Federal Judge Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ruling in California

reply to post by Annee

Is this thread based on principle?

Originally posted by Seektruthalways1
reply to post by Benevolent Heretic

 

Of course there is gonna some with priveleges and some with not. How else are you gonna keep up law, you cant keep everyone happy. Someone has to stamp their foot down and say "Marriage is man and woman and thats FINAL". Its not a privelage, or a right, to be gay, its a choice, choose it on your terms but stay out of making it legal so you can justify doing your wrong. Maybe we should keep to the gold standard, I mean The Scriptures, the word of our Creator Yahuwah who laid the rules down and therefore dont change cause someone has hurt feelings because they cant be gay and happy. Well thats the way it is. Rules are not meant to be changed or broken.

edit on 15-6-2011 by Seektruthalways1 because: (no reason given)

Just a reminder that Homosexuality is not illegal in free societies and that your religion is a choice. homosexuality is inate and I can attest to that because I am one.

Your religion is theory, not fact. I am homosexual and was born homosexual, fact not theory.

reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist

No I get the point. It is a scare tactic, and one that has been used time and time again. I ask for proof and you claim logic. I ask for proof again, and offer proof as to why such would not be allowed to be under the laws of the US and yet you fail to admit so much as that what you are stating is 2 separate issues and would ultimately have nothing to do with gay marriage. Show me the proof to the validity of your claim that by allowing same sex marriage will lead to a raise in polygamy (Polyamourous) and incest. The logic is flawed, as it does not pan out after careful thought that one would lead to the other, or have any real bearing on the issue at hand. And if you are looking at the constitutional association, then you would have to look at the Supreme court opinions and cases that would deal with such, and in every time that polyamourous cases have been brought up to before the court, it has been ruled against, along with the same part on incest.
So the precedence has already been discussed and fought over in the courts. It would not get beyond the first court case.
Gay marriage on the other hand, is new territory and is having to go through the court system.
You can allow one and not allow the other, especially if there is legal precedence already on the books, to concern the topics at hand. Specifically that of incest and Polygamy. (Lawrence V Kansas, and Reynolds V. United States)
So as those have been answered legally such would be legal and constitutional, incest and polygamy having been found unconstitutional, therefore the analogy that you are using that the legal entrance of gay marriage would result in such, is in error and has no bearing on such.
And my analogies that was used, was not a red herring, rather it brings up the fallacy of your own arguments, in that there really is not real way to state what may or may not happen if same sex marriage were to occur. And that all arguments to that point would just be supposition based on a stereotypical view of that group.
So your grouping of gay marriage, incest and polygamy is the same red herring tactic that you are using, just not as obvious and along the same lines as those who would use those kinds of arguments to scare and paint a negative view point on the topic at hand. There is no correlation between any of those issues, and if there is, please provide the proof to show the connections.
And as you are looking for a connection, gay marriage came about due to the civil rights movements of the 1960’s and the freedom of people who were different to wed and marry.

Originally posted by blueorder

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Equal rights don't equal special rights, but you keep on believing. Aren't there more important things to be concerned about other than a politically motivated tantrum thrown by individuals wanting special rights?

Actually there is nothing more important today than individual rights.

Give me one single rational non-religion BS based argument why a same sex couple should be kept from being allowed to get married, while any hetero couple has no problem getting married?

Special rights? How in hell is wanting to be able to do what everyone else can become a "special" right?

By your silly statement, black people wanted "special" rights to vote, as did women, and non-landholders

It is silly to equate this issue with women getting the vote for instance- that is just hyperbole.

Take that right away from anyone and you'll see just how it's NOT silly. Imagine if you were in the group of people that didn't have that right.

reply to post by Seektruthalways1

Maybe we should keep to the gold standard, I mean The Scriptures, the word of our Creator Yahuwah who laid the rules down and therefore dont change cause someone is has hurt feelings cause I cant be gay and happy. Well thats the way it is. Rules are not meant to be changed or broken.

The words of some Mythical being in some ancient religious text that has been translated and rewritten 100's of times should have no bearing on the laws of a country that was founded by people wanting freedom of/from religion.

If You want scripture to designate the laws of the country You live in there are plenty of them in the middle east that still subscribe to this archaic mindset.

Originally posted by Seektruthalways1
reply to post by grahag

 

How is being straight a broken thing? Aren't things in this universe made right first, and then its gets destroyed, tampered with or broken later by man or other things? Are you saying we cant have children anymore because sex with a man and women doesnt work anymore? I dont get your point.

Conservation law of thermodynamics. Everything tends to disorder. Over time things are getting worse, not better. That goes for science and relationships.

edit on 15-6-2011 by Seektruthalways1 because: (no reason given)

It's not being straight is broken. It's that people consider that because they feel their behavior is right and others is wrong that they deny the rights of others to punish them for their "wicked" behavior.

I don't think you can apply the laws of thermodynamics to psychology. My relationship with my wife has never been better.

Originally posted by Adamanteus
reply to post by Seektruthalways1

 

Maybe we should keep to the gold standard, I mean The Scriptures, the word of our Creator Yahuwah who laid the rules down and therefore dont change cause someone is has hurt feelings cause I cant be gay and happy. Well thats the way it is. Rules are not meant to be changed or broken.

The words of some Mythical being in some ancient religious text that has been translated and rewritten 100's of times should have no bearing on the laws of a country that was founded by people wanting freedom of/from religion.

If You want scripture to designate the laws of the country You live in there are plenty of them in the middle east that still subscribe to this archaic mindset.

Just so Adamanteus!

George B. Shaw: "The ways and customs of your tribe and island are not the laws of nature"

Seektruthalways1:

My scripture was written by a God a thousand years or more before yours. Your God was nailed to a cross; My God swung a hammer and fought for mankind, not acted like some child begging attention (worship).

Originally posted by grahag
Imagine if you were in the group of people that didn't have that right.

And I think that's the major sticking point of the whole subject blocking legislation. Homosexuals are not seen as an official group of people. Take the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which states in Section VII that people should be "free from any discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." Since sexual orientation is not specified as one of the criteria then that's not a basis for a legal case of discrimination. That's going to need to be amended before people can truly say that their being singled out. The Holy Grail of homosexuality would be to find a genetic marker that shows that Gaga's "Born this way" is a fact. Otherwise the only way this will be updated (IMHO) is if a larger percentage of the population becomes homosexual.

Originally posted by ImnotMelvin
reply to post by Annee

 

This is Gay!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

We voted for this two - 2 - times. Fail, Fail, Fail........

I guess it ok for a little kid to see a penis go into the butt of a guy and call it marriage. It's not perverse......idiots!!!!

God made Adam and Eve, not Adam and Adam, check you belly-button.

1 and 1 don't make 3.

You better fear God cuz He's going to throw you in check.

How is a child viewing adult gay pornography equivalent to gay marriage? Your ignorance immediately discredits anything you have to say.
Oh, and by the way i did check.. but my belly button told me nothing of this fearful "God", somebody called Adam, or elementary mathematics!

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by Annee
The modern concept of Marriage is less then 200 years old. Women were property - they had no rights. Marriages were arranged for political/social standing/alliances etc. It certainly wasn't romantic or strictly for procreation or about God.

Marriages were not for the rights of men or women but were in fact public agreements about the mating activities of two adults to protect children's security and to promote the role of fathers in the rearing of children. Study after study proves that children raised by both biological parents have a superior advantage from those that are not. Look at the statistics of those that are incarcerated or on welfare and compare that with children whose parents were in a traditional marriage.

It is a truism frequently forgotten by large complex societies:
only societies that reproduce survive.

Maggie Gallagher - What is Marriage For

The state has a vested interest in the paring of mates for reproduction. Laws exist to promote single partner unions of opposite sexes. Laws also exist to prevent men from creating competing families since that weakens the support children receive and increases the chances that one group of children could be raised without the father's impact. By the same token the state may offer tax incentives for those that choose to enter into such contracts just as it may grant tax favoritism to companies that it believes will strengthen the economy.

One can point out that same sex partners may have households with children. This is true of course but same sex partners can only raise children, they can not have them. Some of these children may have an actual economic advantage over typical children since a two male household would most likely have a higher income than a single male/female household. Odds are however that this will be the exception and not the normal. Children who live in households with two parents excluding one of their original parents fare no better than single mother household statistically.

I'm in favor of equal rights under equal circumstances. Everyone doesn't get to use the handicapped parking places but all handicapped people should have equal access to handicapped parking. Same sex unions are not the same as male/female unions. This isn't determined by the state. This is dictated by nature and no matter how many laws we pass this will remain unchanged.

edit on 15-6-2011 by dbates because: (no reason given)

You are wrong.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


What is marriage to you?

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by sdcigarpig

 

I really do want to try this from a different approach.

What is marriage to you?

Marriage to me is unfathomable.

It is an archaic institution that has no place in the modern world.

reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist

The definition of marriage that I use is: Marriage is a social contract between 2 people that forms a social bond between them, that is part private and part within the publics eye, with legal and social implications associated with such.
From the point of historical reference, marriage started out, not as something from the state, rather it started in the realm of the religious, then over the years, the state (body politic) got involved, first by keeping records, then charging people a small tax for the right to be married. Over the years, it has grown away from the religious to be more and more into the realm of the body politic. This includes the rights under the law that would allow for one spouse to have automatic legal rights over the other in times of strife and during good times.

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist

 

The definition of marriage that I use is: Marriage is a social contract between 2 people that forms a social bond between them, that is part private and part within the publics eye, with legal and social implications associated with such.

So to you, marriage is a contract. Can you please elaborate upon that for me?

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by grahag
Imagine if you were in the group of people that didn't have that right.

And I think that's the major sticking point of the whole subject blocking legislation. Homosexuals are not seen as an official group of people. Take the Civil Rights Act of 1964 which states in Section VII that people should be "free from any discrimination based on race, color, religion, sex, or national origin." Since sexual orientation is not specified as one of the criteria then that's not a basis for a legal case of discrimination. That's going to need to be amended before people can truly say that their being singled out. The Holy Grail of homosexuality would be to find a genetic marker that shows that Gaga's "Born this way" is a fact. Otherwise the only way this will be updated (IMHO) is if a larger percentage of the population becomes homosexual.

Dbates:

That is only incumbent upon identifying homosexual / lesbian marriage as not subject to the recognition of the law of the land - ie a psychological abberation

Originally posted by Adamanteus

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by sdcigarpig

 

I really do want to try this from a different approach.

What is marriage to you?

Marriage to me is unfathomable.

It is an archaic institution that has no place in the modern world.

No.

Marriage is when two ppl care more for each other than for anything else
That is not archaic

The debate is the state recognition that two ppl of the same sex can feel that kind of care

reply to post by mydarkpassenger


And I know they can

Originally posted by Tarzan the apeman.
reply to post by Annee

Is this thread based on principle?

Understand this thread is specifically addressing Legal Marriage by the way of Government Marriage License.

Personal views/opinions/feelings on what Marriage is - - - is not what this thread is about. Although some personal views/opinions/feelings on Marriage is being discussed.

Originally posted by mydarkpassenger

Originally posted by Adamanteus

Originally posted by arbitrarygeneraiist
reply to post by sdcigarpig

 

I really do want to try this from a different approach.

What is marriage to you?

Marriage to me is unfathomable.

It is an archaic institution that has no place in the modern world.

No.

Marriage is when two ppl care more for each other than for anything else
That is not archaic

The debate is the state recognition that two ppl of the same sex can feel that kind of care

But the definition you gave isn't particularly correct. People who do not care for each other, yet who are still heterosexual, can get married. How does your definition account for them?

reply to post by arbitrarygeneraiist


The definition of marriage that I use is: Marriage is a social contract between 2 people that forms a social bond between them, that is part private and part within the publics eye, with legal and social implications associated with such.
From the point of historical reference, marriage started out, not as something from the state, rather it started in the realm of the religious, then over the years, the state (body politic) got involved, first by keeping records, then charging people a small tax for the right to be married. Over the years, it has grown away from the religious to be more and more into the realm of the body politic. This includes the rights under the law that would allow for one spouse to have automatic legal rights over the other in times of strife and during good times.
As this would be partially private, and partly out in the public eye it has to be both private and open to the view of the public.