California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

????????

I don't inderstand the point / connection you are making here? Are you saying that the strides of the Women's Sufferage Movement and Civil Rights are similar to homosexuals getting the right to marry?

She's saying they are similar in a general civil rights sense.

Despite the inequalities that still persist in society, think back to when race and gender inequalities were even more overt and strict. There are people who said blacks should "get over it or go back to Africa," even if most blacks weren't voluntary immigrants in the first place. Women were told that "this is how it is."

We have a society of norms and laws. But as taxpayers we do have a voice and a right to challenge these norms and laws that deny groups of people what are perceived to be basic rights. These aren't pedophiles who want to legally have sex with children or people who want the right to walk around naked every Friday while snorting cocaine and smacking people in the face. Instead, these are generally law abiding citizens who want the right to be legally married and enjoy the rights, responsibilities, and privileges therein.

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

And yes, when people don't like living in an area they just pick up and leave. There was actually a term for it in the mid to late 60's - it was called 'White Flight'. This occurred when Whites felt that there were too many Blacks moving into their (the White's) neighborhood, so Whites would just move, usually out to suburbia.

You are completely misapplying the concept of "white flight" (and "capital flight"). Please stop.

[DaemonSeid]

I just stuck my head back in here today....


Wow....tailspinning to oblivion.....

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by DaemonSeid

I just stuck my head back in here today....


Wow....tailspinning to oblivion.....

It's a massive head explosion.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

She's saying they are similar in a general civil rights sense.

I thought so. General, perhaps. I just don't think that gays getting to marry has the same magnitude / social impact as Women's Sufferage and Civil Rights, IMHO.

You are completely misapplying the concept of "white flight" (and "capital flight"). Please stop.

I disagree, but that is a different thread.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I thought so. General, perhaps. I just don't think that gays getting to marry has the same magnitude / social impact as Women's Sufferage and Civil Rights, IMHO.

Yes, general.

Other than that, I agree with you because the magnitude and social impact are both objective and subjective measures. They can be measured quantitatively and qualitatively.

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I disagree, but that is a different thread.

It isn't a different thread because you said it in this thread.

You can't effectively compare the relocation of whites to the suburbs, because their neighborhood surpassed the racial tipping point, to saying that homosexuals should "get over it or go away" if they feel that they aren't afforded the same rights that heterosexual citizens are. Sure, homosexuals can technically choose to relocate if they want certain rights, as some homosexuals have done. But to act like that's the only other alternative is as silly as the Americans who became Canadian citizens when Bush got re-elected (which was still a choice versus telling Americans "you tax payers don't like where America's headed? It's a hopeless cause so move to Canada for all we care. This is how it is. Get over it. Tax payers.").

[AGDee]

I will repeat.. the Bible is a moral guide, not a societal legal guide. Those who choose to follow it to the letter can feel free to do so. Those who do not, do not have to. I'm glad that the Bible isn't the source of all of our laws because I wouldn't want to live as described in Leviticus.

Does anybody have any reason OTHER THAN RELIGION to deny people their ability to legally vow their unending love to each other?

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I will repeat.. the Bible is a moral guide, not a societal legal guide.

Does anybody have any reason OTHER THAN RELIGION to deny people their ability to legally vow their unending love to each other?

First sentence: True.

Second sentence: One of the best comments/questions I've read on GC in a very long time.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

First sentence: True.

Second sentence: One of the best comments/questions I've read on GC in a very long time.

Morality is the basis for a substantial portion of American law. Also, didn't CA already allow people to legally profess their love for each other via civil unions?

[DeltAlum]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Morality is the basis for a substantial portion of American law. Also, didn't CA already allow people to legally profess their love for each other via civil unions?

With emphasis on the "substantial portion." Not the entire structure of American Law.

The decision here is not on civil unions, but marriage.

Right?

A quick comment on the New Testiment replacing the Old -- from the Christian viewpoint. Not everyone is Christian.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by AGDee

I will repeat.. the Bible is a moral guide, not a societal legal guide. Those who choose to follow it to the letter can feel free to do so. Those who do not, do not have to. I'm glad that the Bible isn't the source of all of our laws because I wouldn't want to live as described in Leviticus.

Does anybody have any reason OTHER THAN RELIGION to deny people their ability to legally vow their unending love to each other?

First comment: I agree too. But, remember, the New Testament "replaced" the laws of the Old Testament. So, in a sense while people may read and study the Old Testament, we are to live under the New Testament. That is the way it is explained in my Church. We consider ourselves New Testament Christians.

Second Comment: Another reason other than religion is a biological one. Species live to propagate their genomes. In order for us humans to do that we have to find the opposite gender who we feel will can produce more fit offspring - i.e., have stronger genetic traits than the parents, or hybrid vigor. Of course this can only happen with a male and a female.

For homosexuals, there is no possibility for them to "add" their genes to the gene pool. Two males and / or two females can not produce offspring that contains both of their genes. While one person can make a contribution, the other can not. Therefore, it is biologically impossible to produce the most fit offspring from a homosexual coupling. In essence the species would become genetically weaker and eventually die out, or become extinct.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

First comment: I agree too. But, remember, the New Testament "replaced" the laws of the Old Testament. So, in a sense while people may read and study the Old Testament, we are to live under the New Testament. That is the way it is explained in my Church. We consider ourselves New Testament Christians.

Second Comment: Another reason other than religion is a biological one. Species live to propagate their genomes. In order for us humans to do that we have to find the opposite gender who we feel will can produce more fit offspring - i.e., have stronger genetic traits than the parents, or hybrid vigor. Of course this can only happen with a male and a female.

For homosexuals, there is no possibility for them to "add" their genes to the gene pool. Two males and / or two females can not produce offspring that contains both of their genes. While one person can make a contribution, the other can not. Therefore, it is biologically impossible to produce the most fit offspring from a homosexual coupling. In essence the species would become genetically weaker and eventually die out, or become extinct.

There are no words to express how circular this discussion is.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

There are no words to express how circular this discussion is.

I wub you.

[doogur]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Second Comment: Another reason other than religion is a biological one. Species live to propagate their genomes. In order for us humans to do that we have to find the opposite gender who we feel will can produce more fit offspring - i.e., have stronger genetic traits than the parents, or hybrid vigor. Of course this can only happen with a male and a female.

For homosexuals, there is no possibility for them to "add" their genes to the gene pool. Two males and / or two females can not produce offspring that contains both of their genes. While one person can make a contribution, the other can not. Therefore, it is biologically impossible to produce the most fit offspring from a homosexual coupling. In essence the species would become genetically weaker and eventually die out, or become extinct.

Marriage does not require even straight couples to reproduce. Many don't. My brother and his wife are unable to have children. By your logic they should not been allowed to marry?

Of course not. It's interesting that you make this "requirement" is made *only* for gay couples.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by doogur

Marriage does not require even straight couples to reproduce. Many don't. My brother and his wife are unable to have children. By your logic they should not marry?

Of course not. So it's interesting that this "requirement" is made *only* for gay couples.

America has a history of valuing marriage and family. The ability to procreate plays a substantial role in that state interest. Thus, benefits provided to encourage the creation of families are going to be much more controversial when provided to couples who don't have the ability to naturally procreate.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by doogur

By your logic.....

First, go back and read through the entire thread. I addressed this point a few pages back.

Second, it is exactly as you state, "my logic", meaning my opinion. Now, when my logic becomes law, then I'd worry....