WP: California Legislature Approves Gay Marriage

[Prosperity]

I did not take long for someone to marginalize the point of my post. :laugh:

My point is "marriage" is a religious term with biblical significance. It is the joining of a man and woman in HOLY matrimony.

If the position of a gay person is they want the same rights afforded to a married person, then I am all for it. It is called civil unions. But do not pretend that two gay joining are either "holy" or marriage. No more than if a person decided to one day go marry a dog.

Woof.

biblical signifigance what about the nonreligious who marry, or say Hindus that marry? certainly Hindus don't give two ****s about your biblical signifigance, so would you deny them marriage too?

If there was a religion or a sect of Christianity that would be ok with gay marriage would you recognize it then?

[Destino]

Again, why is it better if someone is genetically predisposed to homosexuality than if they got it from the environment. Do you find the origin of every controversial behaviour to see if it is genetic or environmental. For what it is worth studies on indentical twins have shown that almost exactly 50% of personal traits are genetic.

As for accepted moral behavior, well whether it is accepted or not is also irrelevant in my eyes. The government is supposed to protect life liberty and the pursuit of happines not enforce morals.

The why is simple, genetic roots would eliminate the moral question. I strongly believe that homosexuality for the most part is not one of "choice" being that I personally never made a choice to be attracted to women, that's just the way it was. Thus I never made a "moral choice" at all, my sexuality was chosen for me and completely out of my control. This is why moralists fight so strongly against homosexuality being a natural human trait, becuase if it is so then their entire argument falls apart.

So yes the origin, at least to me, is a vital question that needs to be answered in order to move forward in this debate.

As for the government not enforcing moral behavior, that is simply the way it works. Every society operates inside a set of rules, often times those rules have a moral foundation. Children aren't allowed to see a boob in a movie, but are allowed to view a great deal of violence, that is a fine example of American morlaity in law making. I could offer up limitless examples but the point is there is am undeniable degree of moral basis in law making.

[Destino]

I can, at least part of this is the fact that people fear losing their power to control and enforce morality by using coercion through the facade of government legitimacy. They call it moral decay, I call it liberty.

Perhaps to some this is a fear of theirs. Personally I think the fear found in moral segment is less concerned with a power struggle and more with good old fashioned hell fire. They are afraid that sanctioning homosexuality will bring about God's wrath and becasue they failed to stop it, they'll be brought along for the handbasket ride. I could be wrong though, truth be told I don't understand their reasoning all that well.

[Prosperity]

If other acts that could be deemed genetic like say pedophillia, would you act differently. Of course you can say that the child can't consent, but if you ignore that, then what?

[Destino]

If other acts that could be deemed genetic like say pedophillia, would you act differently. Of course you can say that the child can't consent, but if you ignore that, then what?

The problem with that question is that you can't ignore the issue of consent. Pedophillia can never be in good conscience accepted because it requires a helpless victim.

But for the purpose of debate I'd say that genetic or not, sexual behavior of that sort can destroy the mind of a child ruining them for life. So even if consent is not an issue it is a savagely destructive behavior with absolutely no added benefit other then to slake the deviant sexual wants of a tiny population. It's a no brainer that this behavior simply can not be tolerated.

The genetic aspect is only part of the debate in terms of gay marriage. Being that homosexuality has no "victims" associated with it, one can move beyond issues like those involved in pedophillia. The question keeping it from being accepted is in large part a moral one, not one of destruction left in it's wake.

[portisizzle]

biblical signifigance what about the nonreligious who marry, or say Hindus that marry? certainly Hindus don't give two ****s about your biblical signifigance, so would you deny them marriage too?

If there was a religion or a sect of Christianity that would be ok with gay marriage would you recognize it then?

There is no such thing as "gay marriage". Get over it.

The fight worth fighting is making sure a married couple does not have any more or improved rights over two gay individuals who bound by a civil union.

Is there something about the term civil union you do not like???

[Prosperity]

Could you please answer my questions?

[Prosperity]

The problem with that question is that you can't ignore the issue of consent. Pedophillia can never be in good conscience accepted because it requires a helpless victim.

But for the purpose of debate I'd say that genetic or not, sexual behavior of that sort can destroy the mind of a child ruining them for life. So even if consent is not an issue it is a savagely destructive behavior with absolutely no added benefit other then to slake the deviant sexual wants of a tiny population. It's a no brainer that this behavior simply can not be tolerated.

The genetic aspect is only part of the debate in terms of gay marriage. Being that homosexuality has no "victims" associated with it, one can move beyond issues like those involved in pedophillia. The question keeping it from being accepted is in large part a moral one, not one of destruction left in it's wake.

eh I guess we are at an impasse. I see the role of government to defend life and liberty, so whether a criminal commits a crime because of some reason be it genetic or whatever it makes no difference, since the role of government is not to make moral judgements just to defend people.

[jrockster21]

I did not take long for someone to marginalize the point of my post. :laugh:

My point is "marriage" is a religious term with biblical significance. It is the joining of a man and woman in HOLY matrimony.

If the position of a gay person is they want the same rights afforded to a married person, then I am all for it. It is called civil unions. But do not pretend that two gay joining are either "holy" or marriage. No more than if a person decided to one day go marry a dog.

Woof.

Hey PS, ever heard of separation of church and state? Hey, if you want to join a religion that doesn't allow gays to get married, have at it. You and your religion can continue to not recognize gay marriage until you're dead, and that is your right. But the government's policy on marriage should have nothing to do with religion. Just a fact. If you want to live in a theocracy, go move to Iran.

Read this, and get back to me.

[jrockster21]

What a retarded post, what should I fix first?

"So when the first person shows up to say they want to marry their dog, are you going to be cool with that??"

You really don't deserve a response for this, but I am feeling generous. How does a dog=a person? Can a dog give consent? Are you equaling gays to dogs? Or is this your everyday GOP spoonfed slippery slope falacy propaganda.

"Marriage is a religious experience between a man and a woman, only. Do gays have the right to been see in the eyes of our government as a bound couple? Yes, it is call civil unions. Not marriage. "

If it is a religious experience then there WILL be some church or temple or whatever out there doing it, AND the government has no right to regulate it. Duh...

"The thing to do is to put this to a vote of the American people. You OK with that champ?"

What a bunch of collectivist bull crap. I bet you still consider yourself a conservative after posting this. What a shame, atleast real conservatives used to recognize even the People's power had to be limited. sigh...

The American people can vote on what they want but unless they get rid of equal protection under the law, there will be the protected right for gays to marry. And since when did the GOP become the People's party? This isn't the People's Republic of America. We have founded this country under the goal of protecting life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. You can get sheep to vote however you want, but that won't change our natural rights.

Personally I don't want the government involved in marriage out of principle. There should be no positive or negative effect on marriage and married people from the government. It is a personal/religious thing leave it alone, stop trying to regulate every facet of life.

Yah, what he said. Thanks Liberty, you made that pretty easy for me!

I would only add that the issue of gay marriage is one of civil rights, and therefore should NOT be in the hands of the voters. I mean, I'm sure if you put it to a vote in certain counties the ban on interaccial marriage would be upheld. Does that mean we should ban it? Of course not.

And really...keep the dog comments out of it.

[jrockster21]

The root causes of racism was power, or rather fear of losing it. Can you say the same thing is the cause of this debate? I dont' see it but I'm open to new ideas, so share yours with me if you like.

The root cause of racism was fear alright, but not the fear of losing power. It was the fear of something different. Human nature (unfortunately) is to alienate and be afraid of things that are different than us. Most people are able to transcend this, but a lot aren't. Gay people are different than us, so naturally people are afraid. They are afraid that their sons and daughters might be gay, afraid that their friends might be gay, and yes, afraid that somehow deep inside they might be gay, because they don't understand it.

I can see your point about knowing whether or not being gay is genetic or if it is learned. I don't agree, but I can understand what you are saying. I personally think it is genetic, because as you said, I have always been attracted to women; I didn't have a choice. That is enough for me to logically infer that a gay man has the opposite experience.

[Destino]

The root cause of racism was fear alright, but not the fear of losing power. It was the fear of something different. Human nature (unfortunately) is to alienate and be afraid of things that are different than us. Most people are able to transcend this, but a lot aren't. Gay people are different than us, so naturally people are afraid. They are afraid that their sons and daughters might be gay, afraid that their friends might be gay, and yes, afraid that somehow deep inside they might be gay, because they don't understand it.

Real racism against blacks didn't pop up until the black slave populations started to rival white populations in the south. That's when laws were passed stopping any form of freedom to be extended to them. It's always about power. The difference makes it easier to enforce, but make no mistake, hatred can be sparked just as easily between groups that look exactly a like and happen to study a bible slightly different. Just look at what the Catholic and protestants were doing to eachother during (or just before) the start of african slave imports.

I can see your point about knowing whether or not being gay is genetic or if it is learned. I don't agree, but I can understand what you are saying. I personally think it is genetic, because as you said, I have always been attracted to women; I didn't have a choice. That is enough for me to logically infer that a gay man has the opposite experience.

I not only see your point, but I've argued it several times. I never made a "choice" to be into women, that's how I came out of the oven.

[jrockster21]

Real racism against blacks didn't pop up until the black slave populations started to rival white populations in the south. That's when laws were passed stopping any form of freedom to be extended to them. It's always about power. The difference makes it easier to enforce, but make no mistake, hatred can be sparked just as easily between groups that look exactly a like and happen to study a bible slightly different. Just look at what the Catholic and protestants were doing to eachother during (or just before) the start of african slave imports.

Think about what you are saying..."real racism against blacks didn't pop up until THE BLACK SLAVE POPULATIONS..." stop right there. Racism was already present, my friend. We found our selves so superior to Africans that we enslaved them. We thought less of them as human beings from the beginning.

I think what you are referring to is general animosity towards blacks; because most people weren't slave owners, only the very rich could afford them. Most people just considered them property (as opposed to people), and simply acknowledged that they were below them, which is racism. When the populations started to get large, that is when the "put them in their place" ideology sprouted. Just my opinion.

[BlueTalon]

"He got elected with record numbers of lesbian and gay voters who had not previously voted for a Republican, and he sold us out."

I don't remember Ahnold running on a platfrom of supporting gay marriage, so how could a veto be a sellout?

[BlueTalon]

Assuming you are correct, should California go about the process of changing its constitution in order to follow the will of its people??

I think that would be the correct move.

[Larry]

I don't remember Ahnold running on a platfrom of supporting gay marriage, so how could a veto be a sellout?

I don't recall him mentioning the subject. But he did run by claiming that he was fiscally conservative, but socially liberal.

And gay marriage doesn't sound to me like a fiscal issue.

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

Just another episode, another battle in the culture wars. Some of us do believe in an objective moral truth; not all things are relative. Marriage has a purpose beyond the simple union of two consenting, mutually admiring people. And that purpose is procreation. Apparently the majority of Californians (and Americans) accept this truism, and their will must be respected. Don't like it? Get the F out. I wish the leftists would leave this country as they always seem to threaten almost every four years.

[Destino]

Think about what you are saying..."real racism against blacks didn't pop up until THE BLACK SLAVE POPULATIONS..." stop right there. Racism was already present, my friend. We found our selves so superior to Africans that we enslaved them. We thought less of them as human beings from the beginning.

I think what you are referring to is general animosity towards blacks; because most people weren't slave owners, only the very rich could afford them. Most people just considered them property (as opposed to people), and simply acknowledged that they were below them, which is racism. When the populations started to get large, that is when the "put them in their place" ideology sprouted. Just my opinion.

Different times friend. In the times when slavery began life wasn't valued via the same means as today. Being black and sold, made you a slave, being catholic made you a target....being native american, made you an obsticle. True "racism" in the form we see it today didn't begin until the balance of power was in question. Before then a converted to christian black slave could win his freedom. Try to figure that one out heh.

Oh the joy of american history. hehe

[jrockster21]

Just another episode, another battle in the culture wars. Some of us do believe in an objective moral truth; not all things are relative. Marriage has a purpose beyond the simple union of two consenting, mutually admiring people. And that purpose is procreation. Apparently the majority of Californians (and Americans) accept this truism, and their will must be respected. Don't like it? Get the F out. I wish the leftists would leave this country as they always seem to threaten almost every four years.

:doh:

Are you saying that everyone who gets married has kids? That the purpose of marriage is procreation??? That is about the most absurd, absolutely ignorant statement I have EVER read. The purpose of marriage, as you stated above, is the simple union of two consenting, mutually admiring adults. Whether or not those two people decide to have children is a completely separate issue.

And just in case you haven't had the birds and the bees talk yet, babies come from sex; the stork doesn't deliver babies immediately after the wedding ceremony.

[Destino]

Just another episode, another battle in the culture wars. Some of us do believe in an objective moral truth; not all things are relative. Marriage has a purpose beyond the simple union of two consenting, mutually admiring people. And that purpose is procreation. Apparently the majority of Californians (and Americans) accept this truism, and their will must be respected. Don't like it? Get the F out. I wish the leftists would leave this country as they always seem to threaten almost every four years.

You are assuming that because people oppose gay marriage they do so because they think the purpose of getting married is the biblical definition of procreation. The problem with this "objective moral truth" is that it's source is more recent then the concept of marriage. Marriage is now and was then a means of controlling wealth and property....why do you think gays want it to begin with?

I'd say "if you don't like it leave" but you left reality years ago.

[jrockster21]

Different times friend. In the times when slavery began life wasn't valued via the same means as today. Being black and sold, made you a slave, being catholic made you a target....being native american, made you an obsticle. True "racism" in the form we see it today didn't begin until the balance of power was in question. Before then a converted to christian black slave could win his freedom. Try to figure that one out heh.

Oh the joy of american history. hehe

Well, this is just a difference of opinion. The fact that he could "win his freedom" is a racist ideal, in my opinion. And religious persecution can't be compared to racism, because it is generally race independent.

And Native Americans were most certainly the targets of racism. Lies were propagated about them in order to stir hatred among the American people. They were swindled, lied to and cheated out of their land. If it had been other Europeans who had settled America before us, it would have been a much different story.

[jrockster21]

You are assuming that because people oppose gay marriage they do so because they think the purpose of getting married is the biblical definition of procreation. The problem with this "objective moral truth" is that it's source is more recent then the concept of marriage. Marriage is now and was then a means of controlling wealth and property....why do you think gays want it to begin with?

I'd say "if you don't like it leave" but you left reality years ago.

If Oakton/Bush is referring to some religious thing, then what place does it have in this argument anyway? We are talking about the government's recognition of marriage, which should have NOTHING to do with religion. Period.

[OaktonSkins/BushFan]

:doh:

Are you saying that everyone who gets married has kids? That the purpose of marriage is procreation??? That is about the most absurd, absolutely ignorant statement I have EVER read. The purpose of marriage, as you stated above, is the simple union of two consenting, mutually admiring adults. Whether or not those two people decide to have children is a completely separate issue.

And just in case you haven't had the birds and the bees talk yet, babies come from sex; the stork doesn't deliver babies immediately after the wedding ceremony.

What is the public interest in the institution of marriage? It is the reproduction of the human race and keeping men and women together so that their children will reach maturity and continue this cycle of human propogation. Homosexuality does not serve the public interest. The public interest in promoting this cycle is great, because human experience and social science research both demonstrate that married men and women and their children lead a far better life than people in non-traditional, or dysfunctional arrangements.Yes, childless marriages do exist, but their interest is not equal, and that is well-reflected in public policy.

Now, grab a towel and wipe that froth from your face. It's unbecoming.

[jrockster21]

What is the public interest in the institution of marriage? It is the reproduction of the human race and keeping men and women together so that their children will reach maturity and continue this cycle of human propogation.

Ahhh...no. Marriage has nothing to do with reproduction, sorry. This isn't 1920. This is the 2000's and most people have transcended all that fire and brimstone, no premarital sex bullcrap. Sorry, but its true. Not that it ever was taken that seriously; it just wasn't as blatant disregarded as it is today. Marriage is the union of two people who love eachother and want to make that love and their bond "official." Period, end of argument.

Homosexuality does not serve the public interest. The public interest in promoting this cycle is great, because human experience and social science research both demonstrate that married men and women and their children lead a far better life than people in non-traditional, or dysfunctional arrangements.Yes, childless marriages do exist, but their interest is not equal, and that is well-reflected in public policy.

Now, grab a towel and wipe that froth from your face. It's unbecoming.

Actually, that's not true. A loving family environment is a loving family environment, whether its a mom and a dad, two moms or two dads. Kids raised in homes with two same-sex parents do just as well as kids who are raised in traditional environments.

[Destino]

Well, this is just a difference of opinion. The fact that he could "win his freedom" is a racist ideal, in my opinion. And religious persecution can't be compared to racism, because it is generally race independent.

And Native Americans were most certainly the targets of racism. Lies were propagated about them in order to stir hatred among the American people. They were swindled, lied to and cheated out of their land. If it had been other Europeans who had settled America before us, it would have been a much different story.

Hard to argue with what you are saying here. Lies were propogated, two main versions of the indian (that were lies to begin with) are still taught today. The "child of nature" tree hugger indian that wouldn't have developed his own civilization if not for the white man, and the savage that knew no honor that earned his own destruction. Sadly these myths live on today. Hell most people don't even know indians had no horses until the white folks brought them, heh.

The only issue I have is your "other Europeans" remark. Do you think the Brits were different then say the Spaniards? Ask the Incas, Aztecs, and Mayans about that. Perhaps you think the French were better....how many native american leaders has Canada enjoyed? Then theirs the Dutch, the princes of the slave trade. Who are you referring to?