California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

Let's discuss this WITHOUT the bible, for once! I will be more than glad to hear them,....

Just as you feel that the Bible should be removed from this discussion, there are those who feel that it should be the sole basis for this discussion. And at that point, we have an impasse. I think we should understand that and move on.

For me, gay relationships period are not natural. You would you accept that non-Biblical answer?

I know we were on this merry-go-round like 15 pages back, but there is no benefit in nature to have a same sex relationship. No, I'm not talking about marriage or civil unions. I'm just talking about the fact that the female of the species mates with the male of the species to produce offspring.

[a.e.B.O.T.]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Just as you feel that the Bible should be removed from this discussion, there are those who feel that it should be the sole basis for this discussion. And at that point, we have an impasse. I think we should understand that and move on.

For me, gay relationships period are not natural. You would you accept that non-Biblical answer?

I know we were on this merry-go-round like 15 pages back, but there is no benefit in nature to have a same sex relationship. No, I'm not talking about marriage or civil unions. I'm just talking about the fact that the female of the species mates with the male of the species to produce offspring.

I TOTALLY accept that as a non-Biblical answer because you did not cite the bible to make that answer or reference it, although there are biblical influences... so, thank you

So, on that basis, do you think that people who can not have children, should they be able to get married, i.e. people with medical conditions or women post-menopause? I am not trying to be a prick, but the basis of marriage for the purpose of having children denotes a lot of valid loving marriages out there that are man-and-woman.

Secondly, and at a less substantial point and more controversial point, a Gay marriage can provide a loving home and family for children who need it, no?

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by a.e.B.O.T.

although there are biblical influences... so, thank you

I disagree. As far as can be determined, only man has a concept of God and/or the Bible. That is to say many gendered species other than man reproduce without "knowing" God, so there was no Biblical reference in that part of my answer.

So, on that basis, do you think that people who can not have children, should they be able to get married, i.e. people with medical conditions or women post-menopause? I am not trying to be a prick, but the basis of marriage for the purpose of having children denotes a lot of valid loving marriages out there that are man-and-woman.

First, I gave you my non-Biblical answer in the context that species reproduction has nothing to do with marriage and / or civil unions. And for that alone, I don't think gay relationships are natural.

Relationships in which there is a man and woman, to me, are natural, whether the couple can bear children or not. So, yes, as far as I'm concerned then a childless heterosexual couple can get married, and even those past menopause.

Secondly, and at a less substantial point and more controversial point, a Gay marriage can provide a loving home and family for children who need it, no?

A loving home yes. What I would consider a normal, natural home no. I do realize that many gay couples adopt children - I just grin and bear it.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

I And for that alone, I don't think gay relationships are natural.

Relationships in which there is a man and woman, to me, are natural, whether the couple can bear children or not. So, yes, as far as I'm concerned then a childless heterosexual couple can get married, and even those past menopause.

There are many species that engage in homosexual relationships in the wild, even going as far as finding a surrogate female to birth children which they then raise. (See Australia's Black Swan)

So, if it occurs in other species in nature, how is that not natural?

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by kstar

There are many species that engage in homosexual relationships in the wild, even going as far as finding a surrogate female to birth children which they then raise. (See Australia's Black Swan)

So, if it occurs in other species in nature, how is that not natural?

From the genomics point of view, there is no benefit to the species to maintain a same sex relationship.

Like I've said this 15 pages ago......

[EE-BO]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

From the genomics point of view, there is no benefit to the species to maintain a same sex relationship.

Like I've said this 15 pages ago......

Does it benefit the species when a retarded child is born? What should we do with people who are sterile?

I see where you are going with your argument, but for the central basis of what is good for the species is to be the rule of the day- then what about the many non-gay people out there who are unable to benefit the future of our species?

And what does that argument imply should be done? It is not just a matter of using this argument to say gays should not get married- I would think the ultimate resolution of this viewpoint is that society should bear no financial burden for anyone who is unable to reproduce or who could pass on genetic faults to children.

Maybe I am reading this wrong- but if the whole point is that it is unnatural for people to not reproduce for the benefit of the species, then a whole lot of people beyond the world of homosexuality fall under that umbrella of "unnatural."

And if they are unnatural, what is to be done with them?

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

Does it benefit the species when a retarded child is born?

From a purely genomics point of view, actually, it does not. We as humans have decided to maintain these individuals in our society.

What should we do with people who are sterile?

Nothing. But we've also been through this argument before, like 7 pages back...

I see where you are going with your argument, but for the central basis of what is good for the species is to be the rule of the day- then what about the many non-gay people out there who are unable to benefit the future of our species?

But they still have the potential to do so. Whether they actually do so or not, is up to them.

And what does that argument imply should be done? It is not just a matter of using this argument to say gays should not get married- I would think the ultimate resolution of this viewpoint is that society should bear no financial burden for anyone who is unable to reproduce or who could pass on genetic faults to children.

Actually, society benefits from those that do not have kids. I mean I don't have any yet and darn it I pay higher taxes than those couples with kids...

Genetic screening has been and is becoming a very hot issue. People can select the type of child they want.

Maybe I am reading this wrong- but if the whole point is that it is unnatural for people to not reproduce for the benefit of the species, then a whole lot of people beyond the world of homosexuality fall under that umbrella of "unnatural."

Yes, you are reading it wrong. While there may be those of us who have either not reproduced, cannot reproduce or choose not to is fine, yet they may still have the chance to do so.

For those in a committed relationship where there is *no possible way* for them to even have a remote chance of reproducing I feel is unnatural. Which again, we covered this about 8 pages back...

And if they are unnatural, what is to be done with them?

Then we can stay out late at night and party, party, party. We are single and can mingle and we ain't gonna hurt nobody!!!

All in all, I see your point. Like I said, I feel just as justified in my view point as you do in yours.

[kstar]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

From the genomics point of view, there is no benefit to the species to maintain a same sex relationship.

Like I've said this 15 pages ago......

But at the same time, you don't think that sterile people should be prohibited from marriage. Either marriage is strictly for procreation or it is not. Make up your mind!!!!

Next you're going to say that heterosexual sterile couples are natural and homosexual couples are unnatural because of the lack of breeding, which is obviously not true, because homosexual animals find ways around that, penguins, swans, dolphins, et cetera.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by kstar

But at the same time, you don't think that sterile people should be prohibited from marriage. Either marriage is strictly for procreation or it is not. Make up your mind!!!!

*I* never did say it was strictly for procreation. While many people believe it is. All I ever said was that as a part of the marriage union, children can be produced under the guise that the marriage union is between one man and one woman.

Next you're going to say that heterosexual sterile couples are natural and homosexual couples are unnatural because of the lack of breeding, which is obviously not true, because homosexual animals find ways around that, penguins, swans, dolphins, et cetera.

Umm, I think you may be confusing breeding with the fact that in certain animal species the male parent is involved in caring for the little offspring. Let's take penguins. In order for there to be a baby penguin, there had to have been a mommy penguin and a daddy penguin. Once the mommy penguin lays the egg, she goes off for a time to feed while the daddy penguin sits (protects) the egg.

Breeding involves the mating between two different genders, male and female. At least that is how we learned it in my Agri 101 class. As far as I know, I've never come across a genetic case where a sperm fertilized a sperm and an egg fertilized an egg to produce viable offspring.

[TexasWSP]

Originally Posted by kstar

Next you're going to say that heterosexual sterile couples are natural and homosexual couples are unnatural because of the lack of breeding, which is obviously not true, because homosexual animals find ways around that, penguins, swans, dolphins, et cetera.

That doesn't make their actions not unnatural. How is this an argument? Breeding between a male and a female specimen is as as natural as it gets. Whether you like it or not, a male has to impregnate a FEMALE to have a baby. Having a same sex relationship and being incapable of having a child is not natural because it doesn't advance the species.......as was intended. Finding a way around that via a surrogate mother is a moot point and certainly doesn't make homosexuality a "natural" behavior.

[OneTimeSBX]

i. dont. care.

until it starts to have some sort of fallout that involves my money/lifestyle/etc, people can marry trees as far as im concerned.

people, STRAIGHT PEOPLE, marry just for money, status, so their kids will look a certain way, green cards, revenge, pressure from family, etc. if two people who arent straight find TRUE LOVE, and are doing it for the rest of their lives, who am i to judge whether they can do it or not? i do agree that perhaps it should be called something else other than a marriage (union works just fine for me) but if not, i really am not going to take time out to be judgmental against two people truly in love. i dont care how "unnatural" people think it is. it isnt my soul, its not my life. do with your life what you please, and i appreciate it if you let me do the same!

[shinerbock]

Originally Posted by OneTimeSBX

i. dont. care.

until it starts to have some sort of fallout that involves my money/lifestyle/etc, people can marry trees as far as im concerned.

people, STRAIGHT PEOPLE, marry just for money, status, so their kids will look a certain way, green cards, revenge, pressure from family, etc. if two people who arent straight find TRUE LOVE, and are doing it for the rest of their lives, who am i to judge whether they can do it or not? i do agree that perhaps it should be called something else other than a marriage (union works just fine for me) but if not, i really am not going to take time out to be judgmental against two people truly in love. i dont care how "unnatural" people think it is. it isnt my soul, its not my life. do with your life what you please, and i appreciate it if you let me do the same!

I agree, let people do what they want. Except that here, people who have never met the definition of something are now trying to fit the mold. I think I should be able to get Medicare, but I don't fit the requirements.

[OneTimeSBX]

Originally Posted by shinerbock

I agree, let people do what they want. Except that here, people who have never met the definition of something are now trying to fit the mold. I think I should be able to get Medicare, but I don't fit the requirements.

that is true. you are going to all of a sudden have people fake being homosexual just to gain things. i know that sounds mean, but people joke all the time about that! i told my best friend if she needed health insurance when i was at my old job, she'd just have to pretend to be my life partner.

however, and i know this is slightly off course, id rather give it to two americans abusing the system than two illegals...