California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[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.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by doogur

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

I have, but in the course of this thread, that is the verse that applies.

[doogur]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I have, but in the course of this thread, that is the verse that applies.

No, they ALL apply, and THAT is the problem. But you'll only spout off that one.

Leviticus tells you to do some pretty silly things but that won't stop YOU from ignoring those laws...now would it?

I believe that smacks of hypocrisy. Yes...yes it does.

Bible cherry picker, you.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I have, but in the course of this thread, that is the verse that applies.

So you don't eat shrimp, or wear polyester blends, or bathe on your period? Because all of that is an abomination too. You can't pick and choose if you're going to use one. And if you say the reasons for the rest are outdated, then that one is outdated too.

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Yes, I do know that Leviticus is Jewish tradition. What Jews call their Torah, we as Chrisitans call the Old Testament.

No, not quite. The Torah is only a part of the Bible, the first five books.

What you seem to be forgetting is that the Bible was written by man, not G*d, and personal beliefs and prejudices were added.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by doogur

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

Sounds like you are little confused as to who the hypocrite is, Mr. Holier Than Thou.

[doogur]

Originally Posted by nate2512

Sounds like you are little confused as to who the hypocrite is, Mr. Holier Than Thou.

Got some Bible verses for me? I'm sure you do. Bwaak bwaak bwaaak.

[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?

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by doogur

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?

It's called translation.

Most state it says, "don't lie with a man as a woman", so while no, they didn't have a particular word for it, they very well understood what it meant.

[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.