Gays Win In California

[MegaRock]

SAN FRANCISCO, California (AP) -- A judge has opened the way for the nation's most populous state to follow Massachusetts in allowing same-sex couples to tie the knot, but both sides in the debate predicted a vigorous court fight first.

San Francisco County Superior Court Judge Richard Kramer ruled Monday that while withholding marriage licenses from gays and lesbians has been the status quo, it constitutes discrimination the state can no longer justify.

"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote. "Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before."

Ushering out a social norm long considered sacred won't happen right away, however. Kramer's decision is stayed automatically for 60 days to allow time for appeals, and conservative groups that oppose same-sex marriages vowed to uphold California's one woman-one man marriage laws.

"For a single judge to rule there is no conceivable purpose for preserving marriage as one man and one woman is mind-boggling," said Liberty Counsel President Mathew Staver, whose group represents the Campaign for California Families, one of two organizations that joined the state's attorney general's office in defending California's existing laws.

"This decision will be gasoline on the fire of the pro-marriage movement in California as well as the rest of the country," Staver said.

Supporters of same-sex marriage said they are prepared for a lengthy appeal process, but described Kramer's ruling as an unqualified victory. They compared it to the 1948 state Supreme Court decision that made California the first state to legalize interracial marriage.

"Today's ruling is an important step toward a more fair and just California that rejects discrimination and affirms family values for all California families," San Francisco City Attorney Dennis Herrera said.

http://www.cnn.com/2005/LAW/03/15/gay.marriage.ap/index.html

[k_rock923]

awesome.

[Mattress]

Originally posted by MegaRock
"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote. "Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before."

well by that logic then:
"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote. "Simply put, brother-sister / mother-son / father-daughter marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before."

"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote. "Simply put, inter-species marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before."


here's a better idea: seperate fucking church and state.
Let there be a civil union that goes for every/anyone; this is regulated by the state.
Marriages are religious and are performed in religious rituals/ceremonies. Let churches decided who they'll allow or not allow to marry in their church.

[k_rock923]

But there are lots of non-religious things that go along with marriage that the church cannot regulate. taxes are a good example.

[Mattress]

that's what the civil union is for.

[dlinkwit27]

Originally posted by Mattress
Let there be a civil union that goes for every/anyone; this is regulated by the state.
Marriages are religious and are performed in religious rituals/ceremonies. Let churches decided who they'll allow or not allow to marry in their church. Actually, marriage is an important thing in legal terms and can have a large effect on how one does their taxes. It helps for dependecy, etc. You do not need any religious figure to get a marriage licence.

[billyvnilly]

Family friends were 2 of the (14?) involved in the lawsuit and I am very proud to say I know them.

It is striking to me that conservatives embrace the idea that gay marriage destroys the moral fabric of a marriage. Where in the bible does Jesus directly speak of gay marriage/relationships. Other than Paul(whom i think is so very conservative) Its never a focus of any story in the Bible. Where in the Ten Commandments does it say Gay marriage/relationships are wrong. The Ten Commandments certainly says you should not commit adultery, but we all know that goes on.

Like the judge said, this case reminds him of brown vs. topeka kansas BoE, this case strikingly resembles "separate but equal" you cannot say civil unions are equal to marriages.

I wonder how many conservatives that dissagree with samesex marriage out there think that interracial marriages are wrong.

[MegaRock]

Originally posted by billyvnilly
It is striking to me that conservatives embrace the idea that gay marriage destroys the moral fabric of a marriage. Where in the bible does Jesus directly speak of gay marriage/relationships. Other than Paul(whom i think is so very conservative) Its never a focus of any story in the Bible. Where in the Ten Commandments does it say Gay marriage/relationships are wrong. The Ten Commandments certainly says you should not commit adultery, but we all know that goes on.

This information from several church websites:

Before we look at gay marriage, first we have to remember what the Bible says about homosexuality. The Bible clearly and consistently tells us that homosexual activity is a sin (Genesis 19:1-13; Leviticus 18:22; Romans 1:26-27; 1Corinthians 6:9). God does not create a person with homosexual desires. A person becomes a homosexual because of sin (Rom 1:24-27), and ultimately because of their own choice. A person may be born with a greater susceptibility to homosexuality, just as people are born with a tendency to violence and other sins. That does not excuse the person choosing to sin by giving into their sinful desires. If a person is born with a greater susceptibility to anger / rage, does that make it right for then to give into those desires? Of course not! The same is true for homosexuality.

We also have to remember that homosexuality is just as forgivable a sin as all other sins. God’s forgiveness is just as available to a homosexual as it is to an adulterer, idol worshipper, murderer, thief, etc. God’s love and desire to save extends to homosexuals (John 3:16; Romans 5:8). God also promises the strength for victory over sin, including homosexuality, to all those who will believe in Jesus Christ for their salvation (1Cor 6:11; 2Cor 5:17).

To give sanction to homosexual marriage would be to give approval to that lifestyle, which the Bible clearly and consistently condemns as sinful. I belief the Christians should stand firmly against the idea of gay marriage. Marriage is ordained by God to be between a man and a woman (Genesis 2:21-24; Matthew 19:4-6). Homosexual marriage is a perversion of the institution of marriage and an offense to the God who created marriage. God forbids and condemns homosexuality, so He clearly is opposed to homosexual marriage. As Christians, we are to seek to share the love of God and salvation through Christ with homosexuals. We are to be loving and kind to homosexuals, while at the same time not condoning their sinful lifestyle.

http://www.gotquestions.org/homosexuality.html

http://www.gotquestions.org/hermaphrodites.html

http://www.gotquestions.org/marriage-constitutes.html

The verse most commonly cited is Leviticus 20:13 "And a man who lies with a male as one would with a woman both of them have committed an abomination; they shall surely be put to death; their blood is upon themselves."

[billyvnilly]

you're such a concerned liberal, yet a religious biggot? I didn't realize.

what about lesbians?:p

[MegaRock]

Why of course, I'm not a blindfolded sheep herd like most of the GOP followers :)

Actually I'm not religious at all. My only issue is the butt pumpers and carpet munchers who demand their little thing be called 'marriage' when for thousands of years that word has meant and says in every dictionary definition "the union of a man and a woman'. Give them their rights and protections that they want - no issue there - but if they want to call it 'marriage' then I can't support it in any way, shape or form.

I don't like fags, I dont like dykes. I think both groups are some of the sickest kinds of people only being beaten out by child molestors. That's a personal opinion. I could care less what they want..fuck give it to them so they can all go fuck each other and die...but when they want to change my language to suit their sick asses that's when I have an issue.

Can't put it much clearer than that.

Seriously, what's next? Legalization of child sex? Maybe we can give rights to the Klu Klux Klan? Maybe Human-Animal marriage? Sorry, but the whole thing just disgusts me to no end and to any civilised person it should. All I can say is I'M DAMN GLAD I DON'T LIVE IN CALIFORNIA.

Of course if you REALLY want to know what I think have a mod move this to the bitchlist. I refrained as much as I could here.

[MegaRock]

Shit, double post..

[Omega X]

....well I can see this thread being closed soon.

[dlinkwit27]

dictionary.com has both definitions:

a) The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
and
d) A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

The bible also clearly states it is a sin to touch the hide of a dead pig. Should we stone all the NFL players? and it is also a sin to wear two different fabrics (Leviticus 19:19). Should we burn those ofenders also? And if I want to sell my future daughters, as the bible says I can (Exodus 21:7), should I make sure that she only does womans' work, or is that up to her new owner?

[bgesley]

Mattress how "by that logic" you get same-sex marriages also means inter-species and inter-family marriages. That doesn't make a lick of sense to me.

[Jay]

a football is not actually a pig skin. At any rate, I agree with the concept of a civil union as opposed to an actual marriage. Marriage is a religious idea which shouldn't even be considered in government law anyway. This way no matter what you believe you will be able to benefit from a partner relationship with no descrimination based on sexual or religious preference if the law allows.

Everyone has a civil union and a civil seperation as opposed to religious ideas of what is really happening. They also get all the legal breaks. This way civil unions can be defined under law rather then under God.

[dlinkwit27]

so what about the other two examples? Should we bring back slavery because I can't find a passage that condones it. I actually find quite a few that say it should be done.

Exodus 21:20-21
20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.

[mikeflca]

To restate what Mattress was saying, the judge said "get a real argument." Good for him. IMHO real arguments exist against the other ones he mentioned and don't exist against same sex whatever-you-want-to-call-thems.

[Jay]

Originally posted by dlinkwit27
so what about the other two examples? Should we bring back slavery because I can't find a passage that condones it. I actually find quite a few that say it should be done.

Exodus 21:20-21
20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property. are you just going to ignore what I am actually saying or are you going to argue with me over religious bullshit?

To reiterate. I do not think religious concepts should be included in law period. This includes the concept of marriage.

Originally posted by bgesley
Mattress how "by that logic" you get same-sex marriages also means inter-species and inter-family marriages. That doesn't make a lick of sense to me. What he is saying is that if you remove social norms for who can be involved in a civil union then the examples he gave could occur.

[dlinkwit27]

damn double post.

[dlinkwit27]

i'm talking mostly to MegaRock

and to what extent should religion be removed from state? The bible, Koran, etc, say to not murder, should that not be a law? Marriage, while is a religious act, is also a governmental one, hence, special taxes for marriages.

@ your last post. homosexuality isn't exactly abnormal anymore. There are TV shows on basic cable about it, and the FCC isn't comming down on anyone for obcenities (the OC comes to mind).

[ertmann|CPH]

Originally posted by MegaRock
Seriously, what's next? Legalization of child sex? Maybe we can give rights to the Klu Klux Klan? Maybe Human-Animal marriage? Sorry, but the whole thing just disgusts me to no end and to any civilised person it should. All I can say is I'M DAMN GLAD I DON'T LIVE IN CALIFORNIA.

I just can't comprehend this line of thought, no matter how much i try, i just can't get it....

A gay couple are two consenting people who love each other, and mutualy choose that they want to have a relationship, they have the same responsibilities as all other citizens, so why shouldn't they be granted the same privileges?

A goat can't choose if it wants to have some redneck dick up it's arse, a child can't choose if some adults are sick and abusive .... how does those two lines connect?

And how does two men or woman living in a marriage, make the marriage you choose, with the man/woman you hopefully love, less worth? If you met a dutch couple would you find their marriage less worth than yours, because in their country gays can also be married? if so, then you sir are a complete and utter asshole!

And how can marriage be a sacred thing with the rampant divorce rate of western nations?

[zootm]

Originally posted by MegaRock
Sorry, but the whole thing just disgusts me to no end and to any civilised person it should.
That's the most fucking hypocritical thing I've read all year.

But then, I consider tolerance a nuance of "civility". I didn't realise its true nature was pig-headedness, ignorance, and hatred.

You don't hate gays for any rational reason. You hate them because it makes you uncomfortable, and you don't like it.

Closer to the topic, if civil unions are brought into law, then marriage should be specifically removed from law. If it's "marriage" for man/woman things, it should be for gays. If it's "civil unions" for gays, it should be the same for straight people.

[Jay]

Originally posted by zootm
If it's "civil unions" for gays, it should be the same for straight people. Pretty much what I said.

I am not against homosexuality. Two consenting adults should be able to have a union if they live together for a large period of time and support each other financially. At the same note, incest should be removed from the law books, these people are consenting adults as well and as such should be allowed a civil union.

Marriage should be strictly observed in a religious setting.

[zootm]

Yeah, I'm more for the solution that "marriage" is the universal legal term myself, though, simply because it's an accepted term, and it's already been seperated from religion by law.

[Jay]

Unfortunately by using "marriage" you rile up the church. It is far faster and easier for the law to be rewritten to say "civil union" then to continue fighting over the definition and tradition of marriage.

[zootm]

Indeed. They will still be referred to as marriages though, regardless, that's what bothers me. You're effectively saying that you need to be religious to get married, which will rile up a whole different crowd.

[shakey_snake]

Ok, let me get my two cents in hear:
"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote. "Simply put, same-sex marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before."
This is absolutely the dumbest thing I have ever heard, especially coming from someone who's not supposed to be stupid.
The entire US court system is built on a system called precedent
prec·e·dent (pr***277;s'***301;-d***601;nt) pronunciation
n.

1.
1. An act or instance that may be used as an example in dealing with subsequent similar instances.
2. Law. A judicial decision that may be used as a standard in subsequent similar cases: a landmark decision that set a legal precedent.
2. Convention or custom arising from long practice: The President followed historical precedent in forming the Cabinet.
But hey, throw that out just because, huh?


This is gonna be real unpopular of me to say, but I'm gonna say it.

The pursuit of "freedom" and "rights" the people seem to put above everything else is completely controlling. This unabtainable pursuit has the exact same kind of characteristics as everything else that has ever destroyed a society.

Now I know you all are thinking, "oh man, a Christian posting crap like this in a thread about gay marriage," but look deeper than that. The denial of individual liberties creates society. The ussage of them destroys it.

Strange thing for a libertarian to say, huh?

I do think everyone has the right to make choices for themselves, and that no institution, beit church, state or education has the right to limit an individuals freedom. I voted against Ohio's marriage admendment. However, I do think that just because someone has that right doesn't mean that they need to or even should execute upon it.

[Jay]

well I am just basing this on the arguement that homosexuals wish to benefit from the same legislation that helps married couples. If it isn't about the label then it shouldn't be a problem. In a court of law they could proclaim you a civil union at the end of a ceremony. Whereas a church ceremony would proclaim you married but in the end you'll have a civil union certificate as opposed to a marriage certificate. Either way both couples benefit from the same tax cuts and considerations in work place and law. In this scenorio the heterosexual couple can no more say they are married then the homosexual couple unless they belong to a religious sect that labels them as "Married".

What I am trying to say is that in the eyes of the law you are not married either way. Your arguement suggests that labels matter when they should not.

[MegaRock]

Unlike zootm I think that's why I am against most of it. If the term marriage is used to describe any union then you pretty much make it accepted and the gay and lesbian lifestyles have never been and probably never will be considered acceptable. The only difference between thirty years ago and now is people put up with it or ignore it and the rest just don't give a crap anymore. So long as you keep your lifestyles out of my face I don't care what they do. Just leave my language alone. If you want a word to mean something other than what it has for hundreds of year write your own dictionary and call it the Gay and Lesbian Dictionary.

[bgesley]

Look, two guys or two girls being married doesn't change one thing in my day-to-day lifestyle. And that marriage will obviously not snowball into inter-species marriage.

Honestly now...are you guys arguing because you think two consenting adults being married is actually causing harm to your way of life? are you arguing because their "benefits" in any ways affects your "benefits"? or are you actually arguing because its a slight break from traditional values?

If you can't actually show me how a man and another man being married actually affects your life then we shouldn't even be having this conversation.

[zootm]

Originally posted by shakey_snake
The denial of individual liberties creates society. The ussage of them destroys it.
Interesting quote, that one. I'd say that, although strictly in an extremist sense you're correct, the practice of finding the perfect society is only restricting the liberties that are necessary to leave society coherent -- those where another is harmed, or there is other such knock-on effects. I just can't see how the topic of same-sex marriage affects the smooth running of society.

Absolute liberty is, clearly, anarchy. But how far do you restrict liberties before you're done? I'd argue that, especially in a young society such as in the states, that as minimal a restriction as possible is ideal.

[ShyShy]

Originally posted by zootm
Indeed. They will still be referred to as marriages though, regardless, that's what bothers me. You're effectively saying that you need to be religious to get married, which will rile up a whole different crowd.

*raises hand* :D

jaz is an atheist and I'm agnostic, but, I still call our "union" a "marriage". And I guess we shouldn't have invited our families and friends to our "wedding", but, instead to our "civil ceremony".

-> :rolleyes: is for all the retardedness, can't we all just get along?

[zootm]

Apparently not.

[MegaRock]

Originally posted by bgesley
Look, two guys or two girls being married doesn't change one thing in my day-to-day lifestyle. And that marriage will obviously not snowball into inter-species marriage.

Honestly now...are you guys arguing because you think two consenting adults being married is actually causing harm to your way of life? are you arguing because their "benefits" in any ways affects your "benefits"? or are you actually arguing because its a slight break from traditional values?

If you can't actually show me how a man and another man being married actually affects your life then we shouldn't even be having this conversation.

Theoretically it does. If you look at the way certian laws work it's quite funny. Take breast feeding for instance. If you have a baby with you suckling on a tit it's considered ok because of the passage of laws stating it was ok because certian people who practice that lifestyle wanted it that way and wanted to practice their lifestyles in the public eye for whatever reason. However if for whatever other reason a woman exposes her breasts in public (take Mardi Gras for instance) it's a fine of 50 - 500 dollars. What gives one woman the right to whip out her tit for her given reason but another cannot for hers?

This is a similar issue in a way. One group of people believe marriage is this. Another group of people who have only been public for a very short time believe it is something else. Because this one group of people want to practice their desires in the public eye they want to change what the rest of the world has believed is a certian thing since the beginning of time and they, for their own desires, want to make it something else.

Again, where does it really stop? Can you guarantee the next group of people who step up to the plate wont be child molesters, sheep molesters or tailpipe molestors? Sure, I think child molestation is wrong and you probably do too - but there is a group of people out there who don't think it is. If gays can change the meaning of marriage and do something which HAS NEVER BEEN ALLOWED ANYWHERE IN THE KNOWN WORLD IN A CIVILIZED COUNTRY then what's to say child molestors won't be next? You simply cant allow it for one group and deny the other because then the discrimination factor comes in. Keeping marriage what it is and leaving the definition that has stood since the beginning of time is the only way.

Crack the dam and the floodgates can and will open. It's just a matter of time and most normal people realize that. We know this because if it was simply their rights that was in question they would have taken the opportunities they were offered and had those rights. Instead it's not just the rights they are demanding but for the entire world to acknowledge, like and accept the same lifestyle and to change their meaning and belief of what marriage is just to suit this one group of people. Who's next to the plate is anyones guess but you can damn well bet someone is.

[Jay]

How it affects people is it further waters down the religious concept of a marriage. I know that we are in progressive times but you guys have to remember that there are people who still hold on to tradition and older values. If homosexuals must call their union a marriage for the sake of having a label then I think it's petty and gives no consideration to the religious definition of what a marriage is.

[dlinkwit27]

"hi there everybody! this is john! we jsut got unioned a month ago!" doesn't have the same ring to it as 'married'

[CaboWaboAddict]

Originally posted by dlinkwit27
dictionary.com has both definitions:

a) The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife.
and
d) A union between two persons having the customary but usually not the legal force of marriage: a same-sex marriage.

The bible also clearly states it is a sin to touch the hide of a dead pig. Should we stone all the NFL players? and it is also a sin to wear two different fabrics (Leviticus 19:19). Should we burn those ofenders also? And if I want to sell my future daughters, as the bible says I can (Exodus 21:7), should I make sure that she only does womans' work, or is that up to her new owner?
Originally posted by dlinkwit27
so what about the other two examples? Should we bring back slavery because I can't find a passage that condones it. I actually find quite a few that say it should be done.

Exodus 21:20-21
20 "If a man beats his male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies as a direct result, he must be punished, 21 but he is not to be punished if the slave gets up after a day or two, since the slave is his property.
Why are you living in the Old Testament?

[dlinkwit27]

Originally posted by CaboWaboAddict
Why are you living in the Old Testament? It's part of the bible eh? Should I disregard the whole "god made the universe in 7 days" part also?

[Mattress]

read romans

[Omega X]

Originally posted by dlinkwit27
"hi there everybody! this is john! we jsut got unioned a month ago!" doesn't have the same ring to it as 'married'

Why in the hell can't they just call it marrage? There are a ton of other words out there that have tons of meanings, why should this be any different?

[Jay]

And they could, it would just have no legal meaning. Which is my point. The church has no power to control the use of the word, but if the law disassociates itself from that word then in ever sense of the word homosexuals could be legally bound to each other without the church running around screaming hell fire. As long as you have the word "marriage" as a legal term you are going to rile up the religious groups with regards to any union that is socially unacceptable to that group.

[CaboWaboAddict]

Originally posted by dlinkwit27
It's part of the bible eh? Should I disregard the whole "god made the universe in 7 days" part also?

I didn't say disregard it - did I?

I asked why you were living in the Old Testament. You seem to think the old law is applicable to today. It is not - Jesus gave Christians the new law. The earliest parts of the Old Testament are a collection of stories that illustrate good and evil. Even the latter parts should be considered stories with a moral... The Old Testament law does not apply to Christians.


As far as the 7 days part... you know my feelings on that - I have expressed them here many times. Let me ask you a question: How was time measured on the first day? There as no Sun or Earth. There was no point of reference.

A little easier question: How was time measure for the first 5 days? there was no one present but God.

And a tough question: If you think that the dinosaur bones were created in the ground by God then do you also believe God lies to us?

[zootm]

"Flyin' lizards? You fuckin' moron! God was fuckin' with you!"
"Aaaaahh... It all seemed so plausible!"

Errr, go back to discussion...

[Triton4]

Homosexuality is just an infatuation, I don't see how you can base a lifelong relationship upon that

[Mattress]

do you have any facts to back up the statement that homosexuality is an infatuation?

also, many non-homosexual people base life-long relationships on infatuation. Many marriages fail as well. Related? maybe.

[whiteflip]

What about the Children? Does our society want to be one where same sex couples adopt? Me being the hard core republican that I am I say who cares, let people decide amongst themselves. I still agrew with Mattress that we shouldn't have gov't marriages. Just a name change to civil union where any two people can join into with all the benefits and other crap that goes along with being married. Marriage is up to Churches.

[zootm]

Originally posted by Triton4
Homosexuality is just an infatuation, I don't see how you can base a lifelong relationship upon that
Because everyone feels exactly the same way as you. Of course. I didn't think of it that way before. Get some perspective!

[baafie]

Originally posted by Mattress
well by that logic then:

"The state's protracted denial of equal protection cannot be justified simply because such constitutional violation has become traditional," Kramer wrote. "Simply put, brother-sister / mother-son / father-daughter marriage cannot be prohibited solely because California has always done so before."


I think you're misinterpreting the judge's logic. I think what he means is that there is no legal basis for prohibition of gay marriage other than that California has always done so before.

There are, however, reasons other than historical ones for prohibiting brother-sister / mother-son / father-daughter marriages.

This argument seems to be popular amongst same-sex marriage opposition. I've heard people state that if same sex marriages were allowed, threeway marriages would be common practice soon. Of course, there is no basis for that argument - living in a nation where gay marriage is allowed and practiced, I can tell you that there have been no threeway marriages (or even political discussions concerning them).


Originally posted by Mattress
here's a better idea: seperate fucking church and state.
Let there be a civil union that goes for every/anyone; this is regulated by the state.
Marriages are religious and are performed in religious rituals/ceremonies. Let churches decided who they'll allow or not allow to marry in their church.
I think that's not a bad idea. Something to this effect already exists in Germany (or so I was told) - people can bond by contract, similar (but not identical) to marriage, yet they have the same tax benefits that exist in marriage.

[bgesley]

Originally posted by Triton4
Homosexuality is just an infatuation, I don't see how you can base a lifelong relationship upon that

Who said anything about lifelong relationships, its just marriage we're discussing which lasts 5-10 years tops nowadays.

[ertmann|CPH]

Originally posted by MegaRock
If gays can change the meaning of marriage and do something which HAS NEVER BEEN ALLOWED ANYWHERE IN THE KNOWN WORLD IN A CIVILIZED COUNTRY then what's to say child molestors won't be next? You simply cant allow it for one group and deny the other because then the discrimination factor comes in. Keeping marriage what it is and leaving the definition that has stood since the beginning of time is the only way.

Same sex church Marriages are allowed in the Netherlands and has been for some time, in Belgium and Spain, they're currently on their way to introduce the neccesary legislation.

In fact, Europe wide opinion polls are showing quite strong support for same sex marriages (allthough there is a more limited support for same sex adoption rights). Im quite confident that within 5 to maximum 10 years, Same sex marriages will be legal, and recognised throughout the European Union.

Well good for us, i know, but that also destroys your argument, As US and European cultures are so interconnected that it's bound to change the american definition of marriage aswell, afaik Canada is well on it's way too.

Another point i'd like to make is the opening of the floodgates argument, my representative in parliament once made a comment on a tv debate, that made up my mind about giving him my vote, translated, and of the memory it goes something like

"the argument about opening the floodgates is flawed, should this be considered a valid argument, the development of society would come to a grinding halt. You should make decision based on that you think is right or wrong, not because what you think it might lead too. Then stand your ground at your limits instead.

[dlinkwit27]

MegaRock
Again, where does it really stop? Can you guarantee the next group of people who step up to the plate wont be child molesters, sheep molesters or tailpipe molestors? Sure, I think child molestation is wrong and you probably do too - but there is a group of people out there who don't think it is. If gays can change the meaning of marriage and do something which HAS NEVER BEEN ALLOWED ANYWHERE IN THE KNOWN WORLD IN A CIVILIZED COUNTRY then what's to say child molestors won't be next? You simply cant allow it for one group and deny the other because then the discrimination factor comes in. Keeping marriage what it is and leaving the definition that has stood since the beginning of time is the only way.
because marriage, between any sex(s) is between two consenting adults, whereas child molestation is unwanted sexual activity on a person who is a child and has no legal rights to do anything, let alone consent to sex (hence all the teachers getting in troulbe lately)

This is really apples and...dogs, because the two are in no way similar.

[bgesley]

Theres some quote I think that goes along the lines of:

"If we stay true to tradition, then we are false to human progress."

[MegaRock]

Originally posted by Mattress
do you have any facts to back up the statement that homosexuality is an infatuation?

also, many non-homosexual people base life-long relationships on infatuation. Many marriages fail as well. Related? maybe.

Ellen DeGeneres' ex 'mate' (shit, whatever her name was) that was a normal woman, then turned into a lesbian and then decided she didn't want to be one anymore and now dates men exclusively again.

That's more proof than the other side can come up with.

because marriage, between any sex(s) is between two consenting adults, whereas child molestation is unwanted sexual activity on a person who is a child and has no legal rights to do anything

What exactly is an adult? It is an age someone some time ago decided was the age when people decided you were smart enough not to be a child. It is nothing more. Each person develops mentally at different speeds. Take for example the 12 year old kid who is going to Stanford. I'm sure he can make a perfectly logical decision. Yet he is still a 'child'

There are also cases where teens have consentual sex all the time and the only thing making it illegal is because someone decided peopel under a certian age should not be having sex. People also decided that gay people should not be married. If gay people can change one law what's to say the other one cant be changed as well using the first case as a precedence?

The worlds morality has gone the same direction the shit I took this morning went.

[baafie]

Originally posted by MegaRock
Ellen DeGeneres' ex 'mate' (shit, whatever her name was) that was a normal woman, then turned into a lesbian and then decided she didn't want to be one anymore and now dates men exclusively again.

That's more proof than the other side can come up with.
This proves.. what? that Ellen DeGeneres' "ex 'mate'" is a bisexual who dropped her preference for women?
Or that she thought she was a lesbian but later found herself to be a heterosexual?
If you think that's exceptional, someone should introduce you to the huge number of people in their 40's who discover their homosexuality.

I'm sure many 80 year olds will be able to tell you that it's not an infatuation.

That said, how can one be sure that it is or is not an infatuation? Only a homosexual can answer that question. Assuming you're not gay, I don't think you can, either.

[shakey_snake]

Only a homosexual can answer that question.

Hey look! It's the old: "shut up, shut up, You don't know! You don't know!" arguement.

[zootm]

Originally posted by MegaRock
Ellen DeGeneres' ex 'mate' (shit, whatever her name was) that was a normal woman, then turned into a lesbian and then decided she didn't want to be one anymore and now dates men exclusively again.

That's more proof than the other side can come up with.
:blah:

So one person changing sexuality constitutes proof? Come on!

[ertmann|CPH]

what baafie said

[Triton4]

Originally posted by Mattress
here's a better idea: seperate fucking church and state.
Let there be a civil union that goes for every/anyone; this is regulated by the state.
Marriages are religious and are performed in religious rituals/ceremonies. Let churches decided who they'll allow or not allow to marry in their church. [/B]

Actually, back in India, there's been a similar system in place for a few decades now.

Arranged marriages are a part of our tradition, and hence performed at temples - thus we call them Temple marriages

Love marriages, or the marriages out of love and generally without parental approval, are termed as Registered marriages - which is basically a civil/govt-recognized union & the couples are officially declared as husband and wife, plus they enjoy all legal benefits that any other married couple would.

[baafie]

Originally posted by shakey_snake
Hey look! It's the old: "shut up, shut up, You don't know! You don't know!" arguement.
Actually, it's the old "it takes one to know one" argument. But, for the sake of discussion, how else would you reach the conclusion that homosexuality is an infatuation? Would you, say, conduct a survey amongst homosexuals? Surely there's no point in asking heterosexuals, hmm?

[shakey_snake]

I was just saying the "takes one to no one" isn't much of an arguement.

But since you asked, I don't define "homosexuality" as a condition, disease or type of a person as much as an act.

And any sexual act between people, even between the closest married couple, could be labeled "infatuation".

[baafie]

Originally posted by shakey_snake
But since you asked, I don't define "homosexuality" as a condition, disease or type of a person as much as an act.

And any sexual act between people, even between the closest married couple, could be labeled "infatuation".
But we're not talking about the sexual act, we're talking about the sexual nature. And someone's nature, whether or not acted upon, is a little difficult to call an infatuation, IMHO.

[shakey_snake]

You asked: "how else would you reach the conclusion that homosexuality is an infatuation?"
I answered.

YOU may be talking about sexual nature but don't try to tell me what "WE'RE" talking about.

[baafie]

Originally posted by shakey_snake
You asked: "how else would you reach the conclusion that homosexuality is an infatuation?"
I answered.

YOU may be talking about sexual nature but don't try to tell me what "WE'RE" talking about.
You're right, I implicitly defined sexuality as sexual nature.

To return to the question, I did not ask you define homosexuality, but I asked you how you reached your definition/conclusion. Unless of course your definition is where your ideas of homosexuality both begin and end.

[shakey_snake]

Originally posted by baafie
To return to the question, I did not ask you define homosexuality, but I asked you how you reached your definition/conclusion.

Which one? my conclusion that "homosexuality is infatuation" which I've already explained, or my definition that "homosexuality is a sexual act between two people of the same sex"
How else would you define homosexuality? Any other definition is unclear and false in certian situations.

[baafie]

Originally posted by shakey_snake
Which one? my conclusion that "homosexuality is infatuation" which I've already explained, or my definition that "homosexuality is a sexual act between two people of the same sex"
The former, I guess.

Originally posted by shakey_snake
How else would you define homosexuality? Any other definition is unclear and false in certian situations.
Are you asking me?
Of course, no definition works in all situations, including yours. Nonetheless, I'll give you mine. My definition is split in two.

One: when someone says "I had sex with someone of the same sex yesterday", this constitutes a homosexual act (which could very well be an infatuation).
Two: when someone says "All of my sexual contact is homosexual", this would constitute sexual nature.

[zootm]

Originally posted by shakey_snake
Which one? my conclusion that "homosexuality is infatuation" which I've already explained
If you've posted a logically cogent proof, I don't see it. Please repeat it if I've made this oversight.

Originally posted by shakey_snake
or my definition that "homosexuality is a sexual act between two people of the same sex"
Isn't homosexuality sexual desire or romantic desire between two people of the same sex? Same idea as the love that a man feels for a woman. Except a man is feeling it for another man, or a woman is feeling it for another woman.

I ask only because I've known people who have been a great deal more convincing in their love for people of the same sex than you have been with your love for God. And you've probably been as convincing as you ever will be.

[Mattress]

I have love for many people of the same sex as me. :p

actually here is an interesting read (http://www.janegalt.net/blog/archives/005244.html) regarding the issue of gay marriage. It's pretty long but it covers some interesting historical points about how the institution of marriage has been altered in the past and what the results of those changes have been.

[zootm]

Quite interesting, he is on a bit of a rant though.

[shakey_snake]

Originally posted by zootm
If you've posted a logically cogent proof, I don't see it. Please repeat it if I've made this oversight.
And any sexual act between people, even between the closest married couple, could be labeled "infatuation".
Originally posted by zootm
Isn't homosexuality sexual desire or romantic desire between two people of the same sex? Same idea as the love that a man feels for a woman. Except a man is feeling it for another man, or a woman is feeling it for another woman.
Ok, thats confusing, because you kind of argued my point.
Sexual desire and romantic desire (which I think that there is a lot less difference between the two than we'd like to think) is sexual desire and romantic desire, regardless of whether It's felt for someone of the same or different sex. Thinking otherwise I think is very Plessy vs. Ferguson-ish.

If there is a distinction to be made it is because they culminate in different acts.
Originally posted by zootm
I ask only because I've known people who have been a great deal more convincing in their love for people of the same sex than you have been with your love for God. And you've probably been as convincing as you ever will be.
I'm sorry I haven't been convicing in my love for God in your eyes, as that is my highest priority. If you could, PM me about your reasons; maybe I could learn to communicate more effectively in this medium.

[zootm]

No, you've been as convincing as I'd expect people on the net to be, don't worry about it. I've just seen what I regard to be genuine love between same-sex couples, with my own eyes.

I said "sexual desire and romantic desire" because it was the definition of love I found in the dictionary, wasn't a very well put when I posted that, though.

[MegaRock]

Originally posted by dlinkwit27
because marriage, between any sex(s) is between two consenting adults, whereas child molestation is unwanted sexual activity on a person who is a child and has no legal rights to do anything, let alone consent to sex (hence all the teachers getting in troulbe lately)

This is really apples and...dogs, because the two are in no way similar.

Well, theoretically yes and no. There have been plenty of cases where say a 25 year old was getting it on with a 14 year old and the 14 year old was more than a willing participant however because it was a 14 year old it's child molestation and the 25 year old goes to jail.

And your paragraph says "person who is a child and has no legal rights to do anything". Right now neither do the gays who want to be married and they want to change that. If something which has been at least a religious law since the beginning of any time we know can be changed to suit a small portion of the population then there is nothing to stop the law preventing minors and even children from having sex. This gay marriage thing would partially be the legal grounds to do so with the backing proof that statement people always use: It's the year 2005 and children are developing sexually at a younger age and are much more aware of whats going on in the world therefore could make a better judgement than those born in the 50's or before when these laws were first written so we should change it to anyone over 13.

Yes, it's all hypothetical but once you let the immoral start changing laws there is no stopping them and what they want.

[LuigiHann]

A law that lets gay people get married will not let younger kids have sex. If someone proposes a law that lets younger kids have sex, you can argue that in a thread about that law. :/ The idea of "consenting adults" is not under fire.

[dlinkwit27]

Originally posted by MegaRock
And your paragraph says "person who is a child and has no legal rights to do anything". Right now neither do the gays who want to be married and they want to change that.
They are adults, and have all the legal rights other adults (persons over 18) have. Free speach, etc. You can't put a curfew on adults like you can children, etc.