Does having that on your drivers license make you an organ receiver rather than an organ donor?

Illegitimi non carborundum.

Man, your driver's license, my tax form, we gotta stem the tide!

It is easy to buy small plaster models of what you think life is like.

water closeted homosexualist.

Do you mean Larry Craig?

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Hey! He has a wide stance!

No.  But your argument would only make sense if there were also gay couples in California upset by the lack of "groom/groom" or "bride/bride" forms.  The point is that this is just a government form; it doesn't represent what you actually get called.

I don't think California could constitutionally retroactively invalidate that many marriages, even if it wanted to.

One of the odd things about this is that the form in question has no real religious significance.

Sure it does. It means that the state has disenfranchised their First Amendment rights of freedom of religion and association, at a minimum. It's one thing to say, "we need to accommodate gender neutral marriages." It's quite another to say "this marriage will not be accommodated because of their genders." Surely if the state cannot disallow marriage because of the gender of the couple, it has no business disallowing explicit mention of gender, either.

Sure it does. It means that the state has disenfranchised their First Amendment rights of freedom of religion and association, at a minimum.

What?  First of all, marriage has nothing to do with freedom of association or freedom of religion (see, e.g. Loving v. Virginia and Skinner v. Oklahoma).

Second, how has their right been denied?  Granted it seems like bureaucratic stupidity is the only thing preventing a compromise of some kind here, but no one's saying they can't be married.  They just have to call themselves Party A and Party B on a form that no one will ever look at again.  Where in American jurisprudence is there a right to be called a gender-specific term on a form?

Q: What do you think of western civilization? Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.

Since Loving was one of the precedents cited to justify allowing gay marriage in California, maybe that's not the best counterexample in this case.

They just have to call themselves Party A and Party B on a form that no one will ever look at again.

See, I view this case as roughly equivalent to the story we discussed a while back where the teacher was fired for circling "affirm" (and so on) in a loyalty pledge. No one would ever look at that piece of paper again, but most of us saw that as an unacceptable infringement on her rights. Well, same thing here. Adding "bride" and "groom" does not significantly alter the nature of the marriage certificate. It's still two people getting married. And unlike a loyalty pledge, a marriage certificate is something people do look at, in remembrance books and such.

You think it's fine for some bureaucrat to tell a couple they can't get married if they call themselves the usual words for a newly-married couple?

My point was that Loving was not decided based on First Amendment grounds.  So again, the right to marry has nothing to do with the First Amendment.

First, I think those two examples are distinguishable, because refusing to swear an oath is a tenant of some religions; I'm not aware of any religion that says you cannot be referred to as a "party."

I can't imagine this would matter to me, but I guess whatever floats your boat.  I do think the California clerks should change the form.  I just don't think that this is a First Amendment violation.

Q: What do you think of western civilization? Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.

First, I think those two examples are distinguishable, because refusing to swear an oath is a tenant of some religions; I'm not aware of any religion that says you cannot be referred to as a "party."

The standard Christian marriage service pronounces a couple "man and wife," not "parties A and B."

I do think the California clerks should change the form.  I just don't think that this is a First Amendment violation.

That's fair.

The standard Christian marriage service pronounces a couple "man and wife," not "parties A and B."

Sure, but why does this matter?  For one, that's only the standard wording because the concept of same-sex marriage is new to Christianity.  Second, what about those Christian denominations that do recognize same-sex marriage?  

Finally, why do we want the government to base what it does on what certain religions do?  The marriage certificate is an entirely legal, non-sectarian document that signifies a completely non-sectarian institution (legal marriage, as opposed to the bit that happens in a church, synagogue, mosque, or whatever).

Q: What do you think of western civilization? Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.

Sure, but why does this matter?

It matters because the government has refused to recognize a marriage for a stupid administrative reason.

For one, that's only the standard wording because the concept of same-sex marriage is new to Christianity.

It will remain the standard wording even if same-sex marriage is universally accepted into Christianity, if only because the overwhelming number of marriages will still be between heterosexual couples.

Second, what about those Christian denominations that do recognize same-sex marriage?

I'm willing to bet that they also don't refer to the couple as "parties A and B."

Finally, why do we want the government to base what it does on what certain religions do?

Certain religions? Are you aware of any religions which don't marry men and women?

Are you aware of any religions which don't marry men and women?

Heh. But to answer the question: at all.

My question was more why it matters to them that they're called "Party A" and "Party B" on the form.

I agree this was a dumb reason to deny them a license.  I think the clerk should have just ignored what they wrote on there and done whatever the law says is supposed to happen with a properly filled-out form.

I think it's funny to see these people whining about OUR RIGHTS HAVE BEEN DENIED when there's a significant minority (10% by most estimates) who categorically cannot marry in 48/50 states.  Be upset, sure, but let's keep things in perspective.

Q: What do you think of western civilization? Gandhi: I think it would be a good idea.

This business of gender being linked to words.  If I had a dime for every time a gay couple referred to one party as "boyfriend" or "husband" and the other party as "girlfriend" or "wife" I'd probably have a tidy collection of dimes.  It was quite frequently the case on plastic.  I believe I've seen it here on TnT and other web sites I've been to.  Additionally, the lesbian couple up the street refer to themselves as husband and wife with no sense of hesitation.  My wife's gay cousin married her longtime partner this year in New Jersey and they referred to each other differently as husband and wife.

The point I'm trying to get to, is there anything magically and mystically gender-specific about these words, given the realities of the world around us.  But, what the marriage police in California are getting their bowels in an uproar over isn't the gender-specific language or lack of it on the form.  They are bureaucrats and they've been instructed that, in order to formally recognize something, the form has to be properly filled out.  Perhaps Party A and Party B does sound clinical and cold.  Perhaps the state ought to think about changing the terminology to simply Spouse for either party.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

If I had a dime for every time a gay couple referred to one party as "boyfriend" or "husband" and the other party as "girlfriend" or "wife" I'd probably have a tidy collection of dimes.

I have never heard of this.  Really?  Is this a regional thing?

The lesbian couple up the street live in Delaware, of course.  My wife's cousin lives in New Jersey.  And there were any number of times on plastic that gays would use the terminology.

Illegitimi non carborundum.

The point skeptic was trying to make wasn't that we should literally consider same-sex marriage normal in a demographic sense, but that we should accept it as a societal norm. It's like interracial marriage. While they only makeup a small percentage of marriages in general, most people wouldn't call them "abnormal", or same-race marriages "normal", because to do so would imply a moral judgment.

Well, looking at the demographics of the US I guess being black, or left handed, or blue-eyed counts as being abnormal.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Don't be ridiculous. 17% of Americans have blue eyes (or something close to blue, I suppose), 13% are black, and 12% are left-handed. Gays are, like, 3%.

That's still more than Jehovah's Witnesses, Pentecostals, Jews, and the Capitalist Class.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Lou's reply is valid, but I would add that although homosexuality is much more rare than heterosexuality, it isn't actually rare.  There are millions of homosexuals in the US and their desire to marry is comparable to that of heterosexuals.  

Furthermore, the reason to call opposite-sex marriage "normal" is not to imply that same-sex marriage is rare, but rather, it is to imply that same-sex marriage is abnormal, which implies disapproval.  As I mentioned once before (long ago, in a galaxy far away) homosexuality is as normal for homosexuals as heterosexuality is for heterosexuals.  It should not be considered abnormal.

Lou's reply is valid...

There are millions of homosexuals in the US...

I doubt that there are millions of geniuses in the US, although there are millions of intelligent people.  In any event, geniuses have above-normal intelligence, not normal intelligence.  But we would not consider intelligence to be an abnormal condition.  People who dislike homosexuality will call it abnormal, that is an expression of intolerance.  I suppose that a rabidly anti-intellectual person might also be intolerant of intelligence, but that would be much more rare.  We need to understand that homosexuality, although less common than heterosexuality, is part of a normal range of human sexual variation.  It is not a disease, not a crime against nature, not a perversion, it is just a difference.

I doubt that there are millions of geniuses in the US...

But we would not consider intelligence to be an abnormal condition

We need to understand that homosexuality, although less common than heterosexuality, is part of a normal range of human sexual variation

It is not a disease, not a crime against nature, not a perversion, it is just a difference

I see that as usual, you want to argue about everything, unnecessarily.  However, I will indulge you.  

The term "genius" refers to an extreme condition, it doesn't just mean an intelligent person.  Look it up.

Yes, abnormal intelligence is abnormal, but intelligence is (rightly) considered to be a desirable attribute, not a problem.  Abnormal intelligence is a problem when it is abnormally low, not when it is abnormally high.  Therefore one would more usually refer to very intelligent people as "exceptional" rather than "abnormal".

I do consider some forms of sexuality to be abnormal.  Rape, pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality are abnormal.  I believe that normal sex occurs between consenting adults.  See how conventional I am?

By difference I mean just that, difference, I do not mean "it's not part of the pattern regarded as typical".  Heterosexuality and homosexuality are both relatively typical forms of human sexuality even though one is more prevalent than the other.  

As long as we are still arguing about this, I would like to remind you of the great concern that you previously expressed about the possibility that the rights of minorities would not be protected in some hypothetical new nation that might be created by the secession of some portion of the US.  Do you recognize that homosexuals are a minority whose rights deserve to be protected?  Do you actually care about minority rights at all?  Perhaps you only care about minorities of which you personally are a member.  Is that it?

The term "genius" refers to an extreme condition, it doesn't just mean an intelligent person.  Look it up

Rape, pedophilia, necrophilia, and bestiality are abnormal

Heterosexuality and homosexuality are both relatively typical forms of human sexuality even though one is more prevalent than the other

I would like to remind you of the great concern that you previously expressed about the possibility that the rights of minorities would not be protected in some hypothetical new nation that might be created by the secession of some portion of the US.  Do you recognize that homosexuals are a minority whose rights deserve to be protected?

While it would be tremendously tedious to work through your latest load of bullshit to reply to everything you have said, I will reply to your effort to place homosexuality on the same moral footing as pedophilia and other sexual behavior which is coercive in nature rather than being conducted between consenting adults.  This shows the moral void in your own world-view, rather than pointing out an inconsistency in mine, as you were attempting to do.  If it is not obvious to you that sex between consenting adults is more morally acceptable than sex that adults force upon unwilling children, there is no point in talking to you.  You really deserve to be called a troll (as Lou has done).  I have tried to comply with the treesandthings ideal of comments that refrain from name calling, but in your case, my restraint leads only to more arguments which never end.  You are a troll.  Fuck off.

If it is not obvious to you that sex between consenting adults is more morally acceptable than sex that adults force upon unwilling children...

Anyway, you refuse to address the central point: that your definition of what is normal and abnormal is entirely arbitrary and it is therefore no more valid than anyone else's definition. You base the civil rights of homosexuals on there being "millions of homosexuals in the US," and the logical conclusion to draw is that if a minority is sufficiently small then you do not feel the need to confer rights upon them. Similarly, your call for tolerance for homosexuals seems to be based entirely on your claim (arbitrary though it is) that they are "normal," and the logical conclusion to draw is that you would not accord civil rights on a person whom you do not consider "normal."

That's one of the problems with you liberals: everyone is a member of a group and you treat people differently depending on their group membership. It is a shoddy sort of morality that you have, so I suppose I should not be surprised that you are boor.

you liberals

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

I really shouldn't even be replying to you, but you make SUCH ridiculous statements that it is difficult to avoid the temptation of replying.  The whole point of respecting the rights of minorities is precisely to AVOID treating people differently depending upon their group membership.  Everybody has the same rights, regardless of the groups to which they belong.  Hence, just as heterosexuals are allowed  to marry the people that they love, so should homosexuals be allowed to marry the people they love.  That is equal treatment.  You argue for discrimination against homosexuals and then justify on the basis that we liberals treat everyone differently depending upon their group membership.  What a twisted mind you have.

The point about pedophiles not necessarily being rapists avoids the issue that children are more vulnerable than adults, their lives are controlled by adults, and most pedophiles are rapists, and that if pedophilia is tolerated, then there will be a lot of rape as a result.  The exact age at which a person could be considered ready to give informed consent to sex, is still open for some debate, particularly as it already varies by jurisdiction.  

My definition of normal vs. abnormal is not arbitrary in any way.  I respect human rights and therefore I oppose coercive sex, whereas sex between consenting adults is within reason.  Necrophilia, which I also mentioned, might be considered a special case since corpses can neither consent nor object to sex (or anything else); necrophilia is not coercive even though it is also not consensual.  However, in this case we can respect the wishes of the relatives of the deceased, who generally do not want the bodies in question to suffer an indignity.  I know you like to quibble about things.

Everybody has the same rights, regardless of the groups to which they belong

You argue for discrimination against homosexuals...

The reason why I mentioned that there are millions of homosexuals is that you tried to categorized heterosexuality as typical, and homosexuality as atypical.  The point is that there are enough homosexuals that this is not such an atypical form of sexuality.  However, my argument does not depend upon homosexuality being typical or atypical.  it is not numbers which determines rights.  Everybody has rights, even if they are the sole member of some particular category of person.  If there was only person on Earth whose particular sexual desire is for albino Lithuanian dwarves who speak Italian, that person has the same rights as anyone else (although people with excessively esoteric sexual criteria may be doomed to lives of sexual frustration).

Since my entire argument from the beginning has been in defense of the right of homosexuals to marry, despite the fallacious argument that the existence of same-sex marriage necessarily detracts from the rights of heterosexuals (that's what this whole story is about, a heterosexual couple who refuse to marry on the grounds that the marriage certificate is designed to include same-sex marriage as well as opposite-sex marriage) and you are trying to prove me wrong, therefore, you must necessarily be an opponent of same-sex marriage, thus, you are arguing for discrimination against homosexuals, by denying them the right enjoyed by heterosexuals, to marry a consenting adult whom they wish to marry.

If, however, you actually support same-sex marriage, then this entire argument has been about absolutely nothing, and you are just arguing to be obnoxious, which would actually not be that unusual for you, which is why I have called you a troll.

But do not despair, you are getting somewhere!  I find that I spend most of my time on this site engaged in meaningless arguments with you, which get nowhere because you never seem to be able (or willing)to comprehend or admit to the logic of what I am saying, and although I have said repeatedly that I don't even want to argue with you anymore, you insist on posting arguments which, if I ignore them, will give the wrong impression to other readers.  So I am prepared to just stop posting comments on this site.  You will succeed in driving me away.  A great accomplishment, no doubt.  Then  you will have more time available to harass other participants.

and although I have said repeatedly that I don't even want to argue with you anymore, you insist on posting arguments which, if I ignore them, will give the wrong impression to other readers.

Understandable concern, but it is totally incorrect. In fact, when I read a battle between two posters, I'm sometimes more impressed with the person who chooses to end it by not posting again.

The reason why I mentioned that there are millions of homosexuals is that you tried to categorized [sic] heterosexuality as typical, and homosexuality as atypical

The point is that there are enough homosexuals that this is not such an atypical form of sexuality

Since my entire argument from the beginning has been in defense of the right of homosexuals to marry...and you are trying to prove me wrong, therefore, you must necessarily be an opponent of same-sex marriage

If, however, you actually support same-sex marriage, then this entire argument has been about absolutely nothing, and you are just arguing to be obnoxious, which would actually not be that unusual for you, which is why I have called you a troll

...you never seem to be able (or willing)to comprehend or admit to the logic of what I am saying...

...you will have more time available to harass other participants

So far you haven't shown any capacity for logical reasoning, which causes you to conclude incorrectly that my own arguments are not logical (this also leads to your previous claim that I don't even know what the word "logic" means).  In your latest diatribe, you tell me that my position is deeply flawed because I have stated that same-sex marriage should be considered as normal as opposite sex marriage.  If you consider that assertion to be deeply flawed, then you don't agree with it, right?  Would that seem to be a logical conclusion to you?  OK.  So if you don't agree that same-sex marriage is normal, then you must consider it to be abnormal, right?  Again, perfectly logical.  Your next statement is "If I were against homosexuals marrying, all I would have to respond with is, 'no it shouldn't be considered normal' and the argument would be over."  This completely contradicts what you previously said, that I am wrong to argue that same-sex marriage is normal.  You have no difficulty making logically contradictory statements and then criticizing me for a lack of logic.  It is still impossible to tell whether you consider same-sex marriage to be normal or abnormal based upon your contradictory assertions, and actually, I doubt that you even HAVE an opinion, you just want to argue with everything that I say.

And no, I do not resort to name-calling when I am incapable of constructing a reasoned or compelling argument.  I have resorted to it because you refuse to recognize a reasoned or compelling argument when you read one.  Since there is no way to reach you, I am left with either name-calling or just giving up on posting comments entirely, which is a better option than continuing to waste my time arguing with you.

...causes you to conclude incorrectly that my own arguments are not logical

...you tell me that my position is deeply flawed because I have stated that same-sex marriage should be considered as normal as opposite sex marriage

If you consider that assertion to be deeply flawed...

...then you don't agree with it, right?

So if you don't agree that same-sex marriage is normal, then you must consider it to be abnormal, right?

Your next statement is "If I were against homosexuals marrying, all I would have to respond with is, 'no it shouldn't be considered normal' and the argument would be over."  This completely contradicts what you previously said, that I am wrong to argue that same-sex marriage is normal

It is still impossible to tell whether you consider same-sex marriage to be normal or abnormal...

I have offered you many logical arguments, and you illogically conclude that because I have also made some assertions, that I have no logical arguments, just assertions.  You are selectively blind.

After all that argument, your position on the normality or abnormality of same-sex marriage is that the question is irrelevant.  But considering that many people oppose same-sex marriage on the grounds of its supposed abnormality, while other support it as something which deserves to be accepted as normal, this is obviously a relevant question to the discussion at hand.  And after all, what exactly are we arguing about?  I have already explained this to you but explanation never helps, in your case.  This is a story about two people who are trying to make the case that if same-sex couples are allowed to marry, thus sullying the very marriage application form, then opposite-sex couples such as themselves will be unable to marry, thus proving how homosexuality is a threat to the American Way of Life.  I have offered a refutation of this bigoted argument, whereas you just want to invent ridiculous quibbles about my phrasing, on the grounds that the issue itself is irrelevant.

I am convinced that you truly are a troll and it is a complete waste of my time to talk to you at all.  However, I will still reply to your comments.  I will just do it more briefly.  One word will suffice.  Troll.

I have offered you many logical arguments...

After all that argument, your position on the normality or abnormality of same-sex marriage is that the question is irrelevant

This is a story about two people who are trying to make the case that ...homosexuality is a threat to the American Way of Life

troll

He also thinks rape is natural.  Go figure.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

Gee, Lou, do you think that rape is unnatural? (What does that even mean, anyway?)

Hey, that mandatory genetic transfer doesn't happen by itself, thou knows.

It's the end of the world as we know it, and I feel fine

There is a difference between "denaturalizing" existing gender roles, and undermining them.  The concept that heterosexuality is "natural" and homosexuality is therefore "unnatural" is not a necessary underpinning of the heterosexual world.  Instead, we recognize (or at least some of us do) that nature, and human society, are both large enough to include different types of sexuality.  We don't all have to be forced into the same mold.  A man need not marry a woman out of a feeling that this is the inevitable and inescapable fate of all men.  But he can still marry a woman if that is what he wants to do.  Or if he prefers, he can marry another man.  Or he can remain unmarried.  All of those are reasonable options, which must be chosen by the individual on the basis of individual needs and desires.  

Of course denaturalizing traditional "gender roles" undermines them, that traditional "gender roles" are natural is the most powerful argument for them.

You can disagree with a statement, but you can't pretend it means whatever you want. You should also follow the link and read pages 113 and 114.

You are absolutely wrong.  The most powerful and indeed, the only meaningful reason for a person to conform to a heterosexual role would be that the person in question actually is heterosexual.  Whereas the concept that gender roles are traditional and natural is used to force people to conform to those role whether the role fits the individual or not.  It is not in any way necessary or useful to suppress homosexuality in order to support heterosexuality.  One does not detract from the other.  Your belief that these two sexual modes are in opposition to each other rather than merely being two available options, is perfectly comparable to an attempt to prevent anyone from eating vanilla ice cream on the grounds that you personally prefer chocolate.