California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[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.

[doogur]

Originally Posted by nate2512

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.

You will leave because I will rationally tear your "rationale" to shreads.

Let's talk the Bible Nate. Let's. Start quoting Leviticus.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by doogur

You will leave because I will rationally tear your "rationale" to shreads.

Let's talk the Bible Nate. Let's. Start quoting Leviticus.

In Leviticus, it clearly states that 'man shall not lie with man as he does with a woman, for it is an abomination'....so what's your point?

If you want to go back and quote Leviticus, then gay marriages are an abomination.

[doogur]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

In Leviticus, it clearly states that 'man shall not lie with man as he does with a woman, for it is an abomination'....so what's your point?

If you want to go back and quote Leviticus, then gay marriages are an abomination.

Maybe you should quote all of Leviticus lest you become a hypocrite.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by doogur

You will leave because I will rationally tear your "rationale" to shreads.

Let's talk the Bible Nate. Let's. Start quoting Leviticus.

Leviticus 18:22 Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as a woman is a detestable sin.

Anymore?

[doogur]

Originally Posted by nate2512

Leviticus 18:22 Do not practice homosexuality, having sex with another man as a woman is a detestable sin.

Anymore?

For the record, Nate, the Hebrews did not have a word for "homosexuality". Or at least they didn't understand it in the context we do today. So using that word as an interpretation of the Bible doesn't exactly mesh, y'knowhatImean?

[doogur]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

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.

The institution today isn't even what it was 50 years ago, much less 100 years ago or 1,000 years ago. It certainly isn't a stagnant thing.

Your argument about procreation holds no water. If the ability to procreate plays a substantial role in the state interest, then why doesn't the state REQUIRE a man and a woman to bear children in order to get married?

Furthermore, allowing gays and lesbians to get married with have absolutely NO bearing on the procreation equation anyway.

If people - gay or straight - want to have children, they will find a way regardless of marriage. You are using the procreation argument where there is NO BASIS FOR THE ARGUMENT.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by doogur

The institution today isn't even what it was 50 years ago, much less 100 years ago or 1,000 years ago. It certainly isn't a stagnant thing.

Your argument about procreation holds no water. If the ability to procreate plays a substantial role in the state interest, then why doesn't the state REQUIRE a man and a woman to bear children in order to get married?

Furthermore, allowing gays and lesbians to get married with have absolutely NO bearing on the procreation equation anyway.

If people - gay or straight - want to have children, they will find a way regardless of marriage. You are using the procreation argument where there is NO BASIS FOR THE ARGUMENT.

The state doesn't REQUIRE men and women to have children because it is without a doubt unconstitutional. Your assertion is nonsensical, and you're well aware of it. We don't force people to give to charity (other than our ridiculous system of taxation), we give them benefits should they choose to do so. That is because the federal and state governments have a vested interest in helping the poor, the sick, etc. The government believes it has an interest in encouraging family-creation, and thus marriage incentives are provided.

I'm not using the procreation argument. I'm telling you that there will be resistance to gay marriage considering many of the incentives for marriage benefits are not present with gay relationships. This isn't me trying to argue the point, this is me telling you absolutely where the resistance will come from and why.

Marriage doesn't have anything to do with procreation, but natural procreation has a lot to do with the government's interest in marriage. There are exceptions to the ability to bear children in straight relationships, but the RULE with gay relationships is that natural procreation ISN'T POSSIBLE inside that relationship.

[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....