California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[skiing1974]

Al is a tough cookie;)
whether I am for or against gay marriage, there must be consistency that is not there today. if gay marriages are allowed-fine, but then poligamy must be allowed too. do not conclude from this that I am for poligamy!

[HEAD]

Boy, That didn;t take long.

http://www.tv.yahoo.com/the-ellen-degen ... os/7848875

[Common Sense Al]

Al is a tough cookie;)
whether I am for or against gay marriage, there must be consistency that is not there today. if gay marriages are allowed-fine, but then poligamy must be allowed too. do not conclude from this that I am for poligamy!

Exactly. It would be completely "unfair" to "civil rights" if gays were allowed to marry who they wanted but that didn't apply to polygamists as well. Polygamists would be "2nd class citizens". The same arguments used to legalize gay marriage apply perfectly to polygamy marriage as well.

[Brian]

Al is a tough cookie;)
whether I am for or against gay marriage, there must be consistency that is not there today. if gay marriages are allowed-fine, but then poligamy must be allowed too. do not conclude from this that I am for poligamy!

Not to split hairs or sidetrack the topic of this thread but you do know that all those compounds that were raided weren't about Polygamy, but about abuse to the children.

Although there are laws against having multiple wives, I think it was "easier" to go after grown men preying on girls and other child abuses.

So, I dont think your argument is very valid.

A happy gay (no pun intended!) couple is MUCH different than a sicko perv that is preying on girls all in the name of "religion".

[josh]

Gays have the same right I do to get married. The govt. says that ANY adult can marry ANY adult (not related of course, can only marry one at a time, etc) of the opposite sex that they want. This right is available to all. What the homosexual community wants is a special right. A right that is just for them. That forces the govt. to recognize a special right. Well here is the deal. The govt. recognizes marriage as between man and women because that is the backbone of a society – a family. A society continues when a couple get together and reproduce – thus ensuring the society continues. The govt. has a valid reason to grant that particular relationship certain tax breaks and other recognitions because that relationship is what keeps that society alive. There is no obligation for government to give every human coupling the same entitlements simply to "stabilize" the relationship. The unique benefits of marriage fit its unique purpose. Marriage is not meant to be a shortcut to group insurance rates or tax relief. It’s meant to build families.

Homosexuals can go out in every state in the union and hire a "minister", rent out a "church", invite guests, conduct a ceremony, enter into contracts that spell out joint custody, ownership, etc...they can enter into wills, appoint power of attorney, etc, etc. In every state in the union gays can create 90% of the benefits awarded to hetero couples. What they cannot get is government approval by way of acknowledging their marriage as being for the good of the society when it is not.

There are other moral and social arguments against gay marriage, but those need not even be discussed.

[Brian]

The largest mistake in your reasoning is assuming everything the govt does is always in the best interest of the people.

Slavery?

Abortion?

Separation of races?

Yes, gays can find ways to create similar laws that grant them similar rights as a heterosexual couple that is married, but is it still fair?

What if the govt said anyone named "Josh" cant legally marry. Well, according to you, its no big deal in the eyes of the govt. You have the same rights. You can enter into contracts. No biggie, right?

I know, but "Joshes" are good people that need laws in order to build families.

Maybe we should redefine what a "family" really is and build laws around that?

[Lantana07]

Why redefine family?

Let's be clear on one thing, though, before this gets out of hand. The federal government has no say on gay marriage (not implying anyone said it's a fed issue, but it sounds like that's the tenor). It's a state issue, not a constitutional issue. States validate marriages, not feds. That's why your Texas marriage license wouldn't get you married in New Mexico.

Same concept as a driver's license.

Now, carry on your arguments with that as your window frame.

[Common Sense Al]

What if the govt said anyone named "Josh" cant legally marry. Well, according to you, its no big deal in the eyes of the govt. You have the same rights. You can enter into contracts. No biggie, right?

Obviously that would be wrong because there is no moral basis from taking marriage away from guys named "Josh"... however, there is a huge moral basis for not giving marriage benefits to disordered lifestyles. It causes harm to children and society. The gay lifestyle is disordered and should not be promoted by society or gov't at the same level as healthy, heterosexual marriages.

I'll have to agree with pretty much everything josh said.

[josh]

Surely you do not equate slavery to gay marriage, or abortion? Come on. Slavery was an inalienable right that the government was on the wrong side of for a long time. Separation of races was even upheld by the courts for several years (the same courts that people put so much faith in today - as if the justices could never make a wrong ruling). Abortion is a right to life issue which again is an inalienable right issue. Neither of those have one thing to do with government recognition and licensing.

Government recognition of marriage is not a right. It is license given by the state to recognize something that provides the backbone of any society. Please do not try and re-write thousands of years of human history and try and tell me that homosexual marriage produces the same benefits as heterosexual marriage.

Your analogy about Josh not being able to marry is not applicable. Remember...the marriage license is applied EQUALLY to all people even gay people. Gays are equally allowed to marry anyone of the opposite sex they chose. You are asking for a special right that is not available to others. You cannot tell me that allowing homosexuals the "right" to marry is any different than allowing two hetero college roommates to marry so that they can share insurance and get tax breaks. Or allowing to old widowed ladies to marry so they can share insurance and get tax breaks.

The purpose of govt. recognized marriage is to foster families. Families provide society with children to keep society going. Why are we, living in 2008, so much smarter than thousands of years of humans who have come before us, that we now believe we have the key to what a “real” family should be? Think on that for a minute. One man and one women is a tried and true method for constructing and raising a family (say nothing about the “natural” fit). If you want to “redefine” family why cant polygamists redefine it? Why can’t anyone who claims to “love” someone else redefine family?

This is not about any of those things. This is about the homosexual movement demanding validation for their lifestyle. The best way to achieve that is by obtaining government recognition.

[skiing1974]

Brian,
you missed my last point. I was talking about poligamy in general terms, not saying poligamy must have ties to children abuse, you threw that in for to me unknown reasons. The fact it happened in the poligamist environment is what it is, but your argument can easily then be applied to Catholics in general, and I am so far from making that statement. In other words Brian, I never indicated thinking gov't raided those compounds because those people were poligamists.

[matj6876]

Josh, Al.

Do you believe that "being gay" it is a conscious lifestyle choice of Homosexual people?

[Common Sense Al]

Josh, Al.

Do you believe that "being gay" it is a conscious lifestyle choice of Homosexual people?

Simply being gay is not immoral... it's the chosen gay lifestyle that is immoral.

Some people are born with aggressive tendencies (its in their nature to be aggressive)... does that make it OK for them to be violent? Absolutely not... it's still wrong and immoral for them to hurt people. Being born "aggressive" is not an excuse that makes it OK to act on it.

[Brian]

eh, the pertinent word is "chosen".

I personally dont think one "chooses" to be gay. Who would one choose to be look down on, made fun of, attacked, kicked out of their family, for that?

Of course, my wife and I disagree on this point.

But, we both come together on the fact if one is gay, for whatever choice or reason, they should be treated exactly the same as any other and have the exact same rights.

[linux_is_cool]

Josh, Al.

Do you believe that "being gay" it is a conscious lifestyle choice of Homosexual people?

Simply being gay is not immoral... it's the chosen gay lifestyle that is immoral.

Some people are born with aggressive tendencies (its in their nature to be aggressive)... does that make it OK for them to be violent? Absolutely not... it's still wrong and immoral for them to hurt people. Being born "aggressive" is not an excuse that makes it OK to act on it.

Like I said in a previous post, you have to be born gay...

I just couldn't see waking up one day and going to your fishing buddy and saying "Larry, we've been friends for a long time, what do you say we..." Just don't see it happening.

[matj6876]

Josh, Al.

Do you believe that "being gay" it is a conscious lifestyle choice of Homosexual people?

Simply being gay is not immoral... it's the chosen gay lifestyle that is immoral.

Some people are born with aggressive tendencies (its in their nature to be aggressive)... does that make it OK for them to be violent? Absolutely not... it's still wrong and immoral for them to hurt people. Being born "aggressive" is not an excuse that makes it OK to act on it.

So we're back to the fact that right now, although they are unable to help it, it's not a concious choice they should not follow the lifestyle becuse "it hurts people"? How is it hurting you?