California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by doogur

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

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

Actually, Nate's use of this is PRECISELY why the gay community rarely makes such assertions anymore. Plenty of things are natural but are not socially acceptable. Whether this fits into the latter category is another matter, but the "it's natural so it must be ok" argument is pretty ineffective.

[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 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.

[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

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....

[doogur]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

Actually, Nate's use of this is PRECISELY why the gay community rarely makes such assertions anymore. Plenty of things are natural but are not socially acceptable. Whether this fits into the latter category is another matter, but the "it's natural so it must be ok" argument is pretty ineffective.

So you believe that gay relationships are socially unacceptable because they are comparable to murder, rape, and pedophilia? That's the comparison Nate was making.

I think anyone in the gay community would counter that assertion rather forcefully and without hesitation.

Plenty of things are socially unacceptable because of analogies that become commonplace in society. Analogies such as those are socially unacceptable.

[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?

[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

Gays have not been denied...the right to dictate what happens to thier bodies, the right to choose where they live, work, play, socialize.

You're kidding, right?

[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 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.

[doogur]

Here's a sampling...there's more. An oldie but a goodie:

a) When I burn a bull on the altar as a sacrifice, I know it creates a pleasing odour for the Lord (Lev. 1:9). The problem is my neighbours. They claim the odour is not pleasing to them. Should I smite them?

b) I would like to sell my daughter into slavery, as sanctioned in Exodus 21:7. In this day and age, what do you think would be a fair price for her?

c) I know that I am allowed no contact with a woman while she is in her period of menstrual uncleanliness. (Lev. 15:19-24) The problem is, how do I tell? I have tried asking, but most women take offence.

d) Lev. 25:44 states that I may indeed possess slaves, both male and female, provided they are purchased from neighbouring nations. A friend of mine claims this applies to Mexicans, but not to Canadians. Can you clarify? Why can't I own Canadians?

e) I have a neighbour who insists on working on the Sabbath. Exodus 35:2 clearly states he should be put to death. Am I morally obligated to kill him myself?

f) A friend of mine feels that even though eating shellfish is an abomination (Lev. 11:10), it is a lesser abomination than homosexuality. I don't agree. Can you settle this?

g) Lev. 21:20 states that I may not approach the altar of God if I have a defect in my sight. I have to admit that I wear reading glasses. Does my vision have to be 20/20, or is there some wiggle room here?

h) Most of my male friends get their hair trimmed, including the hair around their temples, even though this is expressly forbidden by Lev.19:27. How should they die?

i) I know from Lev. 11:6-8 that touching the skin of a dead pig makes me unclean, but may I still play football if I wear gloves?

j) My uncle has a farm. He violates Lev. 19:19 by planting two different crops in the same field, as does his wife by wearing garments made of two different kinds of thread (cotton/polyester blend). He also tends to curse and blaspheme a lot. Is it really necessary that we go to all the trouble of getting the whole town together to stone them? (Lev.24:10-16) Couldn't we just burn them to death at a private family affair like we do with people who sleep with their in-laws? (Lev. 20:14)