California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by RU OX Alum

probably not, marriage is marriage, if someone is gay and christian they would want the same sacrement:

but here is my question

couldn't the catholic church sue anyone who calls it "marriage" since they were the ones who made it a sacrement?

seriously, shouldn't everyone who is not catholic call it something else?

They made it a sacrament for Roman Catholics only. They don't have power over anybody else. However, since marriage existed prior to that, then no, they couldn't sue. They don't own the term marriage or else no other religions would be able to use it either.

If you're going to call it a civil union for everybody who doesn't get married in a church, then fine. Or should I say, doesn't get unioned in a church? Why create more red tape and bureaucracy when we already have such a thing, called marriage? Why do we want to continue to inflate our government? Double the forms, double the requirements, etc. For what? Seems like a waste of resources to me.

And, if you're going to use the biological argument that the only purpose of marriage is procreation then you better ban it for everybody who is sterile too, whether by choice or by nature. "Oops, sorry, you had the mumps when you were 10 and are sterile now? No marriage license for you!"

[Rudey]

I'm still waiting for someone to explain why only certain marriages would be allowed...why can't someone marry a cow? You can eat the cow, you won't torture the cow...why can't you marry it? And if you're both adults why can't a father and daughter get married?

Please, keep morality and religion out of it since you're not fans of that nonesense. Thanks.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by AGDee

If you're going to call it a civil union for everybody who doesn't get married in a church, then fine.

Agreed. In fact, why not retire the term "marriage" altogether?

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

Agreed. In fact, why not retire the term "marriage" altogether?

Nah because I want my marriage to be considered a "marriage."

I know you're kidding but I'm amused when people try to throw the baby out with the bath water. They think that gay marriage means having to completely do away with certain terminology and some even think that we'd have to allow people to marry children or animals (Rudey is a riot but there are people who actually use that response in real life).

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by preciousjeni

I don't know that I would fight against incestuous marriages if they were ever to be up for national discussion. Anyway, I went to high school with a guy who grew up with his step-sister from the time they were infants. They ended up marrying.

That reminds me of an article I read--two teenagers fell in love and finally introduced their parents. Their parents fell in love and married, making them step-siblings. The family had to move because the teens were horribly bullied when they continued dating. Personally, I thought it was selfish for the parents to start dating when they knew that would put their kids in an awkward position, but anyway...

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

I They think that gay marriage means having to completely do away with certain terminology and some even think that we'd have to allow people to marry children or animals...

That was the point of my hijack--I just wondered if anyone would say this.

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Nah because I want my marriage to be considered a "marriage."

I know you're kidding but I'm amused when people try to throw the baby out with the bath water. They think that gay marriage means having to completely do away with certain terminology and some even think that we'd have to allow people to marry children or animals (Rudey is a riot but there are people who actually use that response in real life).

That was directed more at people who are asking if gays would be satisfied with civil unions that provide identical rights that marriage does. So, I'm wondering if married people would mind retiring marriage in favor of civil unions... if they afford the same rights, of course. If not, why? Jus' wonderin'.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by AGDee

And, if you're going to use the biological argument that the only purpose of marriage is procreation then you better ban it for everybody who is sterile too, whether by choice or by nature. "Oops, sorry, you had the mumps when you were 10 and are sterile now? No marriage license for you!"

Ahh, but now you are mixing biology with the very human concept of marriage.

As I understood your statement, you wanted a reason other than religion. Biology exists outside religion.

From a purely biological standpoint, your assumption would be right - for those who are sterile, they can not procreate. There would be no biological advantage to do so. But, since humans do crazy things like fall in love, the basic biological urge to mate with the best fit goes out of the window.

[DSTCHAOS]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

But, since humans do crazy things like fall in love, the basic biological urge to mate with the best fit goes out of the window.

Aha!!!

So gay marriage is okay in the Book of Biology, afterall.

And we know that homosexuals have used sperm banks, surrogate mothers, adoption and other methods of "having" children for years, when laws and policies have permitted.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by DSTCHAOS

Aha!!!

So gay marriage is okay in the Book of Biology, afterall.

And we know that homosexuals have used sperm banks, surrogate mothers, adoption and other methods of "having" children for years, when laws and policies have permitted.

No, not at all. Go back and read my post #162.

What I said was that from a biological point, two opposite genders mate under the guise that they are the most genetically fit - each of them, the male and female, make a contribution to produce the best offspring.

With those of like gender, only one would be able to make the contribution from that particualr couple, not both. Certainly the gay couple can adopt and use a surrogate mother, but the baby would only have the genetic contribution from one gay parent, not both.

The emphasis of the species is to have both parental contribution, not one.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

No, not at all. Go back and read my post #162.

What I said was that from a biological point, two opposite genders mate under the guise that they are the most genetically fit - each of them, the male and female, make a contribution to produce the best offspring.

With those of like gender, only one would be able to make the contribution from that particualr couple, not both. Certainly the gay couple can adopt and use a surrogate mother, but the baby would only have the genetic contribution from one gay parent, not both.

The emphasis of the species is to have both parental contribution, not one.

The problem with this argument is that reproduction and marriage occur independently from one another. They are not dependent on each other in any way.

If the only goal of marriage was reproduction, then this argument would hold true. However, the goal of marriage has nothing to do with reproduction for many people (those who are sterile, those who choose not to have children, and homosexuals). In fact, sexual frequency goes down after marriage, which also tends to negate this argument:

In general, surveys reveal that cohabitation is a "sexier" living arrangement than is marriage. That is, cohabiting heterosexual couples and homosexual male couples tend to have sexual intercourse (defined as genital contact) more frequently than married couples (Blumstein and Schwartz 1983; Call, Sprecher, and Schwartz 1995; Rao and DeMaris 1995). http://family.jrank.org/pages/1102/M...Frequency.html

Personally, I think anybody who wants to get married at all is nuts because, in my experience, it's a total nightmare, but if people (whether hetero or homosexual) want to do it, that's up to them.

I don't see the point of doing away with the term "marriage" and replacing it with civil union. It seems like an unnecessary, impractical, and expensive proposition to me.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by AGDee

The problem with this argument is that reproduction and marriage occur independently from one another. They are not dependent on each other in any way.

If the only goal of marriage was reproduction, then this argument would hold true. However, the goal of marriage has nothing to do with reproduction for many people (those who are sterile, those who choose not to have children, and homosexuals).

AGDee I feel that you are missing my point. There is no problem with my argument because I stated that biology exists outside the concept of marriage. You need not have one to have the other. You asked for a reason other than religion and the reason I give is a biological one.

Now, we as humans have connected the biological aspect of procreation to marriage, but for animals, they still procreate without getting married - horses, pigs, dogs, lions. All of these animals produce offspring without the benefit of marriage.

My point from a biological perspective is that gays can not fully contribute to perpetuation of the species in a biological sense since two of the same gender can not produce offspring. Therefore, gays can not fully contribute their genetic material to the gene pool.

[JonoBN41]

As AGdee noted, reproduction and marriage occur independently of one another. Gays don't have children whether married or not, so it's not a reason to exclude them from marriage.