FEDERAL JUDGE knocks down PRO 8 in CA...

[verslibre]

How can a country where we have things like Ashley Madison advertising all over the radio have the nerve to talk about protecting the institution of marriage?

Because the guy who started AshleyMadison.com paid for all that advertising to promote it. Freedom of enterprise, you know. Kind of a weak point to try to make.

[bluejeangirl76]

Bobby, why do you press enter 40 times before typing your reply? I've been wondering that for 2 days.

My computer jumps when there's a lot of quotes at the top and that's the only way I can type and read it. Usually I'm tryping blind because the box is jumping each time I type a letter.

Switch your browser. IE does that to me. Use FireFox or Chrome.

[BobbyinTN]

Bobby, why do you press enter 40 times before typing your reply? I've been wondering that for 2 days.

My computer jumps when there's a lot of quotes at the top and that's the only way I can type and read it. Usually I'm tryping blind because the box is jumping each time I type a letter.

Switch your browser. IE does that to me. Use FireFox or Chrome.

I'll look into that. Thank you.

[Angel]

Next you see people want to vote for who is considered CONSENTING ADULTS and want to change it to 14+ or some this like that ,,, No one said that it will happen immidiately,,,, but if there are changes being made and there are laws being bent to fit some people, then other groups will push for what they personally categorize as their pursuit of happiness.

Why do you think that same sex marriages would lead to changing the age of consent? The reason minors cannot consent to marriage, or medical procedures, or binding contracts of any kind-is because they have not completed the developmental stages necessary to be able to fully comprehend the consequences of their decisions. How does that in any way resemble same sex marriages? Are you saying that because two people of the same gender-who are both adults-love each other, there must be something wrong with them that makes them incapable of understanding the consequences of their decisions? I just don't understand why you are bringing in a totally separate issue that is not even remotely related to this issue to try to prove your point.

[Angel]

Switch your browser. IE does that to me. Use FireFox or Chrome.

Or delete all of the quotes except the one you are referring to.....like I've done here-that would even be mo bettah so we don't have to see the same conversation over and over and over in its entirety. (just a suggestion!)

[Behshad]

Next you see people want to vote for who is considered CONSENTING ADULTS and want to change it to 14+ or some this like that ,,, No one said that it will happen immidiately,,,, but if there are changes being made and there are laws being bent to fit some people, then other groups will push for what they personally categorize as their pursuit of happiness.

Why do you think that same sex marriages would lead to changing the age of consent? The reason minors cannot consent to marriage, or medical procedures, or binding contracts of any kind-is because they have not completed the developmental stages necessary to be able to fully comprehend the consequences of their decisions. How does that in any way resemble same sex marriages? Are you saying that because two people of the same gender-who are both adults-love each other, there must be something wrong with them that makes them incapable of understanding the consequences of their decisions? I just don't understand why you are bringing in a totally separate issue that is not even remotely related to this issue to try to prove your point.

NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO WHATSOEVER,,,,, BUT the more we bent the laws and allows replacements, then you better be ready IF something like that comes up. You better be ready also when you vote NO for "your grandkids to be legal at age of 14" , but a judge make the final decision .,... just sayin

[Angel]

NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO WHATSOEVER,,,,, BUT the more we bent the laws and allows replacements, then you better be ready IF something like that comes up. You better be ready also when you vote NO for "your grandkids to be legal at age of 14" , but a judge make the final decision .,... just sayin

Well in that case then maybe we should reinstate a ban on women voting and slavery because those changes are what lead to this change and this change may lead to the legal rape of children.

[Jana]

NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO WHATSOEVER,,,,, BUT the more we bent the laws and allows replacements, then you better be ready IF something like that comes up. You better be ready also when you vote NO for "your grandkids to be legal at age of 14" , but a judge make the final decision .,... just sayin

Well in that case then maybe we should reinstate a ban on women voting and slavery because those changes are what lead to this change and this change may lead to the legal rape of children.

[StevePerryHair]

Fourteen was young enough for marriage in the south when my dad was a young man....the 60's? Those stricter laws are newer laws. As people have become more aware, smarter and children are FINALLY getting more rights!! But still not enough rights!! Talk about a group of neglected society!! Children are at the top! Just as we learned more about the harms of smoking and laws have changed people saw over time the harm done to a human being when put in adult situations before they are developed. Why does anyone assume childrens rights laws would go backwards when they've come such a long way? I think society is a bit smarter than that now. Call me an hopeful optimist

[bluejeangirl76]

How can a country where we have things like Ashley Madison advertising all over the radio have the nerve to talk about protecting the institution of marriage?

Because the guy who started AshleyMadison.com paid for all that advertising to promote it. Freedom of enterprise, you know. Kind of a weak point to try to make.

No, my point was we live in a place where things like that are promoted... and why? Well, there wouldn't be a "company" like that unless there was interest in that kind of service, so in a country where those kind of morals exist, who are we to place restrictions on another group of people based on moral objection.

[StevePerryHair]

How can a country where we have things like Ashley Madison advertising all over the radio have the nerve to talk about protecting the institution of marriage?

Because the guy who started AshleyMadison.com paid for all that advertising to promote it. Freedom of enterprise, you know. Kind of a weak point to try to make.

No, my point was we live in a place where things like that are promoted... and why? Well, there wouldn't be a "company" like that unless there was interest in that kind of service, so in a country where those kind of morals exist, who are we to place restrictions on another group of people based on moral objection.

I have a feeling the same people objecting to homosexuality on a moral basis would also object morally to that site...it's not an either or case. They'd take objection to everything judged immoral.

[bluejeangirl76]

Why are there people thinking that if gays are allowed to legally marry, it's going to open the door for adults marrying minors, people marrying their dogs, and all kind of other doomsday scenarios?

We're talking about consenting adults being allowed to marry each other regardless of each others gender. I mean come on.... did straight marriage start up a movement for people wanting to marry their neighbors kid or their pet goat? No.

The difference is, there are still age restrictions imposed on marriage, and I'm sure it would apply to gay marriage also, so where is this idea coming from that immediately people are going to want to start marrying minors? p.s. - that already goes on anyway.

Next you see people want to vote for who is considered CONSENTING ADULTS and want to change it to 14+ or some this like that ,,, No one said that it will happen immidiately,,,, but if there are changes being made and there are laws being bent to fit some people, then other groups will push for what they personally categorize as their pursuit of happiness.

We already HAVE laws stating what is considered age of consent. Why would that change?

You're talking about laws that are already in place vs. a law that has not been made yet (gay marriage) with the exception of selected states.

The gay marriage issue isn't a law that's being bent. For one thing, it's not even a law... not a consistent one, at least. One state says no... a couple others say yes, most haven't said or done anything much... the military says "well, ok, but we don't really want to know wabout it, keep it to yourself".

Again, it's just like the black issue of long ago.... you're accepted, or not accepted based on geography.

[Rhiannon]

Question, what is the status of this in the global community? How many nations and which ones currently have laws set up to allow for and protect same-sex marriages?

[artist4perry]

BJG I love you to death, and on this issue I will remain silent.

But the last statement.............there are people everywhere who hold predjudices to blacks.................even today. Geographic? Well, if your speaking of south vs north, it was kind of the same as it is now. The south depended greatly on the blacks as part of their low wage workforce. So it became apparent why they had more stake in losing slaves.
Truly today is no different.........but the states have changed............and the slave wages are criminal, as well as treatments. But this time it is the Hispanics that are kept to work under horrible conditions by coyotes, and held hostage for their labor. Till we have a work visa, or something where we can regulate how these people are payed, and treated, we are in a diferent kind of slavery.

Not to mention paying 22 cents in some countries for a weeks work. That is slave wages. Unfortunately greed is greed and taking advantage of poor and desperate people is a world wide problem.

Don't get me wrong...............it was horrible and wrong then, and dispicable and disgraceful now. We should have learned something...........but have we? I wonder.

I understand your analogy though. No one should be mistreated ever. That is my feelings.

[bluejeangirl76]

How can a country where we have things like Ashley Madison advertising all over the radio have the nerve to talk about protecting the institution of marriage?

Because the guy who started AshleyMadison.com paid for all that advertising to promote it. Freedom of enterprise, you know. Kind of a weak point to try to make.

No, my point was we live in a place where things like that are promoted... and why? Well, there wouldn't be a "company" like that unless there was interest in that kind of service, so in a country where those kind of morals exist, who are we to place restrictions on another group of people based on moral objection.

I have a feeling the same people objecting to homosexuality on a moral basis would also object morally to that site...it's not an either or case. They'd take objection to everything judged immoral.

I'm sure you're right... many will apply the same moral judgement across the board... but also I keep thinking about the Clinton scandal and how 8 or nine of the ones who yelled for impeachement were found to have had affairs also... I believe there is just as much of that kind of hypocrisy going on with this issue - all I'm saying is we're a country denying rights based on our opinions of what is immoral or indecent.

At some point it was totally ok to ask black people to leave an establishment or force them to sit in a certain area of a restaurant or deny them access to certain schools and business. This is kind of the same thing. What are gays "doing wrong", besides being romatically interested in the same gender. that they shouldn't be allowed the right to be married? Just like... what were blacks "doing wrong", besides... being black.

I just think if people are going to make an argument against it, then I need to hear something that makes more sense than "god said so" or "well... because they're gay, that's why..."

[lights1961]

wow, pretty amazing everone is anexpert on the LAW now... LOL... carry on... just saying...its great reading though...





R

[StevePerryHair]

I think most people would argue the issue with Clinton was more the lying under oath than the actual infidelity....I do have to say it's not a proud of my president moment when I heard my son quoting Clinton last week "I did not have sexual relations with that woman" he knew the pot one too which the pot one, somehow I have a feeling he DID inhale!! it's just right or wrong, you do hope the leader of the country won't be caught in lies. Though I bet they ALL lie to us!! We just don't find out!!! And lying under oath is a huge deal I think.

[Behshad]

Why are there people thinking that if gays are allowed to legally marry, it's going to open the door for adults marrying minors, people marrying their dogs, and all kind of other doomsday scenarios?

We're talking about consenting adults being allowed to marry each other regardless of each others gender. I mean come on.... did straight marriage start up a movement for people wanting to marry their neighbors kid or their pet goat? No.

The difference is, there are still age restrictions imposed on marriage, and I'm sure it would apply to gay marriage also, so where is this idea coming from that immediately people are going to want to start marrying minors? p.s. - that already goes on anyway.

Next you see people want to vote for who is considered CONSENTING ADULTS and want to change it to 14+ or some this like that ,,, No one said that it will happen immidiately,,,, but if there are changes being made and there are laws being bent to fit some people, then other groups will push for what they personally categorize as their pursuit of happiness.

We already HAVE laws stating what is considered age of consent. Why would that change?

You're talking about laws that are already in place vs. a law that has not been made yet (gay marriage) with the exception of selected states.

The gay marriage issue isn't a law that's being bent. For one thing, it's not even a law... not a consistent one, at least. One state says no... a couple others say yes, most haven't said or done anything much... the military says "well, ok, but we don't really want to know wabout it, keep it to yourself".

Again, it's just like the black issue of long ago.... you're accepted, or not accepted based on geography.

We HAVE laws banning gay marriages. so why the change ? See how that works?

[Angel]

wow, pretty amazing everone is anexpert on the LAW now...

Please explain.

[bluejeangirl76]

BJG I love you to death, and on this issue I will remain silent.

No ma'am... your opinion is just as worthy of expression as any of ours. No need to be silent.

But the last statement.............there are people everywhere who hold predjudices to blacks.................even today. Geographic? Well, if your speaking of south vs north, it was kind of the same as it is now. The south depended greatly on the blacks as part of their low wage workforce. So it became apparent why they had more stake in losing slaves.

By geography, I was referring to the US, because that's what we are talking about with respect to the gay issue - it's a current problem/debate/whatever you wish to call it, here in the US because of the current California situation.

And the points you make about the south are all correct. But did that make it right? Ah ha, there's the moral question again.... LOL

Unfortunately greed is greed and taking advantage of poor and desperate people is a world wide problem.

Don't get me wrong...............it was horrible and wrong then, and dispicable and disgraceful now. We should have learned something...........but have we? I wonder.

We have and we haven't. There will always be opposition. There are still people who hold the same attitudes about blacks, just for an example. And there will always be extremist groups. For the most part, we've learned, but I think we don't retain a lot of what we learn. What I mean is that we've reached a point where we have laws against discrimination and laws that protect peoples' rights, but when we're faced with the same issue by a new group of people... we forget that the same basic principle applies.

[Behshad]

NO CONNECTION BETWEEN THE TWO WHATSOEVER,,,,, BUT the more we bent the laws and allows replacements, then you better be ready IF something like that comes up. You better be ready also when you vote NO for "your grandkids to be legal at age of 14" , but a judge make the final decision .,... just sayin

Well in that case then maybe we should reinstate a ban on women voting and slavery because those changes are what lead to this change and this change may lead to the legal rape of children.

We should definately reinstate a law about YOU not posting here !


Also, regardless of gay marriage laws, I think that Bobby should ONLY be granted a marriage certificate after some anger management classes (besides MR that is )

[Behshad]

BJG I love you to death,
I understand your analorgy though. No one should be mistreated ever. That is my feelings.

Um I think that post was aimed at Bobby !?

[Rhiannon]

Bah. Nevermind...

[lights1961]

Why are there people thinking that if gays are allowed to legally marry, it's going to open the door for adults marrying minors, people marrying their dogs, and all kind of other doomsday scenarios?

We're talking about consenting adults being allowed to marry each other regardless of each others gender. I mean come on.... did straight marriage start up a movement for people wanting to marry their neighbors kid or their pet goat? No.

The difference is, there are still age restrictions imposed on marriage, and I'm sure it would apply to gay marriage also, so where is this idea coming from that immediately people are going to want to start marrying minors? p.s. - that already goes on anyway.

Next you see people want to vote for who is considered CONSENTING ADULTS and want to change it to 14+ or some this like that ,,, No one said that it will happen immidiately,,,, but if there are changes being made and there are laws being bent to fit some people, then other groups will push for what they personally categorize as their pursuit of happiness.

We already HAVE laws stating what is considered age of consent. Why would that change?

You're talking about laws that are already in place vs. a law that has not been made yet (gay marriage) with the exception of selected states.

The gay marriage issue isn't a law that's being bent. For one thing, it's not even a law... not a consistent one, at least. One state says no... a couple others say yes, most haven't said or done anything much... the military says "well, ok, but we don't really want to know wabout it, keep it to yourself".

Again, it's just like the black issue of long ago.... you're accepted, or not accepted based on geography.

We HAVE laws banning gay marriages. so why the change ? See how that works?

too many lawyers and someone wanted the law change to THEIR favor... and so the activist view is to fight it until you win...

[lights1961]

7 pages of back and forth in the debates from the actual case to child laws... is self explanitory... note its not a HORRIBLE thing here... just an observation on my part...

okay now carry on...

[bluejeangirl76]

I just think if people are going to make an argument against it, then I need to hear something that makes more sense than "god said so" or "well... because they're gay, that's why..."

No matter what you do these days you're infringing upon someone else's right because everybody has become so damned sensitive about everything. For instance, and not picking on you because I know you're decent people and didn't mean it like that... but what you said, "something that makes more sense than God said so". For someone who has a strong faith in God and the teachings of the Bible, that's essentially telling that person their belief system has no merit and is ignorant because their God said so. Well, to those people of faith, any faith in this instance... how is that not telling them their rights are less important?

You know what I mean? I don't think you're going to see a zealous riot break out over it, but if it's someone's argument that marriage should be what their faith defines as marriage then it is their right to want to express a desire uphold that. This is why I think there needs to be an amendment that says "Just live & let be. As long as you're not hurting anybody." I think that would solve everything. I dare to dream.

I'm already seeing a zealous riot break out over it and I'm on the damn bottom over here.

What I meant by "god said so" was not what you took from it.

Our church is supposed to be separate from our government, is it not? So we're enacting law based on what the bible says?

Ok, well let's open the book of Leviticus. before god ever gets around to telling men not to lie with other men (notice there's nothing in there about lesbians... ) he tells us to leave the crab legs and shrimp cocktails alone. Therefore, gays may not be married, or have sex, and all red lobster outlets must close.

The bible also goes on for about a page and half of rules about what women must do and NOT do during their "ladies days".

My point is we're very selective about what we take from these teachings, and what we follow and what we don't follow, so using "the bible says" as a reason is not enough.

I agree with you in the end though.... leave people be. if they're not hurting anyone, there's no problem.

[Rhiannon]

I'm already seeing a zealous riot break out over it and I'm on the damn bottom over here.

What I meant by "god said so" was not what you took from it.

Our church is supposed to be separate from our government, is it not? So we're enacting law based on what the bible says?

Ok, well let's open the book of Leviticus. before god ever gets around to telling men not to lie with other men (notice there's nothing in there about lesbians... ) he tells us to leave the crab legs and shrimp cocktails alone. Therefore, gays may not be married, or have sex, and all red lobster outlets must close.

The bible also goes on for about a page and half of rules about what women must do and NOT do during their "ladies days".

My point is we're very selective about what we take from these teachings, and what we follow and what we don't follow, so using "the bible says" as a reason is not enough.

I agree with you in the end though.... leave people be. if they're not hurting anyone, there's no problem.

Which is exactly why I deleted my post & replaced it with a "Bah... Nevermind."

So, bah... nevermind.

[Saint John]

I just think if people are going to make an argument against it, then I need to hear something that makes more sense than "god said so" or "well... because they're gay, that's why..."

I'll take a crack at it. I think, to the overwhelming majority of people, "marriage" is viewed as the union of a man and a woman, and the very foundation of procreation and the family. Because of that, to most of us, it's important to keep that particular term clearly defined as being a commitment solely between a (born) man and a (born) woman. Furthermore, I think it's also important to clearly define the lifestyle of 2 people whose practices make it impossible to form a biological family, as something different. In other words, the relationship is cheapened because the general biological design of procreation is being snubbed, and that's why I think you see so many opponents of gay adoption. It all comes back to the purpose "family" and procreation, and why many people want to reserve the specific term "marriage" as such.

Lastly, rights are rights and should probably be designated for whomever we choose to make our "mate." I don't think most would have a problem recognizing a civil union and it would, seemingly, be a happy compromise for both sides. It's not *legally* being called "marriage" but you're afforded the same rights as those that are married. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

[Ehwmatt]

I just think if people are going to make an argument against it, then I need to hear something that makes more sense than "god said so" or "well... because they're gay, that's why..."

I'll take a crack at it. I think, to the overwhelming majority of people, "marriage" is viewed as the union of a man and a woman, and the very foundation of procreation and the family. Because of that, to most of us, it's important to keep that particular term clearly defined as being a commitment solely between a (born) man and a (born) woman. Furthermore, I think it's also important to clearly define the lifestyle of 2 people whose practices make it impossible to form a biological family, as something different. In other words, the relationship is cheapened because the general biological design of procreation is being snubbed, and that's why I think you see so many opponents of gay adoption. It all comes back to the purpose "family" and procreation, and why many people want to reserve the specific term "marriage" as such.

Lastly, rights are rights and should probably be designated for whomever we choose to make our "mate." I don't think most would have a problem recognizing a civil union and it would, seemingly, be a happy compromise for both sides. It's not *legally* being called "marriage" but you're afforded the same rights as those that are married. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Dan, I agree with everything you say, but the extremists on the other side won't. The crux of the problem is this: For over 3 decades, the far left has made it their ignoble crusade to go about altering every "traditional" moral value or viewpoint in this country. They want to change the fundamental makeup of the country. It's not enough for them to concede that they are in the minority and just want "equal" rights. No, it's about more than that. They want to become the majority. They want to eradicate the beliefs of those who hold traditional views of things such as marriage. Hence why I believe Bobby already said that it wouldn't be enough to call it a civil union and give them all the rights attendant to traditional marriage. That's just not enough. They want to shock the consciences of those who feel differently from them and they want to create cognitive dissonance to the degree that traditional views are forced to assimilate their views into the overall line of thinking.

There's already a civil war in this country, it just happens to be mostly non-violent.

[Rhiannon]

I just think if people are going to make an argument against it, then I need to hear something that makes more sense than "god said so" or "well... because they're gay, that's why..."

I'll take a crack at it. I think, to the overwhelming majority of people, "marriage" is viewed as the union of a man and a woman, and the very foundation of procreation and the family. Because of that, to most of us, it's important to keep that particular term clearly defined as being a commitment solely between a (born) man and a (born) woman. Furthermore, I think it's also important to clearly define the lifestyle of 2 people whose practices make it impossible to form a biological family, as something different. In other words, the relationship is cheapened because the general biological design of procreation is being snubbed, and that's why I think you see so many opponents of gay adoption. It all comes back to the purpose "family" and procreation, and why many people want to reserve the specific term "marriage" as such.

Lastly, rights are rights and should probably be designated for whomever we choose to make our "mate." I don't think most would have a problem recognizing a civil union and it would, seemingly, be a happy compromise for both sides. It's not *legally* being called "marriage" but you're afforded the same rights as those that are married. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

Valid, scientific fact. But, the problem with that is, if you want to present a biological argument based on procreative factuality, there's going to be someone else come along and say that all of the barren and/or childless marriages should be downgraded to civil unions as well since no veritable offspring can nor would be produced.

Anyway, "marriage" is just a word. The spiritually binding institution between two people should remain between two people. Whatever the law wants to call it should be a footnote to allow for power of attorney & insurance & taxes & other such things hetero couples take for granted.