User Tag List

Informational! Informational!:  0
Likes Likes:  0
Page 2 of 24 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast
Results 9 to 16 of 188

Thread: California supreme court overturns gay marriage ban

  1. #9
    Nepenthusiast's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2007
    Location
    MA, USA
    Posts
    264
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Yes! That makes two states where gay marriage isn't banned! I don't think there are any states except Massachussetts and California that have lifted the ban, right? I'm not sure.
    Great news! Hopefully other states will follow the example.

  2. #10
    Outsiders71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,005
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I honestly think that the government shouldn't be involved in marriage whatsoever, whether gays are or not allowed to marry. Marriage is not an institution made by the government, it is an institution that was made by God (or religion for those who don't acknowledge God). The government should only be able to handout civil-unions and Marriages should be handed out in Church where they belong.

    Quote Originally Posted by JLAP
    Some people think marriage is only between a man and a woman. It's fine if they want to think that, but saying what I can and can't do isn't really their business.
    Why they're obsessed with what we do behind closed doors is beyond me.
    It has nothing to do with what you do behind closed doors. It has to do with gays changing the meaning of an institution of God. Gays already had the same rights yesterday as they do today in California. Today they just distorted what the term marriage means in an attempt to "mainstream" their lifestyles with the rest of the country.

    Quote Originally Posted by JLAP
    Today, marriage is a legal document, not some holy spiritual union to the vast majority of people. There is no "sanctity" in marriage anymore when the divorce rate is 50%, we have drive-through ceremonies, and Britney Spears can get married for 55 hours.
    I disagree. Statistics say that this country is still majority-wise practicing Christians. To say that their marriages are nothing but a legal document is belittling. Homosexuals will also have the same divorce rates, because they too are inappropriately taking the term marriage and distorting it into something that it isn't, a legal document.

    Quote Originally Posted by JLAP
    People are fighting for tradition out of fear, hate, and ignorance. The only way we can move forward as a country is via social liberalism, because that's moving forward and making progress. Right-wing values can do nothing but keep us where we already are at best, and regress our society by regulating morality at the worst. I guess, to be fair, the conservative could say the same.... but their view is limiting freedom, ours is expanding it.
    I'm sorry JLAP but after all the discussions we've had to suggest that people are fighting for the institution of marriage out of fear, hate or ignorance is just bewildering. You are obviously the one who is still blind to what marriage means to the majority of the country, and people like me who keep telling you it is more than a legal document.

    Faith, morality and traditional family values are what have made this country so great and what have preserved this country. Total social liberalism will do nothing but destroy the core of America and that is the traditional family.
    James 1:17

    "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."

  3. #11

    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    Michigan
    Posts
    581
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    While in theory allowing allowing homosexuals to marry will/shall open pandora's box. Once it becomes legal for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry another woman you will have to allow all other forms of 'untraditional relationships' the right to marry. What if a mother really loves her son should they be allowed to marry? What if a man really loves 4 women should they be all allowed to marry? How about a man really loving his dog Once the door has been opened it shall be very difficult to close.
    You don't need an iron chest if you have a sharp brain and a silk tongue.


    GROWLIST
    Wolf's Growlist

  4. #12
    Outsiders71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,005
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by wolf9striker View Post
    While in theory allowing allowing homosexuals to marry will/shall open pandora's box. Once it becomes legal for a man to marry a man or a woman to marry another woman you will have to allow all other forms of 'untraditional relationships' the right to marry. What if a mother really loves her son should they be allowed to marry? What if a man really loves 4 women should they be all allowed to marry? How about a man really loving his dog Once the door has been opened it shall be very difficult to close.
    Very good point wolf9striker, but this is what JLAP was talking about in terms of social progression. I'm sure he's fine with incestual/polygamist marriages and would advocate for their "rights" too.
    James 1:17

    "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."

  5. #13
    Stay chooned in for more! Clint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Metro Atlanta Area
    Posts
    9,681
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Hehe, the majority doesn't really mean much at all, outsiders. Not when you forget that you can be secular AND Christian at the same time. Not when you forget that most gays are Christians, and so are all of the celebrities who are such bad examples. The majority are secular Christians, not just Christians. I understand what marriage is. In the eyes of the law, which is what we are talking about, it's nothing more than a legal document. We are not talking spiritually, we are talking legally. Huge difference. While we agree that the government has no business with marriage, the truth is that it's not going to butt out. Until it does, it's only fair, in a legal and secular perspective, that we are allowed to marry.

    Comparing homosexuality to incest, polygamy and bestiality is pretty offensive and a far stretch. There is no Pandora's box. Social progression does not equate bestiality and incest, just like the social progression of legalizing MJ and stem cell research does not equate legalizing meth and paying women to harvest their fetuses. I do not care if a man marries multiple women or visca versa. That doesn't bother me what so ever. I do not advocate incest, and I'm pretty offended that you would say I would. It negatively affects the gene pool, and besides.. gross.


    I can totally understand you saying we're trying to change the meaning of an institution created by someone we can't see; you can believe what you want, but MY argument is that it is a tangible legal document in the modern, secular world. We have just as much of a right to have the word "Marriage" on our documents as you do, because for now they are not spiritual documents, they are legal. And you talk about the word "Marriage" like it's exclusive and you have the sole right to it. It's not even the original word.

  6. #14
    Outsiders71's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    1,005
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by JustLikeAPill View Post
    Comparing homosexuality to incest, polygamy and bestiality is pretty offensive and a far stretch. There is no Pandora's box.
    What gives you the right to discriminate those kinds of relationships? They should be entitled rights to marriage as well.
    James 1:17

    "Every good and perfect gift is from above, coming down from the Father of the heavenly lights, who does not change like shifting shadows."

  7. #15
    Capslock's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    San Francisco, CA
    Posts
    3,088
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Homosexuality is not the same as incest, or bestiality, or even polygamy, for several important reasons. First, animals (or children) are not capable of consenting to a relationship, so that's a completely different situation. Further, incest is usually exploitative in the same way, and biologically dangerous to any progeny for genetic reasons. And it is not an "orientation" that limits the possible marriage to that category like it does with gay people. So the comparisons are not appropriate.

    Gay couples and families have existed from the beginning of time. The ONLY question is whether we continue to single them out for legal and financial discrimination. Notwithstanding the question of WHY we'd single them out for the denial of legal and financial protections, it is simply against the law to do so, since equal protection under the law is guaranteed by the state Constitution in California.

    Marriage is, in this context, solely a legal right and set of protections given by the state. It has nothing whatsoever to do with religion. In fact, it is, and has always been, legal for a church to "marry" gay couples - they just don't get state benefits. It is likewise legal, and always has been, for a church to elect not to marry any two people. Churches get to do what they want, and rightfully so. Gay "church" marriage is already legal. So this really is ONLY about the state benefits.

    It seems to me that the only motivation for denying legal benefits like inheritance, hospital visitation rights, and child custody protections to gay people is sheer cruelty, and maybe coupled with a curious impression that one's restrictive church doctrine ought to apply to non-adherents of that church - a bizarre and unsupportable position to hold.

    Capslock
    Malo Periculosam Libertatem Quam Quietum Servitium

    My photos are copyright-free and public domain

  8. #16
    Stay chooned in for more! Clint's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Metro Atlanta Area
    Posts
    9,681
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I don't care about polygamy. I shouldn't have typed that. They can marry as many people as they want because it will never affect me.

    Nice playing the sarcasm game. I do think it's gross, but if you want a scientific reason it's because incest would negatively affect the human gene pool, and that affects everyone by weakening us as a species. As for bestiality, the scientific answer would be that animals lack the cognitive faculties to make a decision to marry, thus it would not be consensual.

    Happy?

    EDIT: Max said it!

Page 2 of 24 FirstFirst 12345612 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •