Comments on: Judge refuses to dismiss gay marriage ban lawsuit http://www.365gay.com/news/judge-refuses-to-dismiss-gay-marriage-ban-lawsuit/ The daily news source for the gay, lesbian, bisexual and transgender community Sun, 29 Jan 2012 17:11:12 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.1.4 By: Budbud http://www.365gay.com/news/judge-refuses-to-dismiss-gay-marriage-ban-lawsuit/comment-page-1/#comment-74729 Budbud Sun, 18 Oct 2009 13:34:20 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=10215#comment-74729 As much as I try to see the point of the anti-gay side, I just can't understand it. What exactly...or even abstractly is the plain rationale behind the argument that says preventing gay marriage will somehow compel straight people to marry and/or procreate? Partnering and procreating existed in our species LONG before the artificial social construct that is marriage. Has not procreation mostly always been just a side effect of the hardwiring that eventually makes us want to rub our naked body against someone elses. This argument is very "chicken and egg" and it flies in the face of basic biology and MILLIONS of years of evolutionary history. It's as if they are saying that marriage is what compels people to partner up and have sex, when in fact, it's peoples innate desire to partner up and have sex that made a regulatory body such as marriage necessary. Therefore, I'd love to hear an explanation as to how the existence of gay marriage as a mere legal entity is somehow linked to individual straight peoples desire to marry and/or procreate with one another? Are they suggesting that gay people will be compelled to "go straight", get married to and/or procreate with a member of the opposite sex if the option to marry a member of the same sex is denied to them? Are they merely suggesting that allowing gays in on "the marriage thing" will somehow make marriage "uncool" in the eyes of straight people, and they just won't want to do it anymore if gays are allowed to as well? If that's the case, they're going to have to show me why buying a house or a car, listening to music or watching television hasn't fallen out of favor with the straights, since gays do all of that stuff as well. Not to mention, how many things have straight people glommed onto only AFTER the gays put it out there first? I also don't understand how straight people can argue with a straight face that procreation is somehow linked to marriage anymore. Straight people invented and continue to engage in sky high out of wedlock births, single parent IVF, single parent adoptions and sky high rates of divorce! It seems more than fishy to me that the moment the gays want to get married, all of a sudden, we're supposed to believe that society at large has a deep and abiding affection for the traditional nuclear family structure that THEY have unabashedly been dismantling for the last 40 years with great pride? I'm eager to hear the arguments in this case! As much as I try to see the point of the anti-gay side, I just can’t understand it. What exactly…or even abstractly is the plain rationale behind the argument that says preventing gay marriage will somehow compel straight people to marry and/or procreate?

Partnering and procreating existed in our species LONG before the artificial social construct that is marriage. Has not procreation mostly always been just a side effect of the hardwiring that eventually makes us want to rub our naked body against someone elses.

This argument is very “chicken and egg” and it flies in the face of basic biology and MILLIONS of years of evolutionary history. It’s as if they are saying that marriage is what compels people to partner up and have sex, when in fact, it’s peoples innate desire to partner up and have sex that made a regulatory body such as marriage necessary.

Therefore, I’d love to hear an explanation as to how the existence of gay marriage as a mere legal entity is somehow linked to individual straight peoples desire to marry and/or procreate with one another?

Are they suggesting that gay people will be compelled to “go straight”, get married to and/or procreate with a member of the opposite sex if the option to marry a member of the same sex is denied to them?

Are they merely suggesting that allowing gays in on “the marriage thing” will somehow make marriage “uncool” in the eyes of straight people, and they just won’t want to do it anymore if gays are allowed to as well?

If that’s the case, they’re going to have to show me why buying a house or a car, listening to music or watching television hasn’t fallen out of favor with the straights, since gays do all of that stuff as well. Not to mention, how many things have straight people glommed onto only AFTER the gays put it out there first?

I also don’t understand how straight people can argue with a straight face that procreation is somehow linked to marriage anymore. Straight people invented and continue to engage in sky high out of wedlock births, single parent IVF, single parent adoptions and sky high rates of divorce!

It seems more than fishy to me that the moment the gays want to get married, all of a sudden, we’re supposed to believe that society at large has a deep and abiding affection for the traditional nuclear family structure that THEY have unabashedly been dismantling for the last 40 years with great pride?

I’m eager to hear the arguments in this case!

]]> By: Ryan James Devlin http://www.365gay.com/news/judge-refuses-to-dismiss-gay-marriage-ban-lawsuit/comment-page-1/#comment-74659 Ryan James Devlin Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:37:05 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=10215#comment-74659 I am seeing that more and more christian groups are complaining that the LGBT Community should have no rights. Well What would they say if they had to pay taxs on the gounds that there chruch's or just taxs period. They already are listed and a non profit org. why what makes them special. What if we closed our walets, and stopped paying taxes to support them. if all the tax money that we made as a gay community stayed it would look really bad it would look segragated all over again like black and white,was many years ago. and no look history is repeating itself. Our government would fall in a huge hole if the LGBT Community bannded together and took a stand for who we are. every day i read more and more about what is happening to the LGBT Community and keep thinking that we are headed right for another Stone Wall of history and it will be bigger than the last one and more devistaing than the last one. Churchs wanted the state to be seporate well then stay out of political issues. other wise lets reverse the law that states that church and state are seporate. and make it the way is use to be. So the next question in my mind is .. At what cost will it take for Equality We are a nation of freedom and I see no freedom when I am told No to some thing that is MY RIGHT. I am seeing that more and more christian groups are complaining that the LGBT Community should have no rights. Well What would they say if they had to pay taxs on the gounds that there chruch’s or just taxs period. They already are listed and a non profit org. why what makes them special. What if we closed our walets, and stopped paying taxes to support them. if all the tax money that we made as a gay community stayed it would look really bad it would look segragated all over again like black and white,was many years ago. and no look history is repeating itself. Our government would fall in a huge hole if the LGBT Community bannded together and took a stand for who we are. every day i read more and more about what is happening to the LGBT Community and keep thinking that we are headed right for another Stone Wall of history and it will be bigger than the last one and more devistaing than the last one. Churchs wanted the state to be seporate well then stay out of political issues. other wise lets reverse the law that states that church and state are seporate. and make it the way is use to be. So the next question in my mind is ..
At what cost will it take for Equality
We are a nation of freedom and I see no freedom when I am told No to some thing that is MY RIGHT.

]]> By: Gerry Fisher http://www.365gay.com/news/judge-refuses-to-dismiss-gay-marriage-ban-lawsuit/comment-page-1/#comment-74654 Gerry Fisher Fri, 16 Oct 2009 17:20:32 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=10215#comment-74654 The idea that this case could go to this particular make up of the Supreme Court unnerves me. Maybe it will take a few years, and we'll have another Obama appointee. The idea that this case could go to this particular make up of the Supreme Court unnerves me. Maybe it will take a few years, and we’ll have another Obama appointee.

]]> By: Drewski http://www.365gay.com/news/judge-refuses-to-dismiss-gay-marriage-ban-lawsuit/comment-page-1/#comment-74604 Drewski Fri, 16 Oct 2009 08:26:08 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=10215#comment-74604 Try this: http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-marriage15-2009oct15,0,5459107.story It won't end with this case, and Obama may find himself in even hotter water. What happens to The Great Conciliator if this makes it to SCOTUS right in time for either midterm elections or his re-election? He can't avoid taking sides. Hillary says she won't run. There are others. Read the article, and you find that Walker is serious about no-bullshit. He wants answers. We shall see. Try this:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-gay-marriage15-2009oct15,0,5459107.story

It won’t end with this case, and Obama may find himself in even hotter water. What happens to The Great Conciliator if this makes it to SCOTUS right in time for either midterm elections or his re-election? He can’t avoid taking sides. Hillary says she won’t run. There are others.

Read the article, and you find that Walker is serious about no-bullshit. He wants answers. We shall see.

]]> By: Facebook User http://www.365gay.com/news/judge-refuses-to-dismiss-gay-marriage-ban-lawsuit/comment-page-1/#comment-74579 Facebook User Thu, 15 Oct 2009 21:39:14 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=10215#comment-74579 You left out the good part. This from another blog on same topic. "Judge Walker scoffed at that idea, saying the last wedding he officiated was between people aged 95 and 83. “I did not demand that they prove they intended to engage in procreation,” he said. " You left out the good part. This from another blog on same topic.
“Judge Walker scoffed at that idea, saying the last wedding he officiated was between people aged 95 and 83. “I did not demand that they prove they intended to engage in procreation,” he said.
“

]]> By: robertocucina http://www.365gay.com/news/judge-refuses-to-dismiss-gay-marriage-ban-lawsuit/comment-page-1/#comment-74532 robertocucina Thu, 15 Oct 2009 12:40:23 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=10215#comment-74532 "Before ruling, Walker grilled a lawyer for the measure’s backers who asserted that Proposition 8 was legitimate because it fostered “naturally procreative relationships.” MichaelnDalls, right on! These same-sex marriage haters can't have it both ways. If they want us barred from marry based on the procreation red herring, then they'll have to ban straights who choose not to or can't procreate, period. I wonder why they're silent about that? They also persist in the nonsense that marriage is between one man and one woman and that allowing us to marry will undermine their marriages and that it will lead to polygamy, incest, whatever. Hmmm, last time I checked, islam permits polygamy. Now, how did gays affect that, or same-sex marriages for that matter? They can't come up with any sound evidence to support their claims. Their case should be thrown out. Prop. H8 was a frivolous case, regardless. “Before ruling, Walker grilled a lawyer for the measure’s backers who asserted that Proposition 8 was legitimate because it fostered “naturally procreative relationships.”

MichaelnDalls, right on! These same-sex marriage haters can’t have it both ways. If they want us barred from marry based on the procreation red herring, then they’ll have to ban straights who choose not to or can’t procreate, period. I wonder why they’re silent about that?

They also persist in the nonsense that marriage is between one man and one woman and that allowing us to marry will undermine their marriages and that it will lead to polygamy, incest, whatever.

Hmmm, last time I checked, islam permits polygamy. Now, how did gays affect that, or same-sex marriages for that matter? They can’t come up with any sound evidence to support their claims. Their case should be thrown out. Prop. H8 was a frivolous case, regardless.

]]> By: Lael Gardner- Stalnaker http://www.365gay.com/news/judge-refuses-to-dismiss-gay-marriage-ban-lawsuit/comment-page-1/#comment-74520 Lael Gardner- Stalnaker Thu, 15 Oct 2009 04:26:26 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=10215#comment-74520 The LA Times article on it was much better. Judge Walker makes some very telling comments that amused the hell out of me. Rhetoric is not going to go anywhere with this judge, thankfully. The LA Times article on it was much better. Judge Walker makes some very telling comments that amused the hell out of me. Rhetoric is not going to go anywhere with this judge, thankfully.

]]> By: Patrick in Connecticut http://www.365gay.com/news/judge-refuses-to-dismiss-gay-marriage-ban-lawsuit/comment-page-1/#comment-74519 Patrick in Connecticut Thu, 15 Oct 2009 04:17:09 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=10215#comment-74519 Finally a judge worth his weight in salt. Good for him for grilling these a-holes, and I'd hazard to say that they are going to be hard-pressed to show how opposite-sex couples are going to be harmed in any legitimate way. Their crappy excuses, based solely on fear, fall apart upon scrutiny from educated people. Finally a judge worth his weight in salt. Good for him for grilling these a-holes, and I’d hazard to say that they are going to be hard-pressed to show how opposite-sex couples are going to be harmed in any legitimate way. Their crappy excuses, based solely on fear, fall apart upon scrutiny from educated people.

]]> By: Wayne M. http://www.365gay.com/news/judge-refuses-to-dismiss-gay-marriage-ban-lawsuit/comment-page-1/#comment-74514 Wayne M. Thu, 15 Oct 2009 01:29:32 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=10215#comment-74514 The fact is that marriage equality does not undermine so-called "traditional" opposite sex marriage in any way. They cannot prove the unprovable in a court of law. The fact is that marriage equality does not undermine so-called “traditional” opposite sex marriage in any way. They cannot prove the unprovable in a court of law.

]]> By: michaelnDallas http://www.365gay.com/news/judge-refuses-to-dismiss-gay-marriage-ban-lawsuit/comment-page-1/#comment-74500 michaelnDallas Wed, 14 Oct 2009 22:51:24 +0000 http://www.365gay.com/?p=10215#comment-74500 if you can't produce a child in 3 years, your marriage should be annulled!! Since it's not a procreative marriage! if you can’t produce a child in 3 years, your marriage should be annulled!! Since it’s not a procreative marriage!

]]>