California's top court overturns gay marriage ban

[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.

[KSig RC]

Why would gay marriage be "not natural" when we have evidence of same-sex husbandry in other mammals?

Or do you mean "not natural" in the sense of "not what I'm used to" or even "not natural for humans"?

If it is either of the latter two, not only is that a vaguely religious sentiment, it is also exactly zero reason for enacting law. Laws or standards that are improper should not be kept simply because of longevity.

[jon1856]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Why would gay marriage be "not natural" when we have evidence of same-sex husbandry in other mammals?

Or do you mean "not natural" in the sense of "not what I'm used to" or even "not natural for humans"?

If it is either of the latter two, not only is that a vaguely religious sentiment, it is also exactly zero reason for enacting law. Laws or standards that are improper should not be kept simply because of longevity.

Well said-agree.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Why would gay marriage be "not natural" when we have evidence of same-sex husbandry in other mammals?

While that does happen, its never normal behavior.


unnatural

1. In violation of a natural law.
2. Inconsistent with an individual pattern or custom.
3. Deviating from a behavioral or social norm
4. Contrived or constrained; artificial
5. In violation of natural feelings

[EE-BO]

Originally Posted by nate2512

Personally, I think it is unnatural. In such a way, that it serves no purpose. Where as male/female relationships serves purposes, it allows procreation, it allows prosperity, and even in relationships where the female cannot have a baby, adoption is acceptable because there is once again, a natural home that the child can grow up into. I believe a child that grows up in a home and has two mothers, or two fathers, is going to have a very distorted perception on life. I don't think it is fair for the child to be forced to grow up in that situation that is quite unnatural. So in closing, once again, I believe there is no purpose, and therefore unnatural. I feel cheapens and diminished natural heterosexuality, marriage, and true love.


Disagree if you will, but this is how I see it, not from a biblical view, but from a real view.

ETA: I promise I didn't read sigmadivas post before this.

This is a good analysis from a non-religious point of view, so you are far ahead of most anti-gay marriage people in your degree of thought. In a thread on this site, and in a discussion that is generally irrational, let me please applaud you rational approach.

But here is the rebuttal- this is your point of view in a free society that purports to, within reason, respect the views of others.

I have my own personal strong feelings on gay marriage- including views on both the act in terms of the legal protections it offers and using the terminology "marriage". And how I look at either aspect of the argument does not necessarily lead to the same conclusion on the issue at large.

Ultimately, I consider what is truly an American viewpoint- and in that it is essential to consider Judeo-Christian morality since the two are inseparable.

And in doing so, I have to say I have no problem with same-sex "unions" (let's leave the word marriage out of it.)

As I get older and wiser and meet more people, I know and feel just as I know and believe Jesus is my Savior that homosexuals have just as deep and unavoidable a passion for sexual fulfillment and love as heterosexuals. It may not be a topic I want to discuss over dinner, but it is there. My life experience dictates it must be so- and ultimately we are all relying on life experience to inform our beliefs at any given point.

I appreciate your views on natural order- but that does not change how certain individuals feel and function.

And being part of a truly free and progressive society is accepting how individuals might feel.

I have little regard for bisexuality, transgender and other various practices down that road which are driven by polyamorous appetites or a desire to change one's self out of what I see as a lack of self esteem. Maybe that is me being limited.

But I absolutely believe that in monogamous relationships that healthy and stable people can be heterosexual or homosexual- and have no control over which side they fall on.

And such feelings so innate to our own sense of self-worth and happiness must be respected in a truly free society where legal protections are offered to those who chose to legally bind themselves to each other.

This I think is the core matter at hand- the legal protections offered by marriage.

And those protections can be separated from the act of marriage in a religious sense. After all, one can be married by a government official instead of a clergyman. And in some faiths, notably the Catholic Church, a legally annulled marriage is a completely separate matter from an annullment endorsed by the church.

There is absolutely no reason why, in the spirit of what America is all about, that homosexuals should not be able to form legal bonds and enjoy the same legal protections that heterosexuals do.

That is the real debate.

Bring religion into it- and we are no better than Nazis, the Taliban or any other fanatically religious group that seeks to abuse religious belief to enforce personal and political beliefs. And I would argue that "natural order", Darwinistic beliefs (the importance of reproduction of species) effectively constitute religion in these situations since they are an attempt to force a set of personal beliefs- no matter how intelligently or emotionally powerful- on people who might not share those beliefs.

And when "religion" is taken out of the equation- I really do not see where there is any debate.

Sure there are those who argue that society should not be burdened with the court costs of gay divorces- but if that is true then gays should not have to pay property taxes for schools since they will not have natural children of their own- nor should any of their tax dollars go to support societal expenses associated with marriage-related issues in general.

In the end, I think all roads- moral and mundane- point to allowing same sex unions, regardless of what any of us individually think about the issue.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by KSig RC

Why would gay marriage be "not natural" when we have evidence of same-sex husbandry in other mammals?

Or do you mean "not natural" in the sense of "not what I'm used to" or even "not natural for humans"?

If it is either of the latter two, not only is that a vaguely religious sentiment, it is also exactly zero reason for enacting law. Laws or standards that are improper should not be kept simply because of longevity.

Becasue what I consider natural for me, may not be for you and vice versa.......

I am but one person with one voice and one vote. But, I thank you for taking what I say and treating it as the absolute truth.

[nate2512]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

This is a good analysis from a non-religious point of view, so you are far ahead of most anti-gay marriage people in your degree of thought. In a thread on this site, and in a discussion that is generally irrational, let me please applaud you rational approach.

But here is the rebuttal- this is your point of view in a free society that purports to, within reason, respect the views of others.

I have my own personal strong feelings on gay marriage- including views on both the act in terms of the legal protections it offers and using the terminology "marriage". And how I look at either aspect of the argument does not necessarily lead to the same conclusion on the issue at large.

Ultimately, I consider what is truly an American viewpoint- and in that it is essential to consider Judeo-Christian morality since the two are inseparable.

And in doing so, I have to say I have no problem with same-sex "unions" (let's leave the word marriage out of it.)

As I get older and wiser and meet more people, I know and feel just as I know and believe Jesus is my Savior that homosexuals have just as deep and unavoidable a passion for sexual fulfillment and love as heterosexuals. It may not be a topic I want to discuss over dinner, but it is there. My life experience dictates it must be so- and ultimately we are all relying on life experience to inform our beliefs at any given point.

I appreciate your views on natural order- but that does not change how certain individuals feel and function.

And being part of a truly free and progressive society is accepting how individuals might feel.

I have little regard for bisexuality, transgender and other various practices down that road which are driven by polyamorous appetites or a desire to change one's self out of what I see as a lack of self esteem. Maybe that is me being limited.

But I absolutely believe that in monogamous relationships that healthy and stable people can be heterosexual or homosexual- and have no control over which side they fall on.

And such feelings so innate to our own sense of self-worth and happiness must be respected in a truly free society where legal protections are offered to those who chose to legally bind themselves to each other.

This I think is the core matter at hand- the legal protections offered by marriage.

And those protections can be separated from the act of marriage in a religious sense. After all, one can be married by a government official instead of a clergyman. And in some faiths, notably the Catholic Church, a legally annulled marriage is a completely separate matter from an annullment endorsed by the church.

There is absolutely no reason why, in the spirit of what America is all about, that homosexuals should not be able to form legal bonds and enjoy the same legal protections that heterosexuals do.

That is the real debate.

Bring religion into it- and we are no better than Nazis, the Taliban or any other fanatically religious group that seeks to abuse religious belief to enforce personal and political beliefs. And I would argue that "natural order", Darwinistic beliefs (the importance of reproduction of species) effectively constitute religion in these situations since they are an attempt to force a set of personal beliefs- no matter how intelligently or emotionally powerful- on people who might not share those beliefs.

And when "religion" is taken out of the equation- I really do not see where there is any debate.

Sure there are those who argue that society should not be burdened with the court costs of gay divorces- but if that is true then gays should not have to pay property taxes for schools since they will not have natural children of their own- nor should any of their tax dollars go to support societal expenses associated with marriage-related issues in general.

In the end, I think all roads- moral and mundane- point to allowing same sex unions, regardless of what any of us individually think about the issue.

Though, we don't agree. I respect your opinion. I think this is the most root objective we've discussed since the thread started.

Though I do find debate when religion is taken out. Though I don't agree with Evolutionism, one could argue that aspect as well.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

But here is the rebuttal- this is your point of view....

Just as you have your point of view.

I have my own personal strong feelings on gay marriage-...

As most people do!

And in doing so, I have to say I have no problem with same-sex "unions"...

Others might.

.....ultimately we are all relying on life experience to inform our beliefs at any given point.

So true, so true.

I appreciate your views on natural order- but that does not change how certain individuals feel and function.

And the same can be said for the opposing viewpoint.

And being part of a truly free and progressive society is accepting how individuals might feel.

Utopia, a great destination.

I have little regard for bisexuality, transgender and other various practices down that road which are driven by polyamorous appetites or a desire to change one's self out of what I see as a lack of self esteem. Maybe that is me being limited.

Why? Don't these people deserve as much right to their human rights as anyone else? To express themselves freely and openly?

And such feelings so innate to our own sense of self-worth and happiness must be respected in a truly free society where legal protections are offered to those who chose to legally bind themselves to each other.

Good luck with this in terms of gay marriage...not all societies feel this way.

There is absolutely no reason why, in the spirit of what America is all about, that homosexuals should not be able to form legal bonds and enjoy the same legal protections that heterosexuals do.

Bolded to highlight a point - the "spirit of America" is constantly changing. In my home county in my state the number of Hispanics have now outnumbered all other ethnic and racial groups. Hispanics tend to be very traditional in terms of family and religion. It's been my experience that the Hispanic community tends to be anti-gay.

That is the real debate.

To which there may be no end.....

Bring religion into it- and we are no better than Nazis, the Taliban or any other fanatically religious group that seeks to abuse religious belief to enforce personal and political beliefs. And I would argue that "natural order", Darwinistic beliefs (the importance of reproduction of species) effectively constitute religion in these situations since they are an attempt to force a set of personal beliefs- no matter how intelligently or emotionally powerful- on people who might not share those beliefs.


And when "religion" is taken out of the equation- I really do not see where there is any debate.

For some people religion is the "equation".

In the end, I think all roads- moral and mundane- point to allowing same sex unions, regardless of what any of us individually think about the issue.

Again, bolded to emphasize that this is your opinion, which you are free to express as are others are free to express theirs.

[TexasWSP]

Come on now people....what is more natural than sticking your wee-wee in a place where last night's chimichanga is turded into a toilet bowl? Nope, sorry little Timmy......your two daddies can't have any more children for you to play with, save for poop figurines.

Yep...inappropriate. Nope...don't care. Impaired....of course. Being an idiot....probably.

[Senusret I]

^^^ Straight people have anal sex, too.

[EE-BO]

Originally Posted by sigmadiva

Why? Don't these people deserve as much right to their human rights as anyone else? To express themselves freely and openly?

For some people religion is the "equation".

To the first point- they have ever right to express themselves. What I am saying is that it would be too much to expect legal unions to be extended to cover situations where a union of 3+ would be considered.

A common argument against gay marriage is the "slippery slope" argument- if you let a man marry a man, then next some freak will be complaining about his right to marry a man and a woman, or a donkey or something.

And so I am saying you have to draw the line at couples- and in doing so one is making a judgement call that confers unequal legal protections for some people who are not in what might be called "traditional heterosexual relationships."

My justification for that is that it is a matter of numbers- you can't please everybody- and that while it is not disruptive to society to have same sex couples, it would be problematic to have unions in situations where a person- by virtue of their wide ranging appetites- would be very likely to divorce and re-wed many times. At the end of the day it is important for our courts and society to continue to discourage divorce except in cases where there are legitimate grounds like adultery or abuse.

This is where I draw the line, others draw it elsewhere.


As to your second point, I appreciate that religion is the equation for some people- but history has shown very well where that leads. I take my Christian values and upbringing very seriously, and the Bible itself makes it crystal clear that believers are to follow the laws of society and be respectful of all facets of society. Jesus didn't hang out with self-righteous socialites back in the day- but with the very kind of people most who think "religion is the equation" don't think have a right to decent treatment at all.

This is the problem with bringing the Bible into a discussion about government policy. Often the Bible itself contains teachings which demonstrate why it should not be used in the formation of government policy that discriminates against any part of the citizenry. That is not part of- to be overly simplistic and general about it- Judeo-Christian morality.

[sigmadiva]

Originally Posted by EE-BO

To the first point- they have ever right to express themselves. What I am saying is that it would be too much to expect legal unions to be extended to cover situations where a union of 3+ would be considered.

Why not? Polygamist think differently on this issue.

And so I am saying you have to draw the line at couples- and in doing so one is making a judgement call.....

Which is exactly what "pro"-heterosexual marriage people are doing. They are drawing the line at the one man / one woman definition of marriage.

My justification...- you can't please everybody...

I feel just as justified in my beliefs as you do yours. And to the second part, I agree.

This is where I draw the line, others draw it elsewhere.

The placement of my line is at a different position than yours

As to your second point, I appreciate that religion is the equation for some people- but history has shown very well where that leads.

Which is where? Some people are very comforted by their religion.

....- but with the very kind of people most who think "religion is the equation" don't think have a right to decent treatment at all.

This is the problem with bringing the Bible into a discussion about government policy. Often the Bible itself contains teachings which demonstrate why it should not be used in the formation of government policy that discriminates against any part of the citizenry. That is not part of- to be overly simplistic and general about it- Judeo-Christian morality.

Ya know, there is this law firm in town that advertises that they "base" their court proceedings on the Bible.

I feel that we (US) are a nation that while explicitly does not bring the Bible into our laws and governing practices, we do so sometimes implicitly.

[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......

[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!