# CA Supreme Court asks Brown for response to Prop 8 suits. **URL:** \ **Category:** Great Debates\ **Created:** [November 16, 2008, 12:30am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931 "2008-11-16T00:30:35Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 8:28pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/21 "2008-11-18T20:28:19Z")
Since this is GD and not the Pit, I seek clarification of your view without all the rancor, magellan01. As I understand it, without having gone through all the Pit stuff, you think the term “marriage” represents and ought to represent only the "ideal " form of union: 1 man and 1 woman. For society to permit the term “marriage” to describe any other form of union other than that “ideal” somehow detracts from the term or dilutes it’s societal impact. This detraction from or dilution of the meaning of the term “marriage” may cause people, over time, to seek fewer “ideal” unions because the term somehow carries less weight than if the term “marriage” described only the “ideal” form of union. A society in which its members seek fewer “ideal” unions is not as healthy as one in which its members seek more "ideal " unions. Is that about it? ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 8:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/22 "2008-11-18T20:52:34Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Let me guess, you think anyone who opposes SSM is a bigot. Is that right? If so, how can I thank you for this novel observation and profound contribution? > :rolleyes: Like others, I’d really like to hear a _non_-bigoted argument for why SSM should be illegal. ---
**Author:** ![Menocchio](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/9de053/32.png) [@Menocchio](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Menocchio)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 10:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/23 "2008-11-18T22:31:04Z")
If you believe that gay people ought not to have the right to marriage, then you must believe that same-sex unions are unworthy of the title. That they are a lesser thing than heterosexual unions, and it would diminish the concept of marriage (and therefore damage existing marriages or future heterosexual marriages), if same-sex unions could share in the definition. If you do not recognize homosexual relationships as being as valid as heterosexual ones, then you are stating that homosexual people are somehow damaged or lesser than heterosexual people. An attraction to and love for the same gender is too core to a gay person’s being to pretend that you like gay people but don’t like gay relationships. It’s like saying you like NASCAR but don’t like cars driving fast in circles. If you believe that homosexuals are inferior to heterosexuals, then you are, definitionally, a bigot. ---
**Author:** ![Cliffy](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/59ef9b/32.png) [@Cliffy](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Cliffy)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 10:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/24 "2008-11-18T22:37:06Z")
There is no reason to deny gays marriage except for reasons of prejudice against gays. Q.E.D. You might think differently. But you’d be wrong. –Cliffy ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/25 "2008-11-18T23:02:24Z")
> [@Syntropy](#): > > I completely agree. After all, you probably have nothing against gays. I bet some of your best friends are gay. They just shouldn’t marry each other because being gay is an abomination. We can prove it’s an abomination because it says so in the Bible, and you can’t get more iron clad proof than something that was said a couple of thousands of years ago by a guy who lived in a yurt claiming to speak on behalf of a spirit. After all, it isn’t as if marriage is a legal contract. You know, before you go and put words in my mouth or otherwise ascribe a position to me, you might want to understand what that position actually is. A quick search or a peek at the two current pit threads wold give you invaluable clues as to what my thoughts on the subject actually are. But if you’d rather remain clueless, such is your right. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 11:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/26 "2008-11-18T23:04:16Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You know, before you go and put words in my mouth or otherwise ascribe a position to me, you might want to understand what that position actually is. A quick search or a peek at the two current pit threads wold give you invaluable clues as to what my thoughts on the subject actually are. But if you’d rather remain clueless, such is your right. The thing is, we’re not in The Pit, we’re in Great Debates. I’d much rather you state your opinion on the matter here, without bringing in the vitriol of The Pit. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 11:05pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/27 "2008-11-18T23:05:38Z")
> [@Xan](#): > > You’re proving my point. I thought your point was that all those who oppose SSM were bigots. Is that right? If so, how did what I wrote to which you responded with the above prove that point. Perhaps we have different definitions of “prove” or “point”. Or “logical”. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/28 "2008-11-18T23:14:05Z")
> [@Bearflag70](#): > > Since this is GD and not the Pit, I seek clarification of your view without all the rancor, magellan01. > > As I understand it, without having gone through all the Pit stuff, you think the term “marriage” represents and ought to represent only the "ideal " form of union: 1 man and 1 woman. > > For society to permit the term “marriage” to describe any other form of union other than that “ideal” somehow detracts from the term or dilutes it’s societal impact. > > This detraction from or dilution of the meaning of the term “marriage” may cause people, over time, to seek fewer “ideal” unions because the term somehow carries less weight than if the term “marriage” described only the “ideal” form of union. > > A society in which its members seek fewer “ideal” unions is not as healthy as one in which its members seek more "ideal " unions. > > Is that about it? Pretty much. As far as the rancor, if someone is going to call me a bigot (which shouldn’t even be allowed in GD, as it is a personal insult) and then not even back it up, they deserve to be dealt with appropriately. I will stay within the rules of GD, but that is all they deserve. If they communicate as you have, they will be treated civilly in kind. It’s up to them. ---
**Author:** ![Lakai](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/9de0a6/32.png) [@Lakai](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lakai)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 11:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/29 "2008-11-18T23:14:07Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > You know, before you go and put words in my mouth or otherwise ascribe a position to me, you might want to understand what that position actually is. A quick search or a peek at the two current pit threads wold give you invaluable clues as to what my thoughts on the subject actually are. But if you’d rather remain clueless, such is your right. Can you post a link to the relevant post or something? It would be a lot easier for you to find the post and link to it here then to have everyone that takes issue with you to go off searching for it in The Pit. FWIW, it’s not clear to me how someone can oppose SSM without being a bigot. I’m very interested in hearing your views on the subject. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 11:19pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/30 "2008-11-18T23:19:23Z")
> [@Cliffy](#): > > There is no reason to deny gays marriage except for reasons of prejudice against gays. Q.E.D. You might think differently. But you’d be wrong. > > –Cliffy Before I respond to this, it’ll help to be specific and get our definitions down. How are you using the word “prejudice”? [Dictionary.com](http://Dictionary.com) Unabridged (v 1.1) - Cite This Source - Share This prej⋅u⋅dice   [prej-uh-dis] Show IPA Pronunciation noun, verb, -diced, -dic⋅ing. –noun 1. an unfavorable opinion or feeling formed beforehand or without knowledge, thought, or reason. 2. any preconceived opinion or feeling, either favorable or unfavorable. 3. unreasonable feelings, opinions, or attitudes, esp. of a hostile nature, regarding a racial, religious, or national group. 4. such attitudes considered collectively: The war against prejudice is never-ending. 5. damage or injury; detriment: a law that operated to the prejudice of the majority. –verb (used with object) 6. to affect with a prejudice, either favorable or unfavorable: His honesty and sincerity prejudiced us in his favor. —Idiom 7. without prejudice, Law. without dismissing, damaging, or otherwise affecting a legal interest or demand. Not to say that there aren’t other definitions. Or feel free to craft your own. I just want to be clear as to what I’m responding to. ---
**Author:** ![Bearflag70](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/8e7dd6/32.png) [@Bearflag70](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Bearflag70)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 11:35pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/31 "2008-11-18T23:35:13Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > Pretty much. > > If they communicate as you have, they will be treated civilly in kind. It’s up to them. Thanks. I get it. I don’t like it or agree with it, but I get it. This might be a bad analogy, but I think you are saying something sort of like you think all NFL teams are created equal and should be treated equally. You have nothing against any team, and we should all play by the same rules with all teams being “created” equal, but the Lombardi Trophy should only go to one team… the one that wins the Super Bowl … the team that society finds to be the most ideal team. If you start handing out Lombardi Trophies to every team, then teams as a whole are less likely to strive to win the Super Bowl, and the entire NFL suffers for it. The teams that do not win the Super Bowl are not “lesser” teams to be judged as inferior or otherwise lacking in character, but are to be respected as legitimate teams; they just don’t get a trophy for playing. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 11:36pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/32 "2008-11-18T23:36:42Z")
> [@Lakai](#): > > Can you post a link to the relevant post or something? It would be a lot easier for you to find the post and link to it here then to have everyone that takes issue with you to go off searching for it in The Pit. > > FWIW, it’s not clear to me how someone can oppose SSM without being a bigot. I’m very interested in hearing your views on the subject. To add to the synopsis that Bearflag70 offered: I want gays to enjoy ALL legal rights, including military service, adoption, what have you, save “marriage”. I think that this is a very reasonable compromise between what the most strident SSM proponent advocates and what society at large wants. ---
**Author:** ![Gangster\_Octopus](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/a8b319/32.png) [@Gangster\_Octopus](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gangster_Octopus)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 11:37pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/33 "2008-11-18T23:37:51Z")
Don’t you guys know that both sides of any argument are always of equal merit??? ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 11:43pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/34 "2008-11-18T23:43:50Z")
> [@Bearflag70](#): > > Thanks. I get it. I don’t like it or agree with it, but I get it. > > This might be a bad analogy, but I think you are saying something sort of like you think all NFL teams are created equal and should be treated equally. You have nothing against any team, and we should all play by the same rules with all teams being equal, but the Lombardi Trophy should only go to one team… the one that wins the Super Bowl … the team that society finds to be the most ideal team. If you start handing out Lombardi Trophies to every team, then teams as a whole are less likely to strive to win the Super Bowl, and the entire NFL suffers for it. The teams that do not win the Super Bowl are not “lesser” teams to be judged as inferior or otherwise lacking in character, but are to be respected as legitimate teams; they just don’t get a trophy for playing. That’s not where I would have gone, but it’s an interesting take, I will admit. While it kinda works, I’d be loathe to attempt to build on it as a foundation. The one quibble I’d have with it, even as a very rough analogy, is the notion of that the “trophy” is earned. I’d say the trophy of “marriage” is more met by criteria than by performance at a given moment of time, only to be forfeited later. ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 18, 2008, 11:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/35 "2008-11-18T23:45:02Z")
> [@Gangster\_Octopus](#): > > Don’t you guys know that both sides of any argument are always of equal merit??? Of course, “always” is not of issue here. But you knew that. I hope. ---
**Author:** ![E-Sabbath](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/e/e19adc/32.png) [@E-Sabbath](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/E-Sabbath)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 12:24am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/36 "2008-11-19T00:24:36Z")
An attempt at a non-bigoted argument against SSM. Sex should only be for the purposes of procreation. Sex should only happen within the boundaries of marriage. Therefore, only people who have a chance of procreating should be married. Of course, this means that people who shouldn’t have children shouldn’t get married, like first cousins. Hm… anywhere else to go with this? I don’t think I have to take a position on divorce. Maybe childless marriages should be annulled, but I don’t think that’s relevant to the argument, either. (This is not my perspective on things, just trying for the intellectual exercise.) ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 12:31am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/37 "2008-11-19T00:31:27Z")
> [@E-Sabbath](#): > > Sex should only be for the purposes of procreation. Sex should only happen within the boundaries of marriage. Therefore, only people who have a chance of procreating should be married. My wife and I have no kids, and I’ve been snipped. The only ways we could have children would be through artificial insemination or adoption- both of which are open to a gay couple, as well. ---
**Author:** ![Lightnin](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/lightnin/32/180_2.png) [@Lightnin](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lightnin)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 12:36am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/38 "2008-11-19T00:36:11Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > I want gays to enjoy ALL legal rights, including military service, adoption, what have you, save “marriage”. I think that this is a very reasonable compromise between what the most strident SSM proponent advocates and what society at large wants. The \*only \*way I would agree with you would be if \*all \*marriages were converted to civil unions (with those civil unions available to same-sex couples), and “marriage” would be a non-binding church-granted… uh, thing. Status? Either make all marriages civil unions, or allow everyone to marry whomever they want. Separate-but-equal just doesn’t work. It’d be way too easy for companies to say, “we allow benefits for marriages, but not for civil unions”. ---
**Author:** ![kaylasdad99](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kaylasdad99/32/3398_2.png) [@kaylasdad99](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/kaylasdad99)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/39 "2008-11-19T00:56:04Z")
> [@magellan01](#): > > That’s the great thing about inventing your own tautologies, you never have to prove your proposition. Here, let me try: anyone who does not see that one can oppose SSM and not be a bigot is a schertellhumper\*. > > This is FUN!!! scher·tell·hump·er\* (shûr\*\*‘\*\* tl hump’ ur [sup]_ting!_[/sup]) _N.B. in some regions, the asterisk is silent._ NOUN A person of at least average perspicacity. _The schertellhumper, having the sense God gave a goose, decided against wearing roller skates on the ice rink._ ---
**Author:** ![magellan01](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/45deac/32.png) [@magellan01](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/magellan01)\ **Post date:** [November 19, 2008, 1:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931/40 "2008-11-19T01:12:49Z")
> [@kaylasdad99](#): > > scher·tell·hump·er\* (shûr\*\*‘\*\* tl hump’ ur [sup]_ting!_[/sup]) > > _N.B. in some regions, the asterisk is silent._ > > NOUN > > A person of at least average perspicacity. > > _The schertellhumper, having the sense God gave a goose, decided against wearing roller skates on the ice rink._ Yes, but you forgot to mention that the come from Doltschlund, which, having been built on Mt. Smarcasmkassle, usually described opponents and interlocutors using antonyms. But, nicely done otherwise. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/ca-supreme-court-asks-brown-for-response-to-prop-8-suits/472931.md?page=3)