CA Senate Approves Resolution Opposing Prop 8

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
One could make a good argument that the inability to produce children is a societal ill.

Would you extend such logic to heterosexual couples who are incapable of producing children?

So, when we say protected class, we really mean that they have privileges other minorities don't, such as polygamists. I really don't care for this.

The proliferation of AIDS among gay men could be called a legitimate public issue.

But banning gay marriage prevent the proliferation of AIDS among gay men. People have sex outside of marriage. It would need to be far more narrowly tailored.

 

[jonks]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I contend that there is no fundamental right to marriage.

That's nice. The supreme court said otherwise. So we're pretty much beyond discussing this point.

The SC declared there was a right to privacy. In the decades following that rather profound discovery by the court, there has been regulation and tension defining where that privacy starts and ends. But no one (serious) says anymore that privacy is not a right. Try to get to that point.

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Well a fundamental right can be restricted by a strong government interest and if the government response is narrowly tailored to address said governmental interest. Morality isn't sufficient for a governmental interest as from case law. I'm not sure if there's any governmental interest in restricting gay marriage, but maybe there is...can anyone come up with an actual interest beyond morality?

This guy did.

http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

But he casually discounts other groups that would also fail to disqualify for marriage, like the elderly. His argument was flawed.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Gay couples could lead to societal ills no less severe.

What do you mean by protected class?

And even if incestuous couples lead to higher birth defects and disorders, so what? Aren't they entitled to marry the person of their choice, as defined by the Supreme Court of CA?

If such societal ills exist, they have not appeared in any of the other states or countries where gay marriage is legal. Speculation of what could happen certainly isn't enough to deny protected classes their fundamental rights though. In all seriousness, in order to bar gay people from marrying in California you must pass the same standard of necessity for it as you would need to make 'white/black people only' water fountains again.

A protected class is a group of people recognized by the law as being subject to discrimination based upon a shared attribute. Laws discriminating based on protected status are subject to strict scrutiny, and are unlikely to be upheld. Furthermore, gays have also been designated a 'suspect class' by the CA supreme court. This means that due to a long history of purposeful discrimination, laws that target this suspect class are assumed to be discriminatory until proved otherwise.

What you seem to be forgetting (as you have in the past when you have raised this exact same response), is that the government can restrict every right we have, from free speech, to whatever. The standard they must meet is to show a compelling state interest for doing so. The CSC determined that the state was unable to do so, and that is the source of their original ruling. The scientifically proven increase in birth defects that would come from incestuous couples could most certainly be used as evidence for a compelling state interest to restrict it. No such evidence exists for gay couples, hence it cannot be restricted.

You keep raising the exact same questions, and you always get the exact same answer. The state can most likely demonstrate compelling interest for incest, they can't for homosexual marriage. Polygamy is a bit of a grey area, and I am uncertain if the government could meet this standard in my opinion.

 

[OrByte]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Well a fundamental right can be restricted by a strong government interest and if the government response is narrowly tailored to address said governmental interest. Morality isn't sufficient for a governmental interest as from case law. I'm not sure if there's any governmental interest in restricting gay marriage, but maybe there is...can anyone come up with an actual interest beyond morality?

This guy did.

http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

oh my god I can't believe you linked that again.


BTW- He still gets an "F" for his grade.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Atreus21
One could make a good argument that the inability to produce children is a societal ill.

Would you extend such logic to heterosexual couples who are incapable of producing children?

So, when we say protected class, we really mean that they have privileges other minorities don't, such as polygamists. I really don't care for this.

The proliferation of AIDS among gay men could be called a legitimate public issue.

But banning gay marriage prevent the proliferation of AIDS among gay men. People have sex outside of marriage. It would need to be far more narrowly tailored.

In theory I would, but not in practice. Trying to indicate whether each couple is individually capable of producing children, and to what extent, is a cost the state cannot and should not afford. Because of the biological impossibility of bearing children, gay marriages are thus very easy to classify in terms of baby-making.

Regarding AIDS:

Perhaps it wouldn't prevent the proliferation of AIDS, but do you think the state should sanction an institution in which sex between gay men, which statistically helps AIDS proliferate, is an almost official component?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: jonks

Originally posted by: Atreus21
I contend that there is no fundamental right to marriage.

That's nice. The supreme court said otherwise. So we're pretty much beyond discussing this point.

The SC declared there was a right to privacy. In the decades following that rather profound discovery by the court, there has been regulation and tension defining where that privacy starts and ends. But no one (serious) says anymore that privacy is not a right. Try to get to that point.

Well, if it makes you happy, I contend also that privacy is not a right. I've written about it.

 

[Atreus21]

I hate to bail on this argument as I always do, but I have to go pick up my woman.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Well a fundamental right can be restricted by a strong government interest and if the government response is narrowly tailored to address said governmental interest. Morality isn't sufficient for a governmental interest as from case law. I'm not sure if there's any governmental interest in restricting gay marriage, but maybe there is...can anyone come up with an actual interest beyond morality?

This guy did.

http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

*sigh*. Remember the thread you made about this a long time ago where that article was utterly shredded?
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...e+against+gay+marriage

 

[RabidMongoose]

Originally posted by: Atreus21
In theory I would, but not in practice. Trying to indicate whether each couple is individually capable of producing children, and to what extent, is a cost the state cannot and should not afford. Because of the biological impossibility of bearing children, gay marriages are thus very easy to classify in terms of baby-making.

So are the elderly...or certain people who have undergone certain surgeries that make procreation impossible.

Regarding AIDS:

Perhaps it wouldn't prevent the proliferation of AIDS, but do you think the state should sanction an institution in which sex between gay men, which statistically helps AIDS proliferate, is an almost official component?

Then along the same lines, it also statistically helps other STDs proliferate among a heterosexual population.

The governmental response needs to be very narrow.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JSt0rm01

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Gay couples could lead to societal ills no less severe.

in your opinion. Have you seen what gays have done to urban blight neighborhoods? Thats just one positive of a gay community, I'm sure there are more.

Yes, in my opinion. I don't decry gay activity, at least not argumentatively. I contend that there is no fundamental right to marriage.

Then scrap it, a church marriage isn't recognized by the state either in this case.

Sure, everyone can have their little ceremony as hey please but it won't mean anything, only the signing of the papers will mean anything.

You don't get how rights work, if someone can do it and others are restricted from it, then the rights of thos who can't are de facto diminished, get it?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Well a fundamental right can be restricted by a strong government interest and if the government response is narrowly tailored to address said governmental interest. Morality isn't sufficient for a governmental interest as from case law. I'm not sure if there's any governmental interest in restricting gay marriage, but maybe there is...can anyone come up with an actual interest beyond morality?

This guy did.

http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

*sigh*. Remember the thread you made about this a long time ago where that article was utterly shredded?
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...e+against+gay+marriage

Well, he asked for a government-interest-in-prohibiting-gay-marriage argument, and I gave him the one I know best.

 

[Mr. Lennon]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I'm speaking from a philosophical point. I don't care about legality. Law has been wrong before, is now, and will be again.

And by the CA Supreme Court's ruling, how is it polygamy and marriage between or among family members is still criminalized? And if you support this ruling, do you implicitly endorse this type of behavior? Someone could cite this ruling to justify his or her desire to marry his or her 3 sisters.

We've been over this one before, and the differences have been explained to you. Regardless of all other arguments however, neither polygamists nor incestuous couples are protected classes under the California constitution, so the barriers to their marriage do not face as high a hurdle.

If "people have a fundamental right to marry the person of their choice" according to the CA SC, on what basis is that fundamental right denied to incestuous couples? And why does the SC discriminate against people with more than one partner?

Like I said, this has been explained to you before. Incestuous couples lead to higher incidences of birth defects and other genetic disorders. Furthermore, incestuous couples are not a protected class as I already mentioned. (neither are polygamists)

Gay couples could lead to societal ills no less severe.

What do you mean by protected class?

And even if incestuous couples lead to higher birth defects and disorders, so what? Aren't they entitled to marry the person of their choice, as defined by the Supreme Court of CA?

Societal ills? You mean breaking the social boundaries that we as humans recently created? Same sex encounters were the norm for many many years (IE:Romans).

Out of the whole animal kingdom, we are one of the few, if not only species that refrains from bisexuality/homosexuality due to social constrictions. Ever wonder why the prostate gives pleasure and can lead to orgasm if stimulated? If we were to look at this from a religious perspective....why on earth would God create man with a pleasurable organ only accessed through the anus? I'm not saying every man holds repressed bisexual/homosexual tendencies (I love the poon and would never consider a mans anus), but there is a large amount of men that do.

I'm sure you and most of the people posting in this forum have no problem with girl on girl action. Why? Because it is socially acceptable for women to engage in bisexual behavior. Talk about double standards.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

You don't get how rights work, if someone can do it and others are restricted from it, then the rights of thos who can't are de facto diminished, get it?

Got it. So then why can straight and gay couples marry, and polygamists not marry? Isn't it a right?

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I'm speaking from a philosophical point. I don't care about legality. Law has been wrong before, is now, and will be again.

And by the CA Supreme Court's ruling, how is it polygamy and marriage between or among family members is still criminalized? And if you support this ruling, do you implicitly endorse this type of behavior? Someone could cite this ruling to justify his or her desire to marry his or her 3 sisters.

We've been over this one before, and the differences have been explained to you. Regardless of all other arguments however, neither polygamists nor incestuous couples are protected classes under the California constitution, so the barriers to their marriage do not face as high a hurdle.

If "people have a fundamental right to marry the person of their choice" according to the CA SC, on what basis is that fundamental right denied to incestuous couples? And why does the SC discriminate against people with more than one partner?

Like I said, this has been explained to you before. Incestuous couples lead to higher incidences of birth defects and other genetic disorders. Furthermore, incestuous couples are not a protected class as I already mentioned. (neither are polygamists)

Gay couples could lead to societal ills no less severe.

You need to learn to back up your arguments with more than hot air.

WHAT societal ills? For the third time, you had your chance in court, and failed to show it.

What do you mean by protected class?

The CA Supreme Court ruling - if you could be bothered to click the links we provided you - said that gays are now legally a protected class in CA, insofar as like other protected classes of race and gender, that there is a scrutiny applied to any law regarding them to carefully consider whether the law has justification, rather than being mere bigotry.

And even if incestuous couples lead to higher birth defects and disorders, so what? Aren't they entitled to marry the person of their choice, as defined by the Supreme Court of CA?

You don't understand how the biological problems with incestuous children are a legitimate public issue? You need to deal with that before you ramble further here.

One could make a good argument that the inability to produce children is a societal ill.

So, when we say protected class, we really mean that they have privileges other minorities don't, such as polygamists. I really don't care for this.

The proliferation of AIDS among gay men could be called a legitimate public issue.

1. inability to produce children? so we need testing and verification that a couple WILL produce children to issue a marriage licence?

2. Minorities is any underrepresented group.

3. You really think that married gay men would spread it more than single gay men? What are you, a retarded seashell?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I'm speaking from a philosophical point. I don't care about legality. Law has been wrong before, is now, and will be again.

And by the CA Supreme Court's ruling, how is it polygamy and marriage between or among family members is still criminalized? And if you support this ruling, do you implicitly endorse this type of behavior? Someone could cite this ruling to justify his or her desire to marry his or her 3 sisters.

We've been over this one before, and the differences have been explained to you. Regardless of all other arguments however, neither polygamists nor incestuous couples are protected classes under the California constitution, so the barriers to their marriage do not face as high a hurdle.

If "people have a fundamental right to marry the person of their choice" according to the CA SC, on what basis is that fundamental right denied to incestuous couples? And why does the SC discriminate against people with more than one partner?

Like I said, this has been explained to you before. Incestuous couples lead to higher incidences of birth defects and other genetic disorders. Furthermore, incestuous couples are not a protected class as I already mentioned. (neither are polygamists)

Gay couples could lead to societal ills no less severe.

You need to learn to back up your arguments with more than hot air.

WHAT societal ills? For the third time, you had your chance in court, and failed to show it.

What do you mean by protected class?

The CA Supreme Court ruling - if you could be bothered to click the links we provided you - said that gays are now legally a protected class in CA, insofar as like other protected classes of race and gender, that there is a scrutiny applied to any law regarding them to carefully consider whether the law has justification, rather than being mere bigotry.

And even if incestuous couples lead to higher birth defects and disorders, so what? Aren't they entitled to marry the person of their choice, as defined by the Supreme Court of CA?

You don't understand how the biological problems with incestuous children are a legitimate public issue? You need to deal with that before you ramble further here.

One could make a good argument that the inability to produce children is a societal ill.

So, when we say protected class, we really mean that they have privileges other minorities don't, such as polygamists. I really don't care for this.

The proliferation of AIDS among gay men could be called a legitimate public issue.

1. inability to produce children? so we need testing and verification that a couple WILL produce children to issue a marriage licence?

2. Minorities is any underrepresented group.

3. You really think that married gay men would spread it more than single gay men? What are you, a retarded seashell?

Indeed, I'm a retarded seashell.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

You don't get how rights work, if someone can do it and others are restricted from it, then the rights of thos who can't are de facto diminished, get it?

Got it. So then why can straight and gay couples marry, and polygamists not marry? Isn't it a right?

Because it's not the same issue, both straight and gay men can marry one partner.

Polygamism will have to be examined as it CAN be a problem to society.

This has to be examined first but it's out of the scope of this conversation.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose

Originally posted by: Atreus21
In theory I would, but not in practice. Trying to indicate whether each couple is individually capable of producing children, and to what extent, is a cost the state cannot and should not afford. Because of the biological impossibility of bearing children, gay marriages are thus very easy to classify in terms of baby-making.

So are the elderly...or certain people who have undergone certain surgeries that make procreation impossible.

Regarding AIDS:

Perhaps it wouldn't prevent the proliferation of AIDS, but do you think the state should sanction an institution in which sex between gay men, which statistically helps AIDS proliferate, is an almost official component?

Then along the same lines, it also statistically helps other STDs proliferate among a heterosexual population.

The governmental response needs to be very narrow.

If the state wishes to undergo all the difficulty in determining to 100% accuracy that a person cannot procreate with one of the opposite sex, then I would have no argument against them if they denied marriage to that person, on that basis.

FWIW, surgery is no guarantee. Women have gotten pregnant after having their tubes tied.

My point with that argument is that the state need make no investigation to determine the possibility of procreation when considering a gay couple.

What narrow response would you advocate?

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

In theory I would, but not in practice. Trying to indicate whether each couple is individually capable of producing children, and to what extent, is a cost the state cannot and should not afford. Because of the biological impossibility of bearing children, gay marriages are thus very easy to classify in terms of baby-making.

Regarding AIDS:

Perhaps it wouldn't prevent the proliferation of AIDS, but do you think the state should sanction an institution in which sex between gay men, which statistically helps AIDS proliferate, is an almost official component?

Wait what.

You are now attempting to argue that the government should ban gay marriage because of AIDS, when gay people getting married would nearly certainly decrease the number of sexual partners they would have, and would thus help prevent the spread of AIDS. The government doesn't like a disease, so they should ban activity that would help limit it!

Gay marriage itself has nothing to do with the spread of AIDS, gay sex does. (unless you're trying to argue that gay men wait until marriage to have sex, as sex outside marriage is a sin and all... hahaha.) The idea you are putting forth would be one to ban sodomy, not ban gay marriage. Good luck with that.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

You don't get how rights work, if someone can do it and others are restricted from it, then the rights of thos who can't are de facto diminished, get it?

Got it. So then why can straight and gay couples marry, and polygamists not marry? Isn't it a right?

Because it's not the same issue, both straight and gay men can marry one partner.

Polygamism will have to be examined as it CAN be a problem to society.

This has to be examined first but it's out of the scope of this conversation.

Then the only difference between the polygamy argument and the gay argument is that one minority currently is riding a larger wave of popularity. Their arguments are no different. One is simply more vocal.

 

[fskimospy]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Well a fundamental right can be restricted by a strong government interest and if the government response is narrowly tailored to address said governmental interest. Morality isn't sufficient for a governmental interest as from case law. I'm not sure if there's any governmental interest in restricting gay marriage, but maybe there is...can anyone come up with an actual interest beyond morality?

This guy did.

http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

*sigh*. Remember the thread you made about this a long time ago where that article was utterly shredded?
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...e+against+gay+marriage

Well, he asked for a government-interest-in-prohibiting-gay-marriage argument, and I gave him the one I know best.

Right, and it was shown to be completely full of shit. Why would you keep linking to an utterly discredited argument?

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

In theory I would, but not in practice. Trying to indicate whether each couple is individually capable of producing children, and to what extent, is a cost the state cannot and should not afford. Because of the biological impossibility of bearing children, gay marriages are thus very easy to classify in terms of baby-making.

Regarding AIDS:

Perhaps it wouldn't prevent the proliferation of AIDS, but do you think the state should sanction an institution in which sex between gay men, which statistically helps AIDS proliferate, is an almost official component?

Wait what.

You are now attempting to argue that the government should ban gay marriage because of AIDS, when gay people getting married would nearly certainly decrease the number of sexual partners they would have, and would thus help prevent the spread of AIDS. The government doesn't like a disease, so they should ban activity that would help limit it!

Gay marriage itself has nothing to do with the spread of AIDS, gay sex does. (unless you're trying to argue that gay men wait until marriage to have sex, as sex outside marriage is a sin and all... hahaha.) The idea you are putting forth would be one to ban sodomy, not ban gay marriage. Good luck with that.

Nope. I'm illustrating that there are arguments society could make that put gay activity in terms of a societal ill.

 

[JohnOfSheffield]

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I'm speaking from a philosophical point. I don't care about legality. Law has been wrong before, is now, and will be again.

And by the CA Supreme Court's ruling, how is it polygamy and marriage between or among family members is still criminalized? And if you support this ruling, do you implicitly endorse this type of behavior? Someone could cite this ruling to justify his or her desire to marry his or her 3 sisters.

We've been over this one before, and the differences have been explained to you. Regardless of all other arguments however, neither polygamists nor incestuous couples are protected classes under the California constitution, so the barriers to their marriage do not face as high a hurdle.

If "people have a fundamental right to marry the person of their choice" according to the CA SC, on what basis is that fundamental right denied to incestuous couples? And why does the SC discriminate against people with more than one partner?

Like I said, this has been explained to you before. Incestuous couples lead to higher incidences of birth defects and other genetic disorders. Furthermore, incestuous couples are not a protected class as I already mentioned. (neither are polygamists)

Gay couples could lead to societal ills no less severe.

You need to learn to back up your arguments with more than hot air.

WHAT societal ills? For the third time, you had your chance in court, and failed to show it.

What do you mean by protected class?

The CA Supreme Court ruling - if you could be bothered to click the links we provided you - said that gays are now legally a protected class in CA, insofar as like other protected classes of race and gender, that there is a scrutiny applied to any law regarding them to carefully consider whether the law has justification, rather than being mere bigotry.

And even if incestuous couples lead to higher birth defects and disorders, so what? Aren't they entitled to marry the person of their choice, as defined by the Supreme Court of CA?

You don't understand how the biological problems with incestuous children are a legitimate public issue? You need to deal with that before you ramble further here.

One could make a good argument that the inability to produce children is a societal ill.

So, when we say protected class, we really mean that they have privileges other minorities don't, such as polygamists. I really don't care for this.

The proliferation of AIDS among gay men could be called a legitimate public issue.

1. inability to produce children? so we need testing and verification that a couple WILL produce children to issue a marriage licence?

2. Minorities is any underrepresented group.

3. You really think that married gay men would spread it more than single gay men? What are you, a retarded seashell?

Indeed, I'm a retarded seashell.

I don't think you are, i just think that you've been spoonfed these arguments and they are daft arguments, whoever told you to believe in them is the retarded seashell, my friend.

You really need to think about these things yourself, because i don't think you are daft, i think you're pretty bright from what i've seen in other posts and you can figure this out on your own, if you do and still insist on banning gay marriage, i'd love to hear and debate the arguments, i'm sure that would be a much better debate.

Jake

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: RabidMongoose
Well a fundamental right can be restricted by a strong government interest and if the government response is narrowly tailored to address said governmental interest. Morality isn't sufficient for a governmental interest as from case law. I'm not sure if there's any governmental interest in restricting gay marriage, but maybe there is...can anyone come up with an actual interest beyond morality?

This guy did.

http://tech.mit.edu/V124/N5/kolasinski.5c.html

*sigh*. Remember the thread you made about this a long time ago where that article was utterly shredded?
http://forums.anandtech.com/me...e+against+gay+marriage

Well, he asked for a government-interest-in-prohibiting-gay-marriage argument, and I gave him the one I know best.

Right, and it was shown to be completely full of shit. Why would you keep linking to an utterly discredited argument?

Because I didn't find it to be discredited, only dismissed.

 

[Atreus21]

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: JohnOfSheffield

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: Craig234

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

Originally posted by: eskimospy

Originally posted by: Atreus21

I'm speaking from a philosophical point. I don't care about legality. Law has been wrong before, is now, and will be again.

And by the CA Supreme Court's ruling, how is it polygamy and marriage between or among family members is still criminalized? And if you support this ruling, do you implicitly endorse this type of behavior? Someone could cite this ruling to justify his or her desire to marry his or her 3 sisters.

We've been over this one before, and the differences have been explained to you. Regardless of all other arguments however, neither polygamists nor incestuous couples are protected classes under the California constitution, so the barriers to their marriage do not face as high a hurdle.

If "people have a fundamental right to marry the person of their choice" according to the CA SC, on what basis is that fundamental right denied to incestuous couples? And why does the SC discriminate against people with more than one partner?

Like I said, this has been explained to you before. Incestuous couples lead to higher incidences of birth defects and other genetic disorders. Furthermore, incestuous couples are not a protected class as I already mentioned. (neither are polygamists)

Gay couples could lead to societal ills no less severe.

You need to learn to back up your arguments with more than hot air.

WHAT societal ills? For the third time, you had your chance in court, and failed to show it.

What do you mean by protected class?

The CA Supreme Court ruling - if you could be bothered to click the links we provided you - said that gays are now legally a protected class in CA, insofar as like other protected classes of race and gender, that there is a scrutiny applied to any law regarding them to carefully consider whether the law has justification, rather than being mere bigotry.

And even if incestuous couples lead to higher birth defects and disorders, so what? Aren't they entitled to marry the person of their choice, as defined by the Supreme Court of CA?

You don't understand how the biological problems with incestuous children are a legitimate public issue? You need to deal with that before you ramble further here.

One could make a good argument that the inability to produce children is a societal ill.

So, when we say protected class, we really mean that they have privileges other minorities don't, such as polygamists. I really don't care for this.

The proliferation of AIDS among gay men could be called a legitimate public issue.

1. inability to produce children? so we need testing and verification that a couple WILL produce children to issue a marriage licence?

2. Minorities is any underrepresented group.

3. You really think that married gay men would spread it more than single gay men? What are you, a retarded seashell?

Indeed, I'm a retarded seashell.

I don't think you are, i just think that you've been spoonfed these arguments and they are daft arguments, whoever told you to believe in them is the retarded seashell, my friend.

You really need to think about these things yourself, because i don't think you are daft, i think you're pretty bright from what i've seen in other posts and you can figure this out on your own, if you do and still insist on banning gay marriage, i'd love to hear and debate the arguments, i'm sure that would be a much better debate.

Jake

FWIW, I'm happy with the current state of affairs regarding gay marriage: It's still up to the states.

What I vehemently oppose is the institution of a Roe v. Wade of gay marriage.

The main reason I'm here is because I think people are too quick to dismiss the anti-gay marriage crowd as religion zealots. I want to indicate that there is a secular argument against it.