Fucktards
We're in a recession, people. You really care so much about who the people down the street are having sex with that you're going to waste millions of dollars so you can pass a law making their lives more difficult? I swear, you people spend more time thinking about gay sex than the gays do. It's like a sick obsession.
You people suck. You disgust me.
Labels: Angry Rants, Bigotry
posted by Law Fairy @ 1:04 AM
20 comments
20 Comments:
I don't think it's about same sex marriage or gay sex or any of those silly things.
What was being fought here was the principles of marriage. It was more of a symbol to a once great institution. As much as we love our other half we don't need some laws or strings attached to show this.
The main purpose is to make you think hard before you get married. It's a serious matter and some sort of punishment will be handed in face value. Such as hitting you in the pockets. Basically, don't cheat, no divorce over small problems.
Over the long term stable parents raise stable children. In return the society is healthier and more productive, innovative, etc.
So, if gays and advocates want to fight for some silly paper and more headaches go ahead. This fight is over.
We are going to concentrate on rebuilding from the ground up again.
Knights13
knights, I don't see your point. What are these "principles of marriage" that apparently have nothing to do with same sex marriage or gay sex? And if they don't have anything to do with one another, why are the antis fighting about it?
If marriage is about raising kids (a bullshit argument in this day and age if I ever heard one), then what does being gay have to do with anything? Studies have demonstrated that gay couples are every bit as capable as straight couples of raising well-rounded, decent human beings (and in plenty of cases, better. I could easily name five gay couples off the top of my head who'd make MUCH better parents than a LOT of straight folks I know). And even if you're one of those who think there's something soooo important about having two parents with different genitals, pushing through some hateful constitutional amendment isn't going to change a goddamn thing. Gays can ALREADY adopt. Like, together. Here in California. They've been able to do it for a while now. Even if they're -- gasp -- *not married*.
So the parenting argument just plain doesn't hold water. This is about one thing and one thing only: singling gay couples out as "illegitimate" for, apparently, no reason, since you say gay sex has nothing to do with it. So by your estimation I guess the antis are just, um, bored and illogical?
And what do you mean by "once great institution"? I don't see what's so "great" about laws that consider women the property of their spouses, or that count rape as part of the bargain, or that require infidelity or physical abuse to dissolve a relationship that just plain doesn't work. Frankly, I think the institution is MUCH improved from what it used to be, and making it inclusion to people of *all* sexual orientations is only improving it further. I see no value in an institution that serves to divide, to discriminate, to enslave, to hurt, to stigmatize, to (in some cases) cause abject misery. If that's the institution you see value in protecting, you've got some serious 'splainin' to do.
"If marriage is about raising kids (a bullshit argument in this day and age if I ever heard one), then what does being gay have to do with anything?"
Exactly, being gay just did not equate in the equation of marriage. Because, I'm sorry to disturb your basis of marriage but it wasn't meant to show that two hippies love each other. I just told you what it was for.
If you think that abuse has decreased because of some new laws then you must check out the stats because it has increased. Marriage was way better in prior times rather than modern times.
knights13
"I see no value in an institution that serves to divide, to discriminate, to enslave, to hurt, to stigmatize, to (in some cases) cause abject misery. If that's the institution you see value in protecting, you've got some serious 'splainin' to do."
Of course you don't see no value in it. You are a feminist. Actually, I see the opposite. It's an institution that intimidates bad behavior. That's the whole point of marriage. You give in to your partner. Same with police officers; they are intimidating to people with all these rules. I mean imagine all the advantages gang mentalities would take on the weak.
Once you have kids then it's not about you anymore. You are not happy? You know what? Suck on it. You want to be "free" then don't get married.
knights13
"And what do you mean by "once great institution"?"
What are you 10 years old?
Have you seen the family structures lately? How many kids are into drugs , violence, rape, murder. All these have gone up not down.
What do you mean what do I mean?
knights13
Because, I'm sorry to disturb your basis of marriage but it wasn't meant to show that two hippies love each other. I just told you what it was for.
Actually, no, you didn't. You insinuated what it's for. You didn't say it. Buck up and say what you mean. Also, if you did mean to say the only reason to be married is to raise kids (illegitimate argument for the reasons I've already set forth), I assume you agree, then, that two infertile people should not be permitted to wed, nor should old people?
If you think that abuse has decreased because of some new laws then you must check out the stats because it has increased. Marriage was way better in prior times rather than modern times.
Are you insane??? The reason the stats are up is because nowadays people bother to REPORT it, and as a bonus it's even considered a crime. Good God, your argument is as stupid as arguing that criminalizing profanity would increase the incidence of criminal profanity. Hey, while we're at it, let's point out that the number one cause of divorce is marriage. See how fun it is to abuse facts?
Sometimes you really terrify me. I worry that you might actually think it's okay to view women as property. In fact, if you do, please never come to my blog again. Ever.
Of course you don't see no value in it. You are a feminist.
Huh? Meaning what?
You want to be "free" then don't get married.
WRONG. If you want to be free, don't have kids. I'll let you in on a little secret: people who aren't married have kids!!!!!! Whoa, calm down now. I know it's a big shocker.
What are you 10 years old?
Wow, you really got me there. Great argument. Mature, too.
What do you mean what do I mean?
"What do you mean" is an English phrase requesting clarification and/or justification for a statement you've made. I.e., when I ask "what do you mean" by something I'm asking you to explain why you made an earlier statement. Sorry, I thought that was an easy one. Maybe I should use smaller words next time.
", I assume you agree, then, that two infertile people should not be permitted to wed, nor should old people?"
Yes, I've told you many times before. If you have the time to accurately measure and predict the outcome then the answer is YES.
I can accurately predict that gays will not procreate.
Now, let's look at your next childish arguments.
"Hey, while we're at it, let's point out that the number one cause of divorce is marriage. See how fun it is to abuse facts?"
Ah, you are a genius!! Actually, the number one cause of divorces could be money or cheating. So, as I was stating in previously; if you marry for money or are self centered and get bored easily then marriage is not for you. See how fun it is not to abuse marriage?
"Sometimes you really terrify me. I worry that you might actually think it's okay to view women as property. In fact, if you do, please never come to my blog again. Ever."
Look if you have a problem with reserving your rights to your other half that is your problem. I have no problem giving into my wife and she seems to be A OK with it too. What you view as property and oppression we view as belonging to that person and that person only. If you have a problem with that than you are the one telling me and her HOW to be free which way to think. I don't know but your perspective looks as dismantled as I've seen.
"Huh? Meaning what?"
I mean you are a feminist. You are not fit for marriage. You have this notion of "equality" which will cause you problems in the real world. No one in the physical world functions equally. You view your mate as an opponent.
"What do you mean" is an English phrase requesting clarification and/or justification for a statement you've made."
I'm sorry my clarification didn't meet your ends. I've clarified what the statement meant. Marriage was based on holding a family together. It was not meant for expressing your love or getting a tax break. Can you understand this? If not I will clarify in simpler terms. Next, it was a great institution because it was taken more seriously. When people married they had a better idea of what it was about. The pairs would then make the relationship work way better than the latter generations. What you had in return was a more stable and productive family and future generation. There have been numerous studies that show kids with two biological parents do a lot better in life rather with one parent or step parents etc.
"Sorry, I thought that was an easy one. Maybe I should use smaller words next time."
Oh God, you know the english language better than most. You went to law school. What you say, people are not supposed to understand it anyway. I'm just going to make it a little more clear for everyone. How does that sound???
Knight13
I mean you are a feminist. You are not fit for marriage. You have this notion of "equality" which will cause you problems in the real world. No one in the physical world functions equally. You view your mate as an opponent.
Wow. So you really are an asshole on TOP of being completely stupid.
You are no longer welcome on my blog.
would you feel the same if the people voted on a referendom for abortion rights, and a 4-3 decision ruled it out?
Apples and oranges. We're talking about the court telling the people "actually, you can't take away these people's rights because it violates our constitution." Your example would be the court saying "actually, we're going to take this right away because [insert nonsense here]." The court doesn't just randomly decide this law is okay, that one isn't. Much of the point of judicial review is to prevent tyranny of the majority. When the majority simply wants to make it clear that people have *more* rights, there's no reason for the court to intervene.
It's like if a professor flunks me because he doesn't like my hair color, and the dean says no, you can't do that, she has a right to have her work evaluated fairly -- that's like what happened here. The court stepped in to make sure gay people weren't being treated unfairly. Your example would be that the professor gives me an A. I'm certainly not going to complain to the dean about getting an A, so there's no injustice to remedy.
I take it Knights13 is very happily married?
ok.
would you feel the same if the people vote equal rights for the unborn, and a 4-3 court decision said 'no'?
"The court doesn't just randomly decide this law is okay, that one isn't. Much of the point of judicial review is to prevent tyranny of the majority. When the majority simply wants to make it clear that people have *more* rights, there's no reason for the court to intervene."
Yes, the majority came up with that law and the court needs to take a back seat now and then. You talk about oppressive??? There are 4 judges changing what the majority has built as they please!!!
You love double standards and so does the opposing view.
Gino, I think you know where I stand on this. If you're asking if I think a fetus whose only (current) function is to feed off of another person has co-equal rights with a living, breathing, contributing member of society who happens to love someone of his or her own sex, the answer is no, I don't.
anon, I admit you've confused me. What double standard? The 9th amendment makes it pretty clear that the default position should be more, not fewer, rights.
"anon, I admit you've confused me. What double standard? The 9th amendment makes it pretty clear that the default position should be more, not fewer, rights."
It's me knights13, you should know by the confusing statement.
More rights?? We are discussing the definition of marriage and what it stands for. The definition should stand as it is. That does not take away the rights of gays being able to form a union which could be easily passed into law so they can collect their taxes.
I'll tell you what double standard. The majority doesn't get to define something and the minority does. Where do you see more rights in that??
"If you're asking if I think a fetus whose only (current) function is to feed off of another person has co-equal rights with a living, breathing, contributing member of society who happens to love someone of his or her own sex,"
No.
the issue whether it is ok for a 4-3 court to overturn the overwhelming majority of the voting public.
if it is ok for one case, then it should be ok for the other, or any other case you can think of.
we can stay on topic. i actually prefer discussions to be that way.
No.
the issue whether it is ok for a 4-3 court to overturn the overwhelming majority of the voting public.
The answer is: it depends.
if it is ok for one case, then it should be ok for the other, or any other case you can think of.
Oh, of course not. If a law conflicts with the Constitution, it's okay to overturn it. If it doesn't, then generally it isn't. If there's a law setting an arbitrary curfew for women but not men, it doesn't matter how many people voted on it, it's unconstitutional. If there's a law directing federal funds toward a public education project, chances are it isn't unconstitutional, so there would be no reason to overturn it. All laws are clearly not equal.
we can stay on topic. i actually prefer discussions to be that way.
Well, the topic was not abortion...
"If a law conflicts with the Constitution, it's okay to overturn it. If it doesn't, then generally it isn't. "
ok, i'll grant you this point.
but the court is wrong on some fundemental items.
marriage law is already discriminatory, by its design. we dont give marriage approval to minors, or close kin, or to polygamists. all these can equally claim to be discriminated against.
further: a marriage is a public vow, granting privilages and also imposing responsibilities. to call what is actually a restriction of rights (and autonomy) itself a 'right' is something only an ivy league j.d. can dream up.
what we really have, in practice, is a contract. and not everybody is allowed to have any contract they want. the courts, the people, and the legislature, routinely limit who/what/where can enter into contracts, and what kind of contract is recognisable and enforceable, and what kind are null on their face.
the people have already decided what kind of contract they want to rocognise.
this doesnt, of course, prevent individuals from honoring something else of their own accord, if that is what they want to do.
but legalised marriage is a collective recognition, and should be decided democratically by the collective.
btw: whatever happened to the cry of the left to 'count all the votes'? or is it OK to disenfranchise whole populations of any state now?
Gino -- sorry I didn't moderate your comment earlier. Somehow in between neglecting my blog and neglecting my work I didn't notice it was sitting there waiting for approval. Don't take it as a remark on the content of your comment, even though you are completely wrong ;)
no probelm, LF.
you and i have a history of disagreeing publically, and i just assumed either you didnt see my comment, or my post was eaten in cyberspace.
but please tell me, where is my reasoning flawed?
Post a Comment
<< Home