying. I don't care two figs for judeo-Christo -Islamo principles. Calm down! But now, it's up to you to show me all these other wonderful societies throughout history and today that are legalizing gay marriage.

I'm still waiting. All I hear is reverse bible bashing.

The GREAT irony is that it's the countries WITH the judeo-christian background where the movement for the legalization of gay marriage is at it's strongest. Most Japanese and Chinese are bewildered.

Where's your theory now?

Moderator: All readers back on topic please. No further references to the bible.

I expect the writings suggest how given a certain upbringing one is given the chances for understanding oneself? But your suggestion that 3 religions alone speak out about homosexuality would only counter the controlled state of affairs of other religions?- I believe in my experience. Why would parents, and I believe that usually consists of a married couple, endeavour into such upbringing? Not speaking out about it is a Buddhist-type of character, imo. Keep your secrets, but as a parent turning a blind eye seems more cold to me. How big a part is marriage in a persons life? And how equal are genders?

Yasukuni.

Read the Bible in their original Hebrew or Greek versions and your eyes will open, some VERY different things written in there.

Never said homosexuality was main-stream but it always existed across the world and always will.his World Histories are pretty clear on how widely homo-sexuality was spread and accepted(same for adultery, etc).

Funny there only 3 religions that widely discriminate against home-sexuality and all 3 got the same base(Judaism, Christianity and Islam).

Zenny, "Judeo-Christian principals and morals are NOT universal and never were."

Perhaps so. Your point is? I never said one thing about Judaism or Christianity. I said that gay marriage doesn't have much of a history - regardless of the religion or lack thereof. If I'm wrong, and you can show me the great incidence of the acceptability of gay marriage throughout the world now, and in history I will stand corrected.

"Even europe(Italy included) has a long history of same-sex relations and often was considered the norm by some christians too."

I was talking about same-sex MARRIAGE. What you are saying is simply not correct. And homosexuality may have been acceptable by SOME Christians in history, but so was snake handling. Meaning, it's never been big.

"Read the Bible and OT, masturbation is also forbidden, etc." I've actually read it. And not everyone thinks masturbation is forbidden in the bible. That maybe your interpretation. But that's another topic. Are you a bible scholar?

Mistwizard "Its been rare, but throughout history, where you mostly were not present or paying attention, it has happened."

That was my POINT. It's been RARE! And you are right. I was not present throughout history.... so ...I was not in fact paying attention. Mistwizard, are you okay? But if you mean gay MARRIAGE, (and that's what this topic is about), yes, I would think that the acceptability of gay marriage has been VERY rare throughout history indeed. If you think I'm wrong on that, go ahead and present your statistics.

"It comes after a lot of observation" You have been a dinner tables and seen conservatives not really happy about eating until someone brings up the topic of starving people?" Mistwizard, you must really eat in funny places. Maybe you should move town?? Are you currently incarcerated by any chance?

"Conservatives want marriage to be some sort of exclusive club" Like a man and a woman of marriageable age? Wow, Very exclusive. About as exclusive as it has been for hundreds of years in the US.

No, it's not really that exclusive. And it's just not conservatives.

Look, gay marriage may be right and be a beautiful thing... And in 50 years, maybe the UN will be hounding the last oppressive countries who don't allow it. You can debate that if you like. But just don't think it's only Conservatives with Judeo-Chrstians values who can only eat happily knowing people are starving - that are opposed to gay marriage.

Look at Japan, China, Thailand, Africa, and quite a few other countries! And then look at history, and come back with your rich history of gay marriage throughout the world. It isn't there.

Oh back to you Zenny. Ask most of the Japanese you know. Not so many are Jews or Christians. Why haven't they legalized gay marriage? Going to go on a Shinto/Buddhist rampage now?

Blaming Judeo-Christian principles for every evil in the world is getting a little tired. Then again, it never seems to go out of fashion does it? Seems to be a rite of passage for little college freshman in the US.

yasukuni said: Actually it's very hard to understand. It's been hard to understand for most of human history all over the world.

Its been rare, but throughout history, where you mostly were not present or paying attention, it has happened. Look it up, don't assume. And gays are a minority you know. They always were and always will be. Gay marriage might get accepted once again, but its not going to be anything more than the aberration it always was.

If that's what liberals really believe, then it's useless discussing anything with them.

It comes after a lot of observation. Conservatives want marriage to be some sort of exclusive club. Of course, they talk around this.

yasukuni.

Judeo-Christian principals and morals are NOT universal and never were.

Even europe(Italy included) has a long history of same-sex relations and often was considered the norm by some christians too.

Read the Bible and OT, masturbation is also forbidden, etc.

"The question is, what is so hard to understand about marriage being same-sex too? Again, nothing."

Actually it's very hard to understand. It's been hard to understand for most of human history all over the world. Which maybe is why there so few countries who even consider allowing it - western, asian, communist or capitalist.

"It has been said that a conservative cannot properly enjoy a meal unless he knows someone out there is starving. Go ahead and deny it, but we all know its true."

If that's what liberals really believe, then it's useless discussing anything with them.

I thought the civil unions cover economical fairness? If people would take marriage seriously, then surely this move would be provocative?

Maybe he has not changed. I am a bit of a homophobe myself. But that has nothing to do with this issue. It is my own personal matter and naught to do with law or fairness. Unfortunately it is a point far, far over the heads of many other homophobes posting here. No, I have no love for gays, its true. But I also have no business telling them how to live their lives if it harms no one else, and neither does anyone else have the right. Maybe Arnie realizes that.

He has changed for sure.

He was also against the death-penalty, declaring his support for the Death-penalty cost him dearly back home, a stadium thats supposed to be named after him got a new name and he nearly lost his citizenship.

Not many austrian get their citizenship revoked, most famous one being Mr. A. Hitler.

Reason: In Austria it is illegal to support the death-penalty an offense that can cost you your citizenship.

But let the gays marry and divorce, no skin of anyones back.

How he has changed - used to be a practising homophobe.... Grow and learn, Arnie, grow and learn.

nice one schwa chan

yasukuni said: Arnold, how could you do this? Girlieman weddings?

Certainly its the lesser evil. The option would be fighting the girlie-men and even if you win, that is embarrassing. Just let them go and get them out of your hair.

Sarge said: What is so hard to understand about marriage being between a man and a woman?

Nothing. We understand what you want to impose perfectly fine. The question is, what is so hard to understand about marriage being same-sex too? Again, nothing. Its not about definitions. Its about people like yourself wanting so bad to make people conform to your will, a common conservative sickness.

It has been said that a conservative cannot properly enjoy a meal unless he knows someone out there is starving. Go ahead and deny it, but we all know its true.

If gay people want to get married let them get married. Also divorce too !!! It will be funny to see a gay couple go through divorce court. Hahahahaha !!!! Fighting over dogs, houses, and furniture. Hahahaha !!! It's good for divorce attorneys and family court. Business will go up !!!

The Kennedies have been working on him. He never would have gone for this in his "Pumping Iron" days. Majorly disappointed!

Arnold, how could you do this? Girlieman weddings?

As long as hetros get a parade, I'm in.

whilst i'm very much live and let live, the one thing about this issue that i just don't understand is why the gay lobby insists on using the m-word... surely they realise how emotive it is? why not use a term like "civil union"?

Original Title: La Cage aux Folles

Frungy well said.

No-one is trying to redefine marriage or push their views, but they want to enjoy the same benefits and securities while being a long-term relationship.

Many countries already grant those all their citizens.

Good movies to watch are the "The Birdcage" movies, talking the originals not that lousy Hollyweird remake.

I think what most people miss when talking about this subject is that homosexuals aren't lobbying for marriages for frivilous reasons. It's important for many legal reasons, as it certifies a life-long relationship in a legal manner.

Imagine going to the hospital and being told that "only family" we allowed to see the patient (which you're not because you're not married), or after your loved-one dies and you're trying to organise the funeral that you can't access their life insurance because you're not listed as the "next of kin" (which you're not, and some insurance companies still insist for fraud prevention reasons that beneficiaries are related).

Of course the two scenarios above are pretty extreme, but there are a ton of irritating day-to-day things, like imagine paying an extra $50 a month on your car insurance because you can't get the "family deal" the local insurance company is offering, or paying for two separate health insurance plans since your "partner" doesn't qualify as family and so instead of paying for 1 person + 1 dependent you're paying for 2 full plans...

People who argue against gay and lesbian marriages always try and treat the issue like an abstract moral point rather than acknowledging that this isn't just about an abstract principle, it's something that affects peoples' wallets, and gay and lesbian people are like everyone else, they also care about money.

Sarge,

Whatever happened to majority rules?

Majority has never ruled; this isn't about deciding where to go for dinner. Unconstitutional laws are just that.

I wish we had a mechanism in place that could boot out presidents and lawmakers when the majority gets it wrong, like in the past election, heh heh.

We do have it. See the Constitution you disparage when you don't like the outcome of judicial review (which exists to protect you).

Are you unable to read? I already said that if men want to live together and have sex, or if women want to live together and have sex, be my guest. But it's not marriage, one of the great institutions of this still great but rapidly deteriorating country.

Why do you keep bringing up sex? No one is asking for your permission to live together and have sex. In fact, no one is asking for your permission for anything; you don't get to decide. Did you even see the ruling?

So, do you have any rational basis for discriminating against homosexual couples? Marriage "[is] a great institution of this still great . . . country" isn't logical. It doesn't even make sense.

"Sarge" so if people in my country decide to "enslave" the people of your country.... it's ok. As for the rest, who really cares. Marriage is a contract. In Japan marriage is a joke. No joint bank accounts. Only a tax break, which again is all about money. Also property. What's the big deal? Who really is hurt. No one. Japanese in their history have had same sex relationships. The beloved Samurai all had their same sex partner. Most college students tinker once or twice with each others. It's not strange. Just different. Enough already. Time to think a bit outside the box. For goodness sakes most of us in Japan are already outside the box. How many of your family and friends think you are crazy for living here. Think you are different. Perhaps there should be a law about that. Time to move on, enough with discrimination in any form. We have it enough in Japan being foreigners.

It's a good thing that in court you have to support your opinions with facts under oath and with cross-examinations. All the made up stuff, the fear and prejudice just seems to melt away in such an environment.

So I guess in conclusion, marriage should only be for heterosexual couples who are having 'normal' sex and no deviant sex. If two people are having some kind of 'deviant' sex, they shouldn't be allowed to get married.--What kind of lame, illogical, bigoted argument is that?!!!

Bottom line is, gay couples should have the same rights as same-sex couples. And it has NOTHING TO DO WITH SEX!! I have yet to hear any logical argument as to how gay marriage would somehow 'fundamentally change (Ronin's) society'! It wouldn't.

I bet he really said "Come on... Come on! Do it! Do it! Come on. Come on!" while covered in mud in a South American Jungle.

"It's great to have a mechanism in place that can strike down laws when the majority gets it wrong"

Whatever happened to majority rules?

I wish we had a mechanism in place that could boot out presidents and lawmakers when the majority gets it wrong, like in the past election, heh heh.

"Do you have any rational basis for discrimination against gay couples?"

Are you unable to read? I already said that if men want to live together and have sex, or if women want to live together and have sex, be my guest. But it's not marriage, one of the great institutions of this still great but rapidly deteriorating country.

Sarge,

Sushi, it is in California only because a liberal judge ruled against the majority of the voters. Amazing, huh?

I agree. Since Marbury v. Madison, judicial review has been amazing. It's great to have a mechanism in place that can strike down laws when the majority gets it wrong.

So, you've presented a logical fallacy (argumentum ad populum) in support of your position (and your apparent disdain for our Constitution and its balance of powers is noted).

Do you have any rational basis for discrimination against gay couples?

The main thing to keep in mind is there is "Legal" marriage as in a union of two people according to Government which gives the couple certain tax and life decision making allowances depending on whether or not they have "dependents". The other is "Ritualistic/Ceremonial" marriage which is for viewing only, but is not recognized by government unless the couple does the "Legal" marriage (marriage license).

Remember the reason why the government gets into marriage is because it is supposed to lead to propagation of working natural born citizens to help keep the country running. Since "true" homosexuals only make up about 2~3% of the US population its not a drastic affect to make any serious impact on birth rates. So why exactly do they want same sex marriage? Is it for legal or is it just for ceremonial acceptance?

Goodjorb"A guy and girl living together 24/7, going to work at their separate jobs and coming home is the exact same thing. What would them getting married prove?"

Quite simply because a married hetero couple is extremely likely to have children in the end. People who are married are much more likely to have children if you haven't noticed, sure some hetero couples choose not to have children, others have fertility problems but they choose to adopt. Some homosexual couples may also choose to adopt but the number is quite low even in their demographic. An even smaller demographic have biological children through either natural hetero relationships, or fertility clinics, even then it can be a slippery slope since only the biological parent will still have more say over their partner who has no biological ties to the child.

It's pretty tragic that Christian conservatives believe that their "religious freedom" is violated when they can' take rights away from other citizens.

Seen on a blog site - "The heterosexual married community has made a complete moral sham of modern marriage. over 50% of marriages end in divorce. Adultery is normal and it's the kids who suffer most as usual. We have no right to preach to anyone until we can hold our own heads up, it's a joke."

Exactly, exactly.

Sarge, it's the law.

Sarge, I'm interersted to know why - specifically - you oppose gay marriage.

USARonin has spent the entire afternoon literally embarassing him/herself by failing to present a single rational argument to oppose gay marriage.

It's been enlightening - and sad - to see how some conservatives think, to put it mildly.

I hope you can do better Sarge.

Sushi, it is in California only because a liberal judge ruled against the majority of the voters. Amazing, huh?

Sarge, it is in California.

Moral disapproval for you too, is it Sarge? Tsk, tsk....

What is so hard to understand about marriage being between a man and a woman? If two men want to live together and have sex together, or if two women want to live together and have sex together, more power to 'em. But it's not marriage.

SushiSake3 said: USARonin, still no rational reason. I'm beginning to think that - sadly - for you it's all about moral disapproval and hate

You are correct. But at least he is telling us how he really feels. Other conservatives would bury it fast.

USARonin, still no rational reason. I'm beginning to think that - sadly - for you it's all about moral disapproval and hate, neither of which would see the light of day in a serious court. Feel free to prove me wrong by presenting a rational argument that is more than the subjective, outdated and ultimately sad 'gays are deviant 'coz I said so' one you keep hammering.

Sushi, I can't help it if homosexual activist Judge Walker wanted to overturn the votes of over seven-million Californians.

Sushi, you do know Judge Walker is a homosexual activist judge, don't you?

USARonin, homosexual behaviors are not deviant to the point where normal rights of marriage should be denied. You have STILL failed to present a rational reason why gay couples should not be afforded the same rights as married couples. Why are you so against gay marriages?

Sushi, of course I have.

I can't help it if homosexual activist Judge Walker wanted to overturn the votes of over seven-million Californians.

Sushi, you do know Judge Walker is a homosexual activist judge, don't you?

No? -Didn't think so.

Moderator: You can't say "No? -Didn't think so," until a reader has had a chance to reply to you.

But Ronin, no one is talking about the actual sex act itself. This is where you are fundamentally missing the point....

Judge Walker ruled that anti-gay marriage activists have failed to provide any rational arguments as to why gay couples should not be allowed to marry. Interestingly, neither has USARonin.

Your argument is getting weaker by the minute.

Sushi, you're projectin' again.

I'll put it to you this way since we don't agree on the meanings of words: How are homosexual behaviors not deviant?

madverts, totally agree with all your points.

USARonin. As I said, you've failed to provide a rational answer as to why you think gays are 'deviant.'

Your argument is getting weaker by the minute.

Madverts, I thoroughly enjoy where it deviates from the norm. -Wouldn't change it for anything. I just don't demand that it be elevated and recognized as normal... because it's not. I don't put my personal selfishness on society.

And, sorry, your claim - your opinion - of 'deviant behavior' is not a rational answer.

Sushi, before we can have a rational argument, we have to agree on the meanings of key words such as what constitutes 'normal' and 'deviant' behaviors.

ronin,

Next time the weather's bad in Maui, check out a 1996 study conducted at the University of Georgia; "Is Homophobia Associated With Homosexual Arousal?".

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Latent_homosexuality

It begs the question in fact as to who's the more "deviant"......

Those that are open about it and demand equality, or those that hide it largely by lashing out at those that are open about their sexuality?

USARonin, if you were payimg attention, you'd see I never implied you were Christian. And as yet, you've completely failed to provide a rational answer as to why you think gays are 'deviant.' Unless or until you do, the only way your disturbing anti-gay rhetoric can be taken is as your opinion, which in the overall scheme of things, is irrelevant, not to mention laughable.

USARonin, besides angst, what right do you believe you have to deny gay couples the priviledges accorded to married couples? And, sorry, your claim - your opinion - of 'deviant behavior' is not a rational answer.

"Are you projectin' your own behaviors or desires onto me?"

Not at all old lad. Homosexuals just don't bother me the way they do you guys.

Moderator: Readers, please keep the discussion civil.

USARonin, I'm curious as to why you appear to want to treat your gay fellow citizens as some kind of sub-human deviants who should not be afforded the same rights as heterosexual couples. It seems a bizarre stand. Where is your attitude coming from? Religion? Things you were told or taught? Rational amswers only please.

Sushi, I don't know what I've said that makes you believe I'm Christian. I do admire what I understand true Christians to be.

I'm largely conservative. Most folks who've invested in themselves, their family, and their country usually are. They start off as liberal but as they work for those things, I've mentioned they usually become more and more conservative.

I'm liberal - no, even libertine - in that I don't care what you and another guy, or a number of other guys - want to consensually do with each other as consenting adults (chronologically anyway) behind closed doors. It doesn't take anything away from me that you're havin' a good time. Please just keep the noise down after 10 PM. That's the traditional time for bein' courteous in the evenin'.

'And the Lord saidunto them, 'Love thy neighbor as thyself. Unless they are gay; then behave like a bigot and strip them of their rights.'

Oops! The good Lord didn't say the last part of that. Which makes me wonder...exactly what part of the first sentence do Christian conservatives not understand??

Peace, I'm against deviant human behaviors bein' promoted as normal... and with the government's stamp of approval.

I don't care if an adult swears an oath to another human bean or his right hand. I'm enjoyin' myself right now enjoyin' a communion of sorts with you and other members of the JT Olympics. We can't allow ourselves to be distracted from sharin' our quality time with each other as we do.

USARonin, clinging to the outdated notion that marriage is between a man and a woman shows your true conservative core. Attitudes, like cultures and languages, are always changing and evolving. There's really no needto embarrass yourself any further by clinging to an outdated concept. The key to the anti-gay argument as I see it, is an arrogant, holier than thou moral disapproval, which, wisely, the judge in this case ruled irrelevant.

Silly, maybe, but why do you think marriage is only between one man and one woman? If you don't care what they do, males or females, wouldn't that normally extend to their oaths to each other?

Would you be more comfortable with a civil union? After one or two years living together a homosexual couple is automatically afforded the same benefits as a married couple?

Peace, of course two women shouldn't marry each other.

'Marriage' is between one man and one woman, silly.

Basically - as with their male counterparts - I don't care what two (or more) consenting homosexual women want to do to each other.

Do I enjoy same-sex couples exchanging spit = No.

Same way I don't enjoy teens being all over each other outside train-stations, etc where the only difference between their acts and a porno is that they are still dressed. Told a few "Oi, get a room already." ;)

to each other, I mean.

Sushi, a childish argument: Most members of society who oppose homosexual marriage must be (those evile) 'Christian's', 'conservatives', or both.

Most of the citizenry in Hawaii oppose homosexual marriage and they fall into neither of those categories.

But you can keep on shovin' people into those preconceived boxes you have. Then you don't have to put much effort into thinkin' about it.

OK. So does that mean you don't mind of two women get married?

Madverts, a childish position: A member of a society who opposes homosexual marriage must be homosexual only he or she doesn't know it.

Ya can'ts lose that argument.

Peace, no. I wanna bone both of 'em if they're my type. But then again, maybe I'm deviant. I think most men would so maybe that's the norm. It's good to be normal in that regard.

I do find two men swappin' spit in public physically repulsive? You don't? It doesn't threaten me or cause me your 'angst'. It's just repulsive.

I am no different. Two guys together disgust me. So do guys with overweight wives. But I am an adult and I know that my own personal disgust is not a valid reason to oppress two people who are happy. As an adult, it just does not figure into the equation. At all. That would seem to be an area where consevatives feel they have a "Never Never Land" pass. Well, you don't.

No... Some behaviors are different because they deviate the norm. Normal behaviors are normal.

Superior position is abnormal if that is your rationale! But my girl gets off on it and I don't mind and that is what counts, not some textbook definition of normalcy or some impossible bid for a "Leave it to Beaver" sterile type world. Dude, if that is what you want, go for the gated community so people can enjoy freedom without disgusting you.

It's disturbing that there's actually people out there - usually Christian conservatives - who actually buy the bunk that gay relationships are a 'threat' to traditional marriages. I want to know how. How is a gay marriage a threat to a heterosexual marriage?? The simple answer is, it's not.

Yeah, the latent homosexuals amongst us are clearly upset. Heh.

Wide-stance-me-baby....

Do you find two women swappin' spit in public physically repulsive as well?

Sushi, it's not a 'civil rights' issue.

That's where you're bein' manipulated.

Most American blacks would like to set you straight on that...

No... Some behaviors are different because they deviate the norm. Normal behaviors are normal.

Or are you tryin' to change the definition of 'normal' as you are tryin' to change the defintion of 'marriage'?

What angst? I don't care about consenting adult homosexuals unless they or any other group or their supporters try to fundamentally change my society.

I do find two men swappin' spit in public physically repulsive? You don't? It doesn't threaten me or cause me your 'angst'. It's just repulsive.

USARonin, if you're against 'normalizing' full civil rights under the law for gay couples, who else will you be against 'normalizing' rights for simply because you're too closed minded to accept them? Divorcees? Children born out of wedlock? I back conservatives having some of their rights stripped for living in the 21st century with 19th century attitudes.

Of course it's about normalizin' deviant sexual behavior - behavior that deviates from the norm.

For some, this is true, for a CERTAIN form of sexual deviancy, not any you can pull from a hat. So what? Humanity is one big ball of sexual deviancy. If you don't realize that, you have no understanding of humanity at all.

So what is the harm? Don't you realize that homosexual sex is already mostly legitimized? What did I miss that causes you so much angst?

Peace, she's left the buildin'.

What's she got to do with this?

You're kidding, right?

HonestDictator said: Same goes for hetero couples that don't have children and both are able to fully work, they shouldn't be recieving allowances unless they have children or one is incapable of working.

And who is going to decide who is capable? That is tricky and going to cause unnecessary problems. Look, its pretty simple, you get a tax break for being married and you get more breaks if you have dependents. If you don't have dependents, no tax break for dependents. The only other way homosexuals are going to get more dependents is through custody proceedings or adoption, and if they got dependents, they got dependents. We give people a tax break for marriage for many reasons. One is to encourage marriage so that they will "make" dependents. Same sex partners are less likely to have dependents because they can't "make" them with eachother. But that still leaves the other reasons to encourage marriage, like the fact that two people in a marriage use less resources and that includes tax money. Why should two people pay the same as before when they are using less now?

Of course it's about normalizin' deviant sexual behavior - behavior that deviates from the norm.

What group is gonna complain that their 'civil rights' aren't bein' recognized next? That's been NAMBLA's tune for years.

We've got people who want to have a legal relationship with their pets that a man and woman have through marriage. I'm sure they feel they're bein' discrimated against and their civil rights aren't bein' recognized either.

What's next? Which sexually deviant group - a group that deviates from the norm - shall we 'normalize' next?

The question isn't about normalizing anything. It's about recognizing people's civil rights. Treat everyone the same regardless of sexual preference/gender role, etc. i.e. don't consider their sexuality when applying the law.

Homosexuals have equal treatment under American law.

This issue is about special treatment under existing law for those of deviant sexual interests.

What's next? Which sexually deviant group - a group that deviates from the norm - shall we 'normalize' next?

You don't have to give anyone normal status; one only needs to give people equal treatment under the law. Just as in religion there is no preference as to what the "normal" (most observed) religions is. If there were, I'd be up the creek being irreligious.

Just let people lay with whom they wish, so long as they don't inflict physical or emotional pain on others...

People can pretty much lay down with consentin' goats as far as I'm concerned. As I pretty much don't care, I don't have to 'accept' it either.

Let's not pretend the deviant is 'normal' and give it 'normal' status.

It's illogical to 'normalize' the deviant to make people feel good, whether it's the deviant themselves or their supporters

Just let people lay with whom they wish, so long as they don't inflict physical or emotional pain on others. I.E. Anything btwn consenting adults of sound minds, normal or not. Strictly speaking, of course it cannot be "normalized" it can only become normal by natural means if this sexuality becomes the dominant sexual preference. However, it hurts no-one, to simply find acceptance.

@Zenny11, thats what I was thinking about. I know one of my old roomies had a daughter from an earlier hetero relationship, he still has to pay child support which is understandable. Same goes for hetero couples that don't have children and both are able to fully work, they shouldn't be recieving allowances unless they have children or one is incapable of working. Couples where one spouse is disabled etc should be able recieve certain tax reliefs due to their circumstances.

Most American blacks do not equate normalizin' homosexuality within the US to the civil rights movement.

A higher percentage of blacks oppose 'normalizin'' homosexuality than white liberals, leftists and self-described 'progressives'.

I never said it was.

It's illogical to 'normalize' the deviant to make people feel good, whether it's the deviant themselves or their supporters.

Be ridden, ranger.

Normalizin' deviant sexual behaviors... always a good thing wot, wot.

Deviant don't mean bayd, yo. It only means it hain't the majority in a normal distribution. Ride'em cowboy Ronin.

MistWizard, well, at least it wasn't deleted this time (thanks JT - it is a legitimate point). Whether certain people like it or not, there is a link: historically, many leaders of the early gay liberation movement in the 60s, both white and black, were veterans of the civil rights movement in the south. They were the "freedom riders" who drove into the south from the north to promote integration, and then applied some of the same techniques to the gay movement in the 60s and 70s.

Normalizin' deviant sexual behaviors... always a good thing wot, wot.

Anyway, I thought America was about freedom, right? Wow, I guess not.

I think by and large, the American spirit is about freedom; individuals, thankfully, will vary. I say thankfully b/c I think it's great to have diversity in thought. Among that diversity in thought, there's the inevitable hate, but what's the saying? Don't throw out the baby with the bathwater. We hope that on balance reason will work itself to the top.

shinjukuboy at 02:04 AM JST - 8th August

Such parallels usually get deleted, apparently because blacks don't like it. Imagine if someone compared civil rights activists to suffragettes and the suffragettes replied "How dare you compare us with negroes!" Would not be surprised if it happened. One people fighting for their rights is going to have parallels with another. Welcome to the world boys and girls!

TheQuestion said: Wrong, they have every right to say so. I've even encountered some homosexuals that don't agree with the idea of same sex marrige on a moral basis.

Morals are all well and good, so long as you apply them only to yourself and your underage children. Anyone trying to apply this sort of small time morality to others deserves a kick in the pants! Plenty of like-minded people out there to make little communities. No need to try and take a whole state!

Sarge said: Sorry, yabits, Wizard and Warrior, Caifornia's voters have spoken. Unfortunately we have a judge who wants to rule against the people's wishes.

He has a tricky point. This is not about whether gay people have the right to marry or not. They have the right, as they will not be arrested for getting married. The question is if the government should register it and give them the priviledges of marriage the government offers. Those priviledges concern the tax money of the voters.

The trouble is that I think the reasons they said "no" were not really about tax money. I think it was mostly homophobia and other crazy notions. I am all for respecting votes, but not when the vote is based on bigotry. But how can you be sure?

The main reason straights are so down on homosexuality is that it is the one "sin" they will not commit. All those other sins like pornography, adultry, self-abuse and all those 10 commandments etc., they commit every day.

Colbert was hilarious talking about the judge's decision. Another classic.

I still don't see what the problem is.

It is about legal(goverment) marriage that will give the couple the same benefits(tax reductions, pensions, medical, etc) as hetero-couples enjoy.

This has NOTHING,ZILCH, NADA, etc to do with religious marriage. Works in europe, etc as a religious marriage is usually NOT accepted by the goverment as a valid marriage.

As for same-sex couples not being able to have kids. There is adoption also many gays/lesbians do have kids from earlier liasons with the opposite sex.

But I say lets be fair, lets cut the benefits to hetero-sexual couples that refuse to have kids. Isn't that what Marriage is all about to find a good partner to raise kids?

My view.

Last post should be "for one thing"

This is not right, this is legal.

I happen to think that it is right as well as legal in this instance.

what exactly does same sex marriage prove?

It allows the couples to have access to the same legal services as others for on thing.

Perhaps it's time for the US government to get out of the marriage business - to stop recognizing marriages entirely and only see individual citizens instead ? Leave "marriage" to religious institutions, but attach no legal significance to it.

It's also interesting to see governor Schwartzenegger - who the Ameirican left-wing often portrays as a right-wing extremist bordering on fascist - express a very libertine view of gay marriage. This may cause the left-wings propaganda machine to blow a few fuses :-)

I really want to know what exactly does same sex marriage prove? There is a male couple living in the house next door and they're not married, but they live together 24/7, go to work at their seperate jobs and come home. Nobody is stopping them from living their lives together.

A guy and girl living together 24/7, going to work at their separate jobs and coming home is the exact same thing. What would them getting married prove?

I really want to know what exactly does same sex marriage prove? There is a male couple living in the house next door and they're not married, but they live together 24/7, go to work at their seperate jobs and come home. Nobody is stopping them from living their lives together. The only gay rights I see that need to be enacted are the is military problem, and the right to take care of and make life decisions for a loved one.

The guys next door, my old roomies, none of them ever complained squat about not having same sex marriage, but they did complain about not being able to make life decisions etc for their other halves. Whats the point?

Sorry, marriage is between a man and a woman.

Speak for yourself....don't speak for everyone else.

Anyway, I thought America was about freedom, right? Wow, I guess not.

Back in the 50s when the courts were dismantelling all the jim crow laws (laws that segregared blacks, for you younger people), supporters of segregation would have called the judges "activist" for ramming integration down their throats, if they had had the word "activist judge" and the like. The same with sex discrimination. Or age discrimination. And now gay marriage. Sometimes the courts have to do the unpopular thing and force the masses away from evil.

While I still see homosexual...interactions as something of an aberration I support gay marriage. If two adult want to pay the necessary fees and fill out the proper forms I have absolutely no problem with it.

Good thing the majority of the people of my country decided otherwise, Sarge. I agree with yabits, small steps in the right direction.

This is not right, this is legal. A person can be wholeheartedly against something on a moral basis but support it legally including same sex marriage, drug use, prostitution, and a variety of other things. I disapprove of all those things but support a person’s right to engage in them.

That country can't be the United States of America -- where some things are decided by democratic majorities -- but not things involving basic human rights.

Thank God I live in a republic.

Who are you to judge?

A person. Everybody on the face of the earth judges including, and in some instances especially, you.

(although I'm straight)

So?

Heterosexuals, Christians and conservatives have no right whatsoever to say gays and lesbians shouldn't get married.

Wrong, they have every right to say so. I've even encountered some homosexuals that don't agree with the idea of same sex marrige on a moral basis.

Who the hell do heterosexuals, Christians and conservatives think they are to say this?

Chances are they think they are Christians and conservatives. If you disagree with a point of view you argue it.

Take a cursory glance at the US divorce rate and you'll see hetersexual marriages are breaking down at an ever increasing rate.

That’s more to a breakdown of values as a whole. People don't understand commitment anymore and there is a growing sense of entitlement when in reality nobody deserves anything but a chance. Marriage is a two way street and most people can't comprehend what that entails.

Are hetersexual couples somehow going to love each other more than gay/lesbian couples?

Can't possibly measure that but when it comes down to details physical in nature heterosexual relationships make a whole hell of a lot more sense.

It's called shameless hypocrisy, and conservatives do it better than anyone.

Got to love Conversatives and their want for big government to enforce it's will on what people do in the privacy of their homes. Apparently it's government intrusion only when their rights are being infringed upon.

Sarge clearly wants to deny some of his own people their basic human right to decide who to marry and trample on the First Amendment. Pretty anti-American, but that's to be expected from conservatives, a sad group of individuals who feel the need to micromanage others' lives and morals while their own morals slowly but steadily collapse.

USARonin -"Yeah, normalizin' deviant sexual behavior..."

Who are you to judge?

This is a real big issue, and I back the gay movement (although I'm straight).

Heterosexuals, Christians and conservatives have no right whatsoever to say gays and lesbians shouldn't get married.

Who the hell do heterosexuals, Christians and conservatives think they are to say this?

Are hetersexual marriages somehow 'better' or going to last longer?

Take a cursory glance at the US divorce rate and you'll see hetersexual marriages are breaking down at an ever increasing rate.

Are hetersexual couples somehow going to love each other more than gay/lesbian couples?

Are you serious?

Sarge - "Sorry, marriage is between a man and a woman."

Here's a key part of the judge's ruling -

"Moral disapproval alone is an improper basis on which to deny rights to gay men and lesbians," he wrote. "The evidence shows conclusively that Proposition 8 enacts, without reason, a private moral view that same-sex couples are inferior to opposite-sex couples."

This is where th likes of Sarge and USARonin are coming from.

And their attitudes may also be coming from the Biblical 'truths' they were fed.

2 things about that:

Do Bible teachings apply to non-Christians? A: Not likely. Is America a Christian country? A: in your dreams.

The so-called Christian conservatives' strongest argument in this case has basically been that 'we disapprove.'

Thankfully, the judge disapproved of their attitude.

So last century. What right do you have to say that?

None at all.

I used to like Arnie, but lately he's been getting on my nerves.

"California's voter-approved gay marriage ban"

Sorry, yabits, Wizard and Warrior, Caifornia's voters have spoken. Unfortunately we have a judge who wants to rule against the people's wishes.

That's right, yabits, that's not decided by me, that's decided by the majority of the people of my country.

That country can't be the United States of America -- where some things are decided by democratic majorities -- but not things involving basic human rights. (Thank goodness!)

The extent that the acknowledged inalienable right of the "pursuit of happiness" involves finding a willing partner of one's own choosing, the "majority" has no legal basis whatsoever to deny them of that right.

that's not decided by me, that's decided by the majority of the people of my country.

Good thing the majority of the people of my country decided otherwise, Sarge. I agree with yabits, small steps in the right direction.

Sarge said: Sorry, marriage is between a man and a woman.

Not one more of God's laws under the bus for you eh? How many left now? 3?

"Sorry, that is not decided by you"

That's right, yabits, that's not decided by me, that's decided by the majority of the people of my country.

Just because it says "same-sex" does not mean its about sex. USARonin, please learn the American language. (I would say English, but you got to talk to country folk in a manner they will understand, you see.) This is about marriage, not sex. Yes, even gays can have a sexless marriage!

Its nice to see America slowly become a free country. Who knows? One day we might actually be able to have a beer in the park too!

Sorry, marriage is between a man and a woman.

Sorry, that is not decided by you as it pertains to others, any more than you can decide the sexual preference of your children.

"same-sex marriage"

Sorry, marriage is between a man and a woman.

The United States takes another small step on the road to freedom and equality for all.

Spiritual "Adviser"

Whoops...

Quite possibly getting spiritual guidance from another fellow Republican, once anti-gay activist but eventually exposed as a "Super-Latent", Ted Haggard. Spiritual davider nontheless to the W Bush Whitehouse.

Remember folks, he's a Republican that's actually been "cured" of his meth-fuelled gay-sex tendencies!

Arnie should get with the programme, get Ted on board and start curing the masses!!

Hahaha Madverts, I loved that one. Thanks for the laugh. Where is Craig by the way?

Heh, and as the past has shown us, when you're muttering about deviant lifestyles, you're one step away from being exposed with a "wide stance" in the men's room.....

This will get all the latent's in a tizz.....

Yeah, normalizin' deviant sexual behavior...

Pure genious, genious.