California Overturns Gay Marriage

[Chukpike]

So it's reasonable and common sense to deny people the rights to a private matter because of a sexual preference?

They have not been denied the right to do want they want to do in private. They wanted public recognition (marriage) for what they do in private.

The public said no.

 

[Rob Henderson]

That's not public recognition... It's lawful recognition... The only publicity marriages are celebrity marriages.

 

[senojekips]

That's not public recognition... It's lawful recognition... The only publicity marriages are celebrity marriages.

I never saw the word publicity even mentioned.

"Publicity" and public recognition and acceptance, are poles apart, but I'm sure you understood that without my pointing it out.

FAIL!

 

[Chukpike]

That's not public recognition... It's lawful recognition... The only publicity marriages are celebrity marriages.[/quote

Rob you want to be treated with respect and not thought to be stupid. Then do not make stupid comments.

Marriage records are public records for anyone to see. Go to the county records office and you will find that you will have no problem viewing marrige records.

 

[Rob Henderson]

Rob you want to be treated with respect and not thought to be stupid. Then do not make stupid comments.

Marriage records are public records for anyone to see. Go to the county records office and you will find that you will have no problem viewing marrige records.

BTW, you STILL didn't fix all the spelling. But you say my comments are stupid...


Anyway, It's all well and good that marriage RECORDS are publicly available, but the fact remains that the marriage ITSELF isn't public. The only public signs of a marriage are the wedding bands. That's the only TRUE public indication of a marriage.



Senojekips, I simply meant that SOME marriages that take place for the public to know about them. Gays don't want to FLAUNT their marriages, they just want to GET married. I understand a LOT without YOU pointing them out.

 

[Chukpike]

Anyway, It's all well and good that marriage RECORDS are publicly available, but the fact remains that the marriage ITSELF isn't public. The only public signs of a marriage are the wedding bands. That's the only TRUE public indication of a marriage.

That is exactly what a wedding band is for, to indicate to the public the fact someone is married.
The sex part of marriage is not public.
Marriage is performed publicly or privately with few guests. It requires witnesses to be valid along with the signature of the person duly authorized to perform the ceremony. The witnesses signature's perform the function of representing the public.
Usually followed by a celebration called a reception. What is not required is viewing the consummation of the wedding.

You further state marriage is public, as indicated in your next quote.

Senojekips, I simply meant that marriages that take place for the public to know about them. Gays don't want to FLAUNT their marriages, they just want to GET married. I understand a LOT without YOU pointing them out.

Respect is shown to you by answering your posts. I will no longer being do that.

You are so eager to argue, you contradict your own argument in the same post?

 

[Del Boy]

These are very immotive issues, and Rob has wielded the cudgels valiantly, I must say. Personally, I think he has done enough to make his case clear, and in doing so has sprung to the defence of his friends. That ain't always easy.

 

[Rob Henderson]

That is exactly what a wedding band is for, to indicate to the public the fact someone is married.
The sex part of marriage is not public.
Marriage is performed publicly or privately with few guests. It requires witnesses to be valid along with the signature of the person duly authorized to perform the ceremony. The witnesses signature's perform the function of representing the public.
Usually followed by a celebration called a reception. What is not required is viewing the consummation of the wedding.

you're right, so who gives a DAMN who's wearing a ring or not?! Honestly! This does NOT affect you in ANY way, shape, or form, so WHY should you care? Marriage COULD be performed in complete private, so it doesn't affect anyone.

You further state marriage is public, as indicated in your next quote.

That was only to clarify senojekips' construed views of what I was saying. There IS a difference between publicity and public viewing.

Respect is shown to you by answering your posts. I will no longer being do that.
You are so eager to argue, you contradict your own argument in the same post?

No, respect is shown by not being condescending to someone in an argument because the holes in your own are too flawed. You do me a disservice by using little nuances like me correcting senojekips to try and say I am contradicting myself. You know DAMNED well I wasn't contradicting myself, and you shouldn't think I'm dull enough to do that. Quite frankly, if all that is required is respect to answer a post, then you deserve no respect at all.

 

[Chukpike]

These are very immotive issues, and Rob has wielded the cudgels valiantly, I must say. Personally, I think he has done enough to make his case clear, and in doing so has sprung to the defence of his friends. That ain't always easy.

Yes you are right, his last comments were hilarious!

At first I thought you were serious. LOL:lol:

 

[Rob Henderson]

You're a riot Chukpike. Really.

 

[senojekips]

you're right, so who gives a DAMN who's wearing a ring or not?! Honestly! This does NOT affect you in ANY way, shape, or form, so WHY should you care? Marriage COULD be performed in complete private, so it doesn't affect anyone.

The ceremony or lack of it counts for nothing and is not the point of this debate. I dunno about the USA, but here in Australia a heterosexual couple is legally regarded as being married if they cohabit for more than six calendar months. This is called "Common law marriage" and carries all the legal responsibilities and obligations of a marriage ceremony performed by a licenced celebrant under the laws of our country. (Which really makes "officially performed marriages a bit of a joke)

That was only to clarify senojekips' construed views of what I was saying. There IS a difference between publicity and public viewing.
No, respect is shown by not being condescending to someone in an argument because the holes in your own are too flawed. You do me a disservice by using little nuances like me correcting senojekips to try and say I am contradicting myself. You know DAMNED well I wasn't contradicting myself, and you shouldn't think I'm dull enough to do that. Quite frankly, if all that is required is respect to answer a post, then you deserve no respect at all.

Here you admit that you did say it purely to correct me. If you said it, for whatever reason Chukpike was correct when he stated that you had contradicted yourself in the same post. You can't have it both ways.

Never the less, this whole business of public, or public viewing has no impact on the legal status of "marriage" as pointed out above.

Marriage is a legal state, nothing more nothing less. Homos are seeking legal recognition and that is what the debate is about. Who cares if they have a private ceremony and come to some arrangement in private. Next we'll have some other nutter wanting to marry his pet goldfish.

 

[DTop]

Please keep your remarks on a non-personal level.

 

[Rob Henderson]

The ceremony or lack of it counts for nothing and is not the point of this debate. I dunno about the USA, but here in Australia a heterosexual couple is legally regarded as being married if they cohabit for more than six calendar months. This is called "Common law marriage" and carries all the legal responsibilities and obligations of a marriage ceremony performed by a licenced celebrant under the laws of our country. (Which really makes "officially performed marriages a bit of a joke)

You'll never see it the way others do because of your lack of faith, but a marriage ceremony is something special to couples who wish to go though with it. That common law marriage is something interesting, but it's not marriage. It's not the same thing.

Here you admit that you did say it purely to correct me. If you said it, for whatever reason Chukpike was correct when he stated that you had contradicted yourself in the same post. You can't have it both ways.

Never the less, this whole business of public, or public viewing has no impact on the legal status of "marriage" as pointed out above.

Marriage is a legal state, nothing more nothing less. Homos are seeking legal recognition and that is what the debate is about.

Again, because of your beliefs, you and I will never see eye to eye on this issue, but marriage is something more than a legal state to some people. For some, it's symbolic of a deep connection between two people. Marriage means something to a lot of people... Why else go through with the ceremony? All it does is cost money... If it didn't mean anything other than tax work, why would people pay ALL that money to have the "perfect" wedding?



But all of this is off topic... What about civil unions, how do you feel about those?

 

[senojekips]

You'll never see it the way others do because of your lack of faith, but a marriage ceremony is something special to couples who wish to go though with it. That common law marriage is something interesting, but it's not marriage. It's not the same thing.

How do you come to the amazing conclusion that marriage recognised by the highest court in the land "is not marriage" Next you'll be saying that the law is not legal???

Again, because of your beliefs, you and I will never see eye to eye on this issue,

Of course we don't see eye to eye,... If we agreed, it would not be a debate would it?

but marriage is something more than a legal state to some people. For some, it's symbolic of a deep connection between two people. Marriage means something to a lot of people... Why else go through with the ceremony? All it does is cost money... If it didn't mean anything other than tax work, why would people pay ALL that money to have the "perfect" wedding?

here once again you are not talking of "Marriage" biut merely the ceremony which holds no legal status in itself, it is not the ceremony that counts but legal recognition. Homos can already have a "ceremony", but what they want is legal recognition.

You have "love" and "physical attraction" confused with "marriage". Whereas in fact they are nothing to do with one another.

But all of this is off topic... What about civil unions, how do you feel about those?

You are correct, it is off topic, although an interesting subject very closely related to our subject.

Firstly, define a "civil union". Is it marriage or is it not? what are the differences legally? From all I can read on the matter it is no more than homosexual marriage,... but does it entitle them to ALL the benefits of marriage? If so, why go to the bother of calling it "Civil Union" because that would mean that it is in fact, de facto marriage?

To me it is a back door to official recognition and if that is the case, I am against it. because it is merely marriage by a different name. Like the person in Sydney several years ago taken to court for keeping a pet pig in his back yard, when he got to court he produced a dog licence purchased from the local council and stated that in fact it was a dog. FAIL!! his case was thrown out, and he had to remove the pig. Such is the case for "civil unions" unless I misunderstand their status.

Changing the "name" does not change the "fact"

 

[The Other Guy]

I've read enough here. I'm done for now.

 

[Rob Henderson]

How do you come to the amazing conclusion that marriage recognised by the highest court in the land "is not marriage" Next you'll be saying that the law is not legal???

I meant as far as the connection goes... You don't care because of what you believe, but marriage is not living together for 6 months. Marriage is a special connection between two people who wish to deepen that connection.

Of course we don't see eye to eye,... If we agreed, it would not be a debate would it?

Right. But Republicans and Democrats debate, Shiites and Sunnis fight without ever knowing what they're fighting about... What I'm saying is that we're fighting... You believe something completely different than I do, and that is essential to the debate. I'm not one to force my BELIEFS on someone else. I might argue my opinion on something, but I try and keep faith (or lack thereof) out of it. For the simple reason that it, above all else, is something that nothing anyone else can change.

here once again you are not talking of "Marriage" biut merely the ceremony which holds no legal status in itself, it is not the ceremony that counts but legal recognition. Homos can already have a "ceremony", but what they want is legal recognition.

But marriage is NOT just a legal concept. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary states that marriage is "the state of being united with another person in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law." Now, in that definition is not ONLY the legal side of marriage, but the emotional side of marriage. People do not get married for the legality of the thing... There's no point to that, unless they're just trying to reap the tax benefits (in which case heteros are no better than homos)... Marriage is emotional, not merely a legal issue.

You have "love" and "physical attraction" confused with "marriage". Whereas in fact they are nothing to do with one another.

Love, as well as part of marriage, are not things, they are ideas. They cannot be factually proven. Science has no part in these matters, Spike. This is gut feeling alone. No one can tell you WHAT love is, you must experience it to some degree yourself. You may feel it differently than others. Just like you can't really describe the connection necessary for the desire to marry someone else. You have to experience it... You have to experience that longing to share your entire self with another person EVERY DAY. To trust that person with everything in your life, to care for that person more than you care about your own well being... It's not something to be defined in the dictionary. OR the law books.

Firstly, define a "civil union". Is it marriage or is it not? what are the differences legally? From all I can read on the matter it is no more than homosexual marriage,... but does it entitle them to ALL the benefits of marriage? If so, why go to the bother of calling it "Civil Union" because that would mean that it is in fact, de facto marriage?

No, it doesn't entitle them to ALL the benefits. That's why it's different... Some people criticize the fact that some "perks" are left out, and some people praise it. Regardless of how you feel on the perks of the deal, it is NOT the same as marriage.

To me it is a back door to official recognition and if that is the case, I am against it. because it is merely marriage by a different name. Like the person in Sydney several years ago taken to court for keeping a pet pig in his back yard, when he got to court he produced a dog licence purchased from the local council and stated that in fact it was a dog. FAIL!! his case was thrown out, and he had to remove the pig. Such is the case for "civil unions" unless I misunderstand their status.

Changing the "name" does not change the "fact"

 

[Padre]

When gays are "supposedly" able to procreate, without outside interference, I'll recognise it as marriage. Until then, they are no more than two same sex people living in the same house. I used ti flat with half a dozen blokes, does thatt mean we should have been entitled to be recognised as married? Or is marriage recognised only among those who have sex with one another. It seems to me, that that these laws are framed by Eric Cartman.

It's all Politically Correct BS.

I agree, but I would express the above in different words, but not as well as Seno.
:viking:

 

[senojekips]

I meant as far as the connection goes... You don't care because of what you believe, but marriage is not living together for 6 months. Marriage is a special connection between two people who wish to deepen that connection.

that last sentence doesn't bear going into. Was that a Feudian slip Rob?:-o

Right. But Republicans and Democrats debate, Shiites and Sunnis fight without ever knowing what they're fighting about... What I'm saying is that we're fighting...

You may be fighting Rob, I don't have to, all i have to do is to point out the facts. I really dunno how you have a one sided fight, it must be hilarious to watch.:wink: I think I can safely suggest that you find yourself to be "fighting" because you are trying to defend the indefensible. When you are arguing for what is "right", all you have to do is sit back and let it all go down.

You believe something completely different than I do, and that is essential to the debate. I'm not one to force my BELIEFS on someone else. I might argue my opinion on something, but I try and keep faith (or lack thereof) out of it. For the simple reason that it, above all else, is something that nothing anyone else can change.

To argue without "faith" is to argue for no reason at all, I have great faith in my view, I presume you are talking of religious faith?
Being an Atheist, this is of no consequence to me, but if that's your "Bag" you go for it. You just won't win any points using it to support your argument with me.

But marriage is NOT just a legal concept. The Merriam-Webster Dictionary states that marriage is "the state of being united with another person in a consensual and contractual relationship recognized by law."

Well, you may take away any one of those things, and it is still marriage,... EXCEPT "recognised by law" take that away, and you can say what you like, you can call it, friendship, love, passion amity, sexual relationship or whatever, but if it is not recognised in law, it is not marriage. It is not necessarily contractual, as we see in the case of "Common law marriage" which regardless of the fact that there is no physical contractual agreement (Marriage Certificate), yet it is still recognised in law as "marriage".

Now, in that definition is not ONLY the legal side of marriage, but the emotional side of marriage. People do not get married for the legality of the thing... There's no point to that, unless they're just trying to reap the tax benefits (in which case heteros are no better than homos)... Marriage is emotional, not merely a legal issue.

I beg to differ, there are plenty of cases where persons have married purely for the legality of it just as there are plenty of cases where they marry for sex, financial benefit, both Governmental and personal, in fact I'm sure i could say that plenty of persons get married even just to please their parents or a million other reasons. But primarily many people get married because they think that they must.

Love, as well as part of marriage, are not things, they are ideas. They cannot be factually proven. Science has no part in these matters, Spike. This is gut feeling alone. No one can tell you WHAT love is, you must experience it to some degree yourself. You may feel it differently than others. Just like you can't really describe the connection necessary for the desire to marry someone else. You have to experience it... You have to experience that longing to share your entire self with another person EVERY DAY. To trust that person with everything in your life, to care for that person more than you care about your own well being... It's not something to be defined in the dictionary. OR the law books.

what you say here is possibly quite correct, but it has no part in this debate, as it has nothing to do with why homos should not get married. You are talking about emotion, and I don't know of any law framed on emotion.This is a "legal" issue, as homos want "legal" recognition.

No, it doesn't entitle them to ALL the benefits. That's why it's different... Some people criticize the fact that some "perks" are left out, and some people praise it. Regardless of how you feel on the perks of the deal, it is NOT the same as marriage.

I would have to see what benefits they are entitled to before i would even consider making a judgement on Civil Unions. mind you it would still be viewed with a very jaundiced eye, as I would first and foremost, see it as "The thin edge of the wedge"

 

[A Can of Man]

What do you think about a legal recognition as far as being recognized as next of kin? That is if one homosexual partner died, the other partner would be the first to be notified.
I guess for things like property and such, well, that's what a will is for.

 

[senojekips]

What do you think about a legal recognition as far as being recognized as next of kin? That is if one homosexual partner died, the other partner would be the first to be notified.
I guess for things like property and such, well, that's what a will is for.

Next of Kin? I really can't comment as I don't know what legal ramifications that may have. Yes, I do believe that homos should be able to name their partner as a beneficiary in their Will, but as far as I know, that's already allowed.