Town Square

Post a New Topic

Same Sex Marriage, Prop 8, DOMA, Supreme Court

Original post made by Paul Losch, Community Center, on Mar 24, 2013

I have seen a great deal of the world, and I am of the opinion that overall, the Bay Area consists of the most open minded people than you can find anywhere else. (Well maybe Canada!)

This story contains 539 words.

If you are a paid subscriber, check to make sure you have logged in. Otherwise our system cannot recognize you as having full free access to our site.

If you are a paid print subscriber and haven't yet set up an online account, click here to get your online account activated.

Comments (18)

Like this comment
Posted by John
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 25, 2013 at 3:10 pm

Paul,

Would you support a fundamental ammendment to our U.S. Constitution that says:

Consenting adults are allowed to marry?


Like this comment
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Mar 25, 2013 at 8:39 pm

Uh, John, would that be two consenting adults, or three or four? Which cultures do we wish to limit?


Like this comment
Posted by going to the chapel
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Mar 26, 2013 at 8:55 am

remove the word marriage from all federal laws, and the tax code

get government out of our lives


Like this comment
Posted by John
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 26, 2013 at 11:46 am

>Uh, John, would that be two consenting adults, or three or four?

No limit on number or gender or relationship. Consenting adults would be able to express their freedom, as they wish. There has been too much bigotry against gays and polygamists. Time to get it right, all at once, IMO.

>Which cultures do we wish to limit?

None.


Like this comment
Posted by Fred
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 26, 2013 at 3:39 pm

Could I marry my dog? Or my dining table? Could I marry all my dining chairs? Or Ursa Major? Where do we draw the line?


Like this comment
Posted by where do we draw the line
a resident of College Terrace
on Mar 26, 2013 at 4:33 pm

These "where do we draw the line" arguments display the same bigotry that the social conservatives used to ban interracial marriage. Gay marriage is about gay marriage. It is not about anything else.


Like this comment
Posted by John
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 26, 2013 at 5:01 pm

I am only talking about human beings, consenting adults, not other species or innanimate objects. Why is it so terrible that consenting adults are allowed to marry, except for the bigotry that opposes it?

Paul Losch, what do you think?


Like this comment
Posted by musical
a resident of Palo Verde
on Mar 26, 2013 at 7:53 pm

Three or four incomes would sure make Palo Alto housing more affordable, and price "normal" people out.


Like this comment
Posted by Fred
a resident of Another Palo Alto neighborhood
on Mar 27, 2013 at 10:24 am

OK, so this is only about gay marriage. But the crux of the argument is that we should allow people to marry the person they love, regardless of their gender. It's only a short hop from that to marrying multiple people they love, to marrying creatures they love, to marrying things they love and you can bet those cases will be coming up, more or less in that order.

So the question stands: how do we define marriage and where do we draw the line?


Like this comment
Posted by where do we draw the line
a resident of College Terrace
on Mar 27, 2013 at 10:40 am

The issue is gay marriage. Period. If you want to argue about something else, take it elsewhere.


Like this comment
Posted by John
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 27, 2013 at 10:54 am

>The issue is gay marriage. Period. If you want to argue about something else, take it elsewhere.

That statement is typical of the bigots that oppose freedom to marry, because it would also involve plural marriage, not only gay and straight marriage. There appear to be many advocates of gay marriage that are bigots ("hey, I'm getting mine, could care less about you!")

A simple ammendment to the Constituion:

"Consenting adults are allowed to marry", settles the issue for almost everyone. The only line drawn is age (of adulthood); limited to humans only, because only they can legally consent.


Like this comment
Posted by Huh?
a resident of Duveneck/St. Francis
on Mar 27, 2013 at 4:14 pm

Oh, so since Paul Losch the white guy says now is the time, only after he's been exposed to lots of gays and different ethnicities in his lifetime, then I guess we should all fall in line behind him.


Like this comment
Posted by Not an issue
a resident of Community Center
on Mar 27, 2013 at 4:32 pm

Fred- I am sure you will derive more sexual pleasure from that dining chair than an human that You would marry


Like this comment
Posted by John
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 27, 2013 at 6:28 pm

"Consenting adults are allowed to marry"

Come on, Paul Losch, do you agree (or not)? If not, how would you explain your own bigotry?


Like this comment
Posted by going to the chapel
a resident of Adobe-Meadow
on Mar 27, 2013 at 7:40 pm

Rather than just highlight John's "concern trolling" and calling others "bigots" ("That statement is typical of the bigots...",) let's just ask John what groups are seeking what he proposes.

Who seeks plural marriages, John?

Why don't you put a proposition on the ballot?

Including incestuous and polygamous marriages as part of the same sex marriage debate, which have never been part of the mainstream of American marriage, is a red herring and it is disingenuous.

To imply that homosexual marriage as discussed in the American cultural context is somehow equivalent to incestuous or polygamous marriage is deceptive and is typical of those who bloviate against gay marriage.

At least John hasn't been lame enough to bring bestiality into it.

Yet.

I'll stick with my original thought: remove the word marriage from all federal laws, and the tax code, all 1,100 instances of it

get government out of our lives


Like this comment
Posted by Paul Losch
a resident of Community Center
on Mar 27, 2013 at 10:11 pm

John,

Not takin' the bait, big guy. Fish elsewhere.


Like this comment
Posted by John
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 28, 2013 at 1:01 pm

>Not takin' the bait, big guy. Fish elsewhere.

Paul, there is no "bait" to take. Just an honest question. What is wrong with a simple proposition that consenting adults be allowed to marry? Try some intellectual honesty.

A palpable historic example of the bigotry of those who oppose the concept was manifested in the coercion (with military arms by the U.S. government) to force the Mormons to give up their beliefs in plural marriage. In fact, Romney's own grandfather was forced to escape to Mexico, in order to avoid the bigotry and hatred. Surely, we must have progressed enough, by this time, to get over this bigotted view of personal freedoms.

Give it an honest try, Paul.


Like this comment
Posted by John
a resident of Midtown
on Mar 28, 2013 at 8:11 pm

[Post removed by Palo Alto Online staff.]




Sorry, but further commenting on this topic has been closed.

Lemonade to open in Palo Alto June 24
By Elena Kadvany | 5 comments | 12,789 views

Summer Reading Meets Cooking Class at Local Libraries
By Laura Stec | 4 comments | 4,355 views

Housing for Low Income Residents and Affordable Housing
By Steve Levy | 33 comments | 2,371 views

1 pound weight loss unloads 4 pounds of joint stress
By Max Greenberg | 0 comments | 1,034 views

What do I enjoy?
By Cheryl Bac | 0 comments | 853 views