California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[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.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

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.

No, not the entire structure, but a very substantial portion. I'm not advocating that we should reference the Bible when states determine that they desire to continue the tradition of marriage being between one man and one woman.

You're right, the decision here is on marriage. However, people are complaining about gay couples not having equal access the things that accompany marriage, but in CA...they did. So what does that mean? Equality isn't sufficient unless they're allowed to force their way into an establishment they traditionally haven't been a part of?

This argument is about semantics for a lot of people, but the continued efforts of the gay community, even when receiving something mirroring marriage, provides valuable insight to the goals of their movement.

So to liberals and gay persons, would nationwide civil unions, if not called marriage, be sufficient?

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DeltAlum

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

We said this a few pages back.

[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.

[DaemonSeid]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I wub you.

This is the right thread to express that feeling....hehehehehe

[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.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by doogur

I'm sure most here can see nate's attempt to compare defies all logic.

I'm a very logical person. I'm also very opinionated. But since you have less than ten posts it is doubtful you have seen very much of why I feel this way, and what my train of thought on the subject matter is. I chose to leave this thread based on the fact that it really wouldn't ever end, I said my piece and left. Just don't start with me.