California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[DeltAlum]

"union suit?"

Help us.

[KSig RC]

Originally Posted by Rudey

So we protect animals by slaughtering them?

No - we protect animals by passing laws against unethical treatment. This is why it's legal to slaughter animals in the most humane way possible, and not legal to just up and kill an animal for no reason or with undue cruelty.

Animals are property, but still subject to cruelty laws. You know all of this, and that animal husbandry is not an analog in the slightest - c'mon.

Originally Posted by Rudey

And incest is banned because the government doesn't want to pay the costs to monitor for freak children?

... along with the corresponding protection of children from parents/other family members. Yes.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

These cultures have absolutely no bearing on American law, nor a significant effect on the American response to laws attempting to legalize marriage for homosexuals.

It's totally irrelevant, and it's 100% a strawman - my argument does not apply anywhere except within the context of the American system of law.

If the United States were ruled by a junta or were a theocracy, obviously one moral authority could rule without any exception. Thankfully, it's not, so your examples are laughably irrelevant.

EXACTLY!!! If the US was a nation that was run as you state, then there would be no consideration of a moral code or a religious one in terms of governing the people.

I never did say, nor, did I mean to imply that what happens outside the US should have any bearing on American law.

I posed the situation because so far in this thread people seem to want to make the issue based on one aspect or another, failing to recognize that there is some overlap among laws, morality and religion in this country when it comes to governing our lives. In some other cultures there is no overlap.

The current accepted concept of marriage in this country is legislated by laws, recognizes a legal union between a man and a woman, and this arrangement is also as promoted by Christianity, along with other religions.

[AGDee]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

The current accepted concept of marriage in this country is legislated by laws, recognizes a legal union between a man and a woman, and this arrangement is also as promoted by Christianity, along with other religions.

Although there are Christian denominations who are not against gay marriage and there have been several laws that were once "current accepted concepts" but were challenged and changed because they were wrong. This is called progress and it resulted in voting rights for women and African Americans, the abolishment of slavery, the ability of women to own property, etc. In my view, it's time to revisit our "current accepted concept of marriage" and challenge it.

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Although there are Christian denominations who are not against gay marriage and there have been several laws that were once "current accepted concepts" but were challenged and changed because they were wrong. This is called progress and it resulted in voting rights for women and African Americans, the abolishment of slavery, the ability of women to own property, etc. In my view, it's time to revisit our "current accepted concept of marriage" and challenge it.

No way, instead of recognizing equal rights for black Americans, we should have just altered the definition of "white."

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by AGDee

Although there are Christian denominations who are not against gay marriage and there have been several laws that were once "current accepted concepts" but were challenged and changed because they were wrong. This is called progress and it resulted in voting rights for women and African Americans, the abolishment of slavery, the ability of women to own property, etc. In my view, it's time to revisit our "current accepted concept of marriage" and challenge it.

I see your point. But for me the issue of gay marriage has no equal magnitude in terms of changing society as did Women's Rights and Civil Rights. The extent to which women and minorities suffered is far greater than what gays experience. Gays have not been denied the right to vote, the right to dictate what happens to thier bodies, the right to choose where they live, work, play, socialize. Nor the right to receive an fair and equal education to that of White males.

My point with the hypothetical post was to illustrate that some of our current laws are based in a combination from legal, moral and religious issues.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by JonoBN41

What the hell are you people talking about? I can't leave you alone for a minute. From this discussion, one would think it's already legal for a man to marry a cow and for a woman to marry a bull. Adding same-sex marriage recognition, therefore, would only allow a man to marry a bull and woman to marry a cow - which probably makes more sense than the other way around. Don't you just love barnyard humor?

We are almost there!!

UK backs animal-human embryos for stem cell study

Associated Press

The rest of the story is here:http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...d/5790852.html

[preciousjeni]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

We are almost there!!

UK backs animal-human embryos for stem cell study

Associated Press

The rest of the story is here:http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/...d/5790852.html

Good ole UK. I'm interested to see what happens.

[christiangirl]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

If the United States were ruled by a junta or were a theocracy, obviously one moral authority could rule without any exception. Thankfully, it's not, so your examples are laughably irrelevant.

Isn't that why it was hypothetical?

Originally Posted by shinerbock

No way, instead of recognizing equal rights for black Americans, we should have just altered the definition of "white."

I'm laughing so incredibly hard at this...

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

UK backs animal-human embryos for stem cell study

WTF?


All of this seemed like an intelligent, healthy political debate until I took a dose of Theraflu Nighttime. Now, everyone sounds like a bunch of rambling idiots who are too self-righteous for their own good. I don't dare figure out which is more fitting and I'll probably be asleep before I get there anyway, but I just wanted to share and allow pause for reflection, if anyone pleases. If not, then please continue with the entertainment, I'm sure I'll pose some coherent questions tomorrow.

[doogur]

Originally Posted by nate2512

This is the most ridiculous thing ever. While the rest of the world is concerned with things like global warming, soaring oil prices, and a recessed economy, all the selfish homosexuals are worried about are themselves, its the most ridiculously selfish thing I've ever heard in my life. We don't need to be spending all this taxpayer money just so gays can call themselves married. Next time you all gripe about oil prices remember that you're also working your ass off just so gays can use up all of your tax dollars tying up courts that could be used for something much more useful. Give it a break, gays are disgusting, and it's morally wrong.

So by your logic, straight marriages should not be tying up the courts, either. Where do you get this strong anti marriage bias?

So next time you gripe about oil prices remember that you're also working your ass off just so straights can use up all of your tax dollars tying up courts that could be used for something more useful.

[doogur]

Originally Posted by nate2512

Because their value represents the moral decline of nation.

Also, your signature is quite surprising, considering you a Christian supporting something the Bible most certainly denouncing and calls a sin. So I guess you disagree with the entire Bible, or just the parts that don't fit into your way of liberal thinking?

I wonder if you measure up to the same standard. Let's start with Leviticus, shall we?

Oh...this is going to be FUN!

[doogur]

Originally Posted by nate2512

What religion thinks God is a her?

So should we accept people's murderous ways? Or pedophiles? Or rapist? Because God created them as such? Nope, I'm not buying this.

SECdomination has already posted the Bible scriptures speaking out about this.

And the word was given to the prophets by God, and the word is God. If you really want them, I'll look up those Scriptures too.

You are comparing love between two adult humans as the same as pedophilia? As murder? As rape?

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

[knight_shadow]

^^^ You can use the multi-quote feature instead of making a new post for each new thought.

[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.

[doogur]

Originally Posted by knight_shadow

^^^ You can use the multi-quote feature instead of making a new post for each new thought.

Thanks, I wasn't familiar with that. I was reading through multiple threads and responded when something caught my interest. I'll have to figure out that function.