FEDERAL JUDGE knocks down PRO 8 in CA...

[lights1961]

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.

BINGO.

[bluejeangirl76]

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.

Ok, well my ex and i were married in a civil service/ceremony/whatever... does that mean that I wasn't "married"? Because now we're talking semantics. So should gays be granted a "civil union" certificate, opposed to a "marriage certificate"? (I got one of those, so I guess I was in fact "married"? ) Would they be granted some thing like that which identifies them legally as a united couple? Or how would that work?

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.

What about straight couples who choose not to have children. Or can't. If marriage if supposed to be reserved for those who with to reproduce and create families.... then straight non-child bearing couples should only be allowed civil unions also, yes?

[SF-Dano]

Question: If a gay couple want to be married in a church that by doctrine can not allow that to happen, can the couple now sue that church? Can they have that church's non-profit status recalled? We are already living in a law suit crazy country. I think the answer to my above question is: YES. And this will happen sooner rather than later should things remain the same.

How does seperation of church and state work in the above scenario?

[bluejeangirl76]

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.

*tin foil hat*

That was too weird.

[Rhiannon]

^^ I CALLED IT!!

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.

What about straight couples who choose not to have children. Or can't. If marriage if supposed to be reserved for those who with to reproduce and create families.... then straight non-child bearing couples should only be allowed civil unions also, yes?

[Rhiannon]

*tin foil hat*

That was too weird.

I was just approaching it as if it were being scrutinized legally. It's not my opinion, just funny you went there too.

[lights1961]

Question: If a gay couple want to be married in a church that by doctrine can not allow that to happen, can the couple now sue that church? Can they have that church's non-profit status recalled? We are already living in a law suit crazy country. I think the answer to my above question is: YES. And this will happen sooner rather than later should things remain the same.

How does seperation of church and state work in the above scenario?

and the LEFT KNOW this.. they cant get their way with the majroity of the voters...in certain situations... so the fight goes to the courts where they know they can win, if given the right judge...

[SF-Dano]

Question: If a gay couple want to be married in a church that by doctrine can not allow that to happen, can the couple now sue that church? Can they have that church's non-profit status recalled? We are already living in a law suit crazy country. I think the answer to my above question is: YES. And this will happen sooner rather than later should things remain the same.

How does seperation of church and state work in the above scenario?

and the LEFT KNOW this.. they cant get their way with the majroity of the voters...in certain situations... so the fight goes to the courts where they know they can win, if given the right judge...

And for those saying it does not affect them so they have no problem with Gay marriage - well this is just one way how it will affect me, my family, friends, and church.

[Saint John]

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.

You're approaching it from the wrong end (insert gay joke here). You're attempting to argue it from a mandated and necessary aspect, and I'm arguing it from a *design* aspect. Whether or not a woman is *able* to bear children has absolutely nothing to do with the design of billions and billions of other women.

Going off on a tangent here, but the gay lifestyle is factually *abnormal.* The vast majority of men don't find an attraction to other men and the vast majority of women don't find an attraction to other women. And that's okay. It really doesn't bother or affect me enough to care about, toher than debate. But, this "equal rights" notion is absolutely absurd. What's next ... giving "equal rights" to severely retarded people to fly airplanes or letting blind people drive school buses??? These, too, are people that are abnormal, and there's nothing wrong with that, but let's throw this notion of "equal rights" out the window because gay people marrying is just as absurd as the aforementioned follies.

[Rhiannon]

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.

You're approaching it from the wrong end (insert gay joke here). You're attempting to argue it from a mandated and necessary aspect, and I'm arguing it from a *design* aspect. Whether or not a woman is *able* to bear children has absolutely nothing to do with the design of billions and billions of other women.

Going off on a tangent here, but the gay lifestyle is factually *abnormal.* The vast majority of men don't find an attraction to other men and the vast majority of women don't find an attraction to other women. And that's okay. It really doesn't bother or affect me enough to care about, toher than debate. But, this "equal rights" notion is absolutely absurd. What's next ... giving "equal rights" to severely retarded people to fly airplanes or letting blind people drive school buses??? These, too, are people that are abnormal, and there's nothing wrong with that, but let's throw this notion of "equal rights" out the window because gay people marrying is just as absurd as the aforementioned follies.

I never said it was my opinion, Dan. I stated that would be your opposing argument. Which Kim came in and proved me right on.

I was making fun of the way the litigation system works. They're always twisting words. THAT was MY point.

[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.

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

Why is that? Because I don't agree with YOU?

[Saint John]

Well in that case then maybe we should reinstate a ban on women voting and slavery

(Walks by whistling in the wind)

[parfait]

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.

You're approaching it from the wrong end (insert gay joke here). You're attempting to argue it from a mandated and necessary aspect, and I'm arguing it from a *design* aspect. Whether or not a woman is *able* to bear children has absolutely nothing to do with the design of billions and billions of other women.

Going off on a tangent here, but the gay lifestyle is factually *abnormal.* The vast majority of men don't find an attraction to other men and the vast majority of women don't find an attraction to other women. And that's okay. It really doesn't bother or affect me enough to care about, toher than debate. But, this "equal rights" notion is absolutely absurd. What's next ... giving "equal rights" to severely retarded people to fly airplanes or letting blind people drive school buses??? These, too, are people that are abnormal, and there's nothing wrong with that, but let's throw this notion of "equal rights" out the window because gay people marrying is just as absurd as the aforementioned follies.

Dude, I more than often agree with you, but this shit is ludicrous. Homosexuality is a completely natural occurrence and is biological in nature; quote from The Royal College of Psychiatrists:

It would appear that sexual orientation is biological in nature, determined by a complex interplay of genetic factors and the early uterine environment. Sexual orientation is therefore not a choice.

Calling gay people abnormal is ignorant. You don't let retarded people fly airplanes as their intelligence and coordination (among other things) isn't up to par with the required skills you would need to drive a plane - easy as that. Now, you won't let homosexuals marry because... Uh... It's against your tradition? Give me a fucking break. Would we been in the 18th century, you could debate the fact that witch burning shouldn't stop, as it's a part of your tradition. The Nazis could have made the same argument when talking about racism, as it's without a doubt a part of their tradition or modus operandi.

The church doesn't have sole rights to marriage either. Jeesh. The first laws concerning marriage was written in 1790 BC in ancient Babylon (source: Codex Hammurabi) A marriage is today as much of a legal contract as it is a social union.

Blind people and retarded people can marry, by the way.

[Angel]

retarded people can marry, by the way.

See Dan, I told you it was OK for you to go ahead and buy that ring!

[Behshad]

retarded people can marry, by the way.

See Dan, I told you it was OK for you to go ahead and buy that ring!

So he can propose to you ?!

[Saint John]

The DSM (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders) is the most widely used diagnostic reference book utilized by mental health professionals in the United States.

It's a manual by which all diagnostic codes are derived for diagnosis and treatment - every single physician (an estimated 850,000*) in the United States refers to this book in order to code for a diagnosis. In plain English, what does this mean? It means that for over 30 years physicians have been prevented from properly diagnosing homosexuality as an aberrant behavior and thus, cannot, recommend a course of treatment for these individuals.

Prior to that time, homosexuality had been treated as a mental disorder under section "302. Sexual Deviations" in the DSM-II. Section 302 said, in part: "This category is for individuals whose sexual interests are directed primarily toward objects other than people of the opposite sex, toward sexual acts … performed under bizarre circumstances. … Even though many find their practices distasteful, they remain unable to substitute normal sexual behavior for them." Homosexuality was listed as the first sexual deviation under 302. Once that diagnostic code for homosexuality was removed, physicians, including psychiatrists, have been prevented from diagnosing homosexuality as a mental disorder for more than three decades.


*American Medical Association statistic, 2002.

[Angel]

and exactly what is your point?

[Behshad]

Knowing the fact that Dan doesn't know how to copy and paste , kudos to him for typing all that out.

[Saint John]

Scientifically speaking, sex is a means to an end. The end being the propagation of the human race. This end can never be fulfilled by sex between males (in the case of gays) or between females (in the case of lesbians). Therefore, the general conclusion is that homosexuality is irrational and illogical.

If we consider the construction of the bodies of the male and female, what is noticed at once is that the construction of a body of a male (the penis and the anus- i.e no vagina) does not accommodate having sex with another male. Nor does the construction of a body of a female (no penis, a vagina) accommodate sex with another female. What is obvious to common sense is that the construction and location of specific sexual organs in the bodies of a male and a female accommodate sex between a male and a female and not among members of the same sex. Therefore, the conclusion once again is that homosexuality is an unnatural and an irrational behavior.

The case with birth control is different to the "cause effect" argument above [this point was brought up in my meeting in class with the SMSU (Southwest Missouri State) Gay Lesbian Alliance]. Birth control is simply the further delaying or prevention of a naturally occurring delaying process. The egg (ovum), which when fertilized develops into a zygote, which then eventually develops into the fetus, is released in the female's body in a specific period of time and pregnancy is caused only if a sperm fuses with the egg in that specific time period. If the egg is not fertilized during that period, then the cycle in humans ends in menstruation (Encyclopedia Britannica, vol 26, Macropaedia 701-703)


It was clearly recognized by experts who were objective and unprejudiced, that psychologically speaking homosexuality is an abnormal behavior.

[Angel]

Dan, congratulations on your ability to plagiarize....but what is it that you are trying to prove? We all understand the reproductive process but this is not about reproduction.

[Saint John]

Dan, congratulations on your ability to plagiarize....but what is it that you are trying to prove? We all understand the reproductive process but this is not about reproduction.

#1 I did not plagiarize. The sources are all there.

#2 Homosexuality is abnormal behavior.

[Angel]

Dan, congratulations on your ability to plagiarize....but what is it that you are trying to prove? We all understand the reproductive process but this is not about reproduction.

#1 I did not plagiarize. The sources are all there.

#2 Homosexuality is abnormal behavior.

#1-Your entire post was from the Encyclopedia Britannica?????

#2- OK, so maybe it is-what does that have to do with the issue at hand?

[parfait]

Oooh, someone has learned how to copy and paste - good for you!

First of all; abnormality is not the big bad word you, or the tone of your copied post, make it out to be. An abnormality is simply a deviation from statistical frequency. So people who got a high intelligence, meaning a >130 IQ for example, are abnormal. Doesn't sound that bad when you put it like that huh?

But sure homosexuality is irrational and illogical, but that shouldn't exclude them from having the same right as we do, as sexual orientation is not a choice! There's a shitload of stuff in the nature that is both of the aforementioned from a evolutionary standpoint. Did you drink soda today? Did you eat fried food? Did you fuck the new, cute trainee at work? Cause from a evolutionary way of looking at it, then you; shouldn't eat or drink stuff like that, as it'll make you more unfit to survive, thus making you a lesser ideal mate. And if you would have a evolutionary bone in your body, you'd fuck that trainee, to elevate the chances of bringing your genome (or a part of it anyways) to the next generation.

Try to find out what the words means next time you decide to go all bat shit crazy with the right mouse button, okay?

[Don]

If we look at Homosexuality as abnormal then the cause would have be a defect in the sex chromosomes which would verify the notion that being gay is not a choice but is a trait hardwired into those individuals. I guess we could equate it as another variant of retardation from that angle of the argument. How the law treats members of society with other types of mental deficiencies might be a template for what is appropriate here.

[conversationpc]

Question: If a gay couple want to be married in a church that by doctrine can not allow that to happen, can the couple now sue that church? Can they have that church's non-profit status recalled? We are already living in a law suit crazy country. I think the answer to my above question is: YES. And this will happen sooner rather than later should things remain the same.

How does seperation of church and state work in the above scenario?

That's what I'm afraid of. Most churches will NEVER perform marriages for gay couples. They will either have to close their doors or compromise their beliefs.

[StevePerryHair]

Question: If a gay couple want to be married in a church that by doctrine can not allow that to happen, can the couple now sue that church? Can they have that church's non-profit status recalled? We are already living in a law suit crazy country. I think the answer to my above question is: YES. And this will happen sooner rather than later should things remain the same.

How does seperation of church and state work in the above scenario?

That's what I'm afraid of. Most churches will NEVER perform marriages for gay couples. They will either have to close their doors or compromise their beliefs.

Don't churches reserve the right to not marry heterosexual couples though? I mean many have guidelines you have to follow or they will not marry straight couples.

[parfait]

If we look at Homosexuality as abnormal then the cause would have be a defect in the sex chromosomes which would verify the notion that being gay is not a choice but is a trait hardwired into those individuals. I guess we could equate it as another variant of retardation from that angle of the argument. How the law treats members of society with other types of mental deficiencies might be a template for what is appropriate here.

Again, puh-lease: read up on your medical terms before throwing them out left and right. There is no fucking way one could equate homosexuality with mental retardation. Seriously, dude? And genetics isn't as simple as you make it out to be. I mean, thanks to Clinton we got our full genome mapped out, but the extreme complexity in how our genes exert its effects on the organism through RNA or protein products is something that's gonna take a shitload of expensive science over a long period to completely understand.

I'm against gay marrying in churches though, as the religious books, be it the Bible or whatever, is obviously against it.

[conversationpc]

Question: If a gay couple want to be married in a church that by doctrine can not allow that to happen, can the couple now sue that church? Can they have that church's non-profit status recalled? We are already living in a law suit crazy country. I think the answer to my above question is: YES. And this will happen sooner rather than later should things remain the same.

How does seperation of church and state work in the above scenario?

That's what I'm afraid of. Most churches will NEVER perform marriages for gay couples. They will either have to close their doors or compromise their beliefs.

Don't churches reserve the right to not marry heterosexual couples though? I mean many have guidelines you have to follow or they will not marry straight couples.

Yeah, some do. Some won't marry a Christian to a non-Christian and that kind of thing.

[StevePerryHair]

Question: If a gay couple want to be married in a church that by doctrine can not allow that to happen, can the couple now sue that church? Can they have that church's non-profit status recalled? We are already living in a law suit crazy country. I think the answer to my above question is: YES. And this will happen sooner rather than later should things remain the same.

How does seperation of church and state work in the above scenario?

That's what I'm afraid of. Most churches will NEVER perform marriages for gay couples. They will either have to close their doors or compromise their beliefs.

Don't churches reserve the right to not marry heterosexual couples though? I mean many have guidelines you have to follow or they will not marry straight couples.

Yeah, some do. Some won't marry a Christian to a non-Christian and that kind of thing.

Yeah, I don't think churches can get sued that way. Churches have ways of being exempt from a lot of things that way.

[Saint John]

Oooh, someone has learned how to copy and paste - good for you!

First of all; abnormality is not the big bad word you, or the tone of your copied post, make it out to be. An abnormality is simply a deviation from statistical frequency. So people who got a high intelligence, meaning a >130 IQ for example, are abnormal. Doesn't sound that bad when you put it like that huh?

What fucking part of abnormal behavior can't you understand? Now I'm not sure if your parents are siblings, you're brain dead or if it's simply your goal to die stupid, but it's abundantly apparent that whereas some people drink from the fountain of knowledge you just gargle. Now before you post again ... please your grab your ears firmly and pull your head out of your fucking ass.