I have to admit that I was confused and happy to see that the State Superior Court for the State of California invalidated all of the marriage licences that were granted to homosexuals this past year.

I was happy only because it is the most liberal state in the union and it saw what most people were thinking at the time. Not here and Not now.

I am wondering if the US courts will say that the Mass. Law is also invalidated.

I have to admit that when I heard, my mouth dropped. I never thought in a million years that California would go against the liberal tide there.

Do you think there will be liberal backlash against the court and what do you think will happen?

Score one for the Conservative Right.

This is the sickest thing to happen. The religious right is sickening to my soul. Everyone citizen in the United States deserves the right of marriage…yet the religious right is so blind to equality. They will put their ideals of Christianity, and force them down the lives of all Americans. They do not understand that our Government has a strict wall, separating it from religion. Marriage is a right, which is instituted into law. Every couple, who wants to loves each other deserves the right to marry.

Originally posted by ConservativeMan

I was happy only because it is the most liberal state in the union and it saw what most people were thinking at the time. Not here and Not now.

I'm confused as to why you say California is the most liberal state in the union?


Do you think there will be liberal backlash against the court and what do you think will happen?

Score one for the Conservative Right.

What do you mean by a "liberal backlash"?

My understanding is that the California Superior Court made their ruling based on the fact that California law defines marriage as between one man and one woman. Massachuseetts law did not define it as such.

Actually I believe in the separation of church and state. I dont believe that this equates to a civil right. Religion has alot to do with it but not exclusively to do with it.

I believe that they made the right choice. Though you do have the right you so passionately want, you just have to marry a woman.

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
I believe that they made the right choice. Though you do have the right you so passionately want, you just have to marry a woman.
That argument is wrong, and flawed. Marriage is of two consenting adults, which sign their love in our Government courts in a marriage contract. Marriage represents couples…and they are denying Gay couples this right.

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
I believe that they made the right choice. Though you do have the right you so passionately want, you just have to marry a woman.

You'd probably think differently if you ever had to look through the perspective of a gay man or woman who is being repressed and discriminated against by the very entity which is supposed to be protecting his or her rights.

No your argument is flawed, nothing is being denied, in most states now marriage is between a man and a woman, not consenting adults, every culture has different ideas what an adult is and when it is. Should two 14 year olds be allowed to marry because it is in their culture that they are adults. When it strikes civil law then civil law wins. You can marry, you just have to marry a woman, you dont want to thats your problem.

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
No your argument is flawed, nothing is being denied, in most states now marriage is between a man and a woman, not consenting adults, every culture has different ideas what an adult is and when it is.
Hun, okay get this in your head. Marriage is only recognizing heterosexual couples, not homosexual couples. The marriage license is between two adults, no matter how you spin it. You are denying homosexual couples a right of marriage.

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
Should two 14 year olds be allowed to marry because it is in their culture that they are adults.
No, because we/they are not old enough to determine this for our lives. But anyone, once they hit consenting age, deserves marriage.

Marriage is not a right, it's a choice. Until the negative connotations of homosexuality are overcome, same sex marriages are out of the question. Almost since the beginning of written history homosexuality has been taboo. Since about the same time, marriage has been a contract between 1 man & 1 woman.

But who are we to tell them what the age of consent is?

Why should it acknowledge homosexuality?

Originally posted by es347fan
Marriage is not a right, it's a choice.
Gay couples do not have the right to choose to get married.

Originally posted by ConservativeMan

Why should it acknowledge homosexuality?

Why should we have acknowledged interracial marriage...? Because every couple, no matter of race, sexuality,or anything deserves the right to marriage.

Geez, you're dense. Did you even bother to read the rest of the post?

Homosexuality is not the same as race.

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
Homosexuality is not the same as race.

Conservative man, they were denied rights based on their color of skin. Homosexuals are being denied rights because of their sexuality. They are very similar.

Being white, black, asian, hispanic, russian are completely biological, so far I dont see anything that says homosexuality is biological. it would be the same if you were being killed because your homosexual.

The reason you do not believe it is biological, is because you personally believe that faith is above science. Although homosexuality isn’t fully proven to be genetic, it’s overwhelming obvious, that homosexuals don’t choose to be homosexual. It is in almost all species. Since it is in most every mammal, don’t you think it would be ironic if every animal chooses to be homosexual if it wasn’t genetic?

Do you know anything of being bisexual or homosexual? Because I highly doubt you do. I’ve known kids who felt like killing themselves because of their sexuality, and them being scared of how their parents are going to react. There have been reports of teenagers killing themselves because of their sexuality, that they couldn’t control. They felt so much pressure to not be homosexual, they killed themselves because their Christian religion called their actions they couldn’t control, sin. Now if it were a choice, why would people do this?

Since when is russian a race?

How do you explain homosexuality, if not through biological & psychological terms?

Russian is not a race, I was just blurting out examples.

I explain it as a personal choice, something that you do yourself, of course that is what I believe homosexuals to be.

Overdose,
I cant really speak to what those people were saying, but if they were really in that state of mind then they should have gotten counseling. I do grieve over one person who kills themselves.

One question I have is that why is it that only people born from hetrosexual sexual intercourse have the gay genes? you would think that homosexuals would bring more genetic possibilities for homosexuality, if it is a gay gene.

Originally posted by ConservativeMan

One question I have is that why is it that only people born from hetrosexual sexual intercourse have the gay genes? you would think that homosexuals would bring more genetic possibilities for homosexuality, if it is a gay gene.

First of all your question is flawed. You assume that in order for homosexuality to be inherent in a person it must be genetic, and that's not accurate. A condition can be congenital without being the result of inheriting a specific gene. Genes can be switched "on" by changing factors during an embryo's development for instance. Some scientists have theorized that a person may show a tendency towards homosexuality because the embryo was exposed to an overabundance of estrogen while in the womb, but it's just a theory. The truth is that the subject has just begun to be investigated, but I think it's wrong to assume that it must be a "choice" just because you haven't seen any proof otherwise. Why would someone choose to be gay?

Being white, black, asian, hispanic, russian are completely biological, so far I dont see anything that says homosexuality is biological. it would be the same if you were being killed because your homosexual.

I suggest we stop using the example of race, because people like conservativeman always use it as a way to avoid the comparison by just saying "sexuality is not the same as race, sexuality is a choice".

So, lets make the comparison between sex and religion, since religion is DEFINITELY a choice. Conservativman, how would you feel if the government said "2 adults of certain religious goups could not marry each other"? For arguments sake, lets say one of those excluded religous groups was your religion.

First of all using your reasoning that would be a violation of your precious "Separation of Church and State" . Second of all sex is a choice, you either have sex or you dont.

As a reply to your question, I would have to follow the government because God's word clearly states that we are to obey the government because all authority is given by God and God is the one who put it there.

And you are right to believe that I believe in faith rather than science. Faith is higher than science. God is higher than science. Truth is higher than science.

Originally posted by ConservativeMan

As a reply to your question, I would have to follow the government because God's word clearly states that we are to obey the government because all authority is given by God and God is the one who put it there.


So... does that mean it's wrong for Christians to try and change the government?

Does God only install governments in democratic countries like the U.S., or did he choose the dictatorial government of North Korea as well?

How does your idea jibe with our government "of the people, by the people, and for the people"?

If God wanted George Bush to be President, did he make people vote the way he wanted, or did he just influence the Supreme Court? If Bush isn't re-elected in November, does that mean that George and God have had a falling-out?

As for christians trying to change government, I dont know, I do know that we have a duty to morally inculcate society.

He installs all governments. Render unto Caesar what is Caesars, render to God what is God's. Whether it is democratic or even Communist, there will be a good to come out of it. His glory will be magnified.

God has a ultimate purpose for every government, the only perfect government is in heaven. until then a government of the people, by the people and for the people is fine.

Governments change and God knows that. as for the relationship of God and GWB, I cannot say.

CONSERVATIVEMAN wrote:
First of all using your reasoning that would be a violation of your precious "Separation of Church and State" . Second of all sex is a choice, you either have sex or you dont.

Way to dodge the question. I wasn't proposing that the government prevent certain religious people from getting married...you're right, that would violate the 1st amendment. I was asking if you would support it, since religion is a choice (you either believe in a certain religion or you don't) and you are saying it is OK to discriminate against people if it is based on something they choose to do.

One thing i dont understand is WHY do gay people need the right to be married??? They already HAVE civil unions which give them ALL of the rights of marraige....so whats the problem? Its obvious that gay people would have a tough time being married in a church because homosexuality is considered a sin. Why cant they just be happy with what they have?...o yea this is america, they do it just to be "politically correct"....ughhh.

Its true that marraige can be done by the state, but dont turn a blind eye to how big and meaningful of a sacrament marraige is to the church. I find it ironic that America was founded on Christian morals and now the very thing they created is pushing those christian morals out. I find it funny that people dont mind helping out the offended people who dont want religion in our lives......but ignore the majority who are equally offended because they cannot incorporate that religion into their lives.

Since america is a DEMOCRACY......and gays make up a TINY SUM of the population.....i dont see why they get so much pull. I think its more of a media frenzy than anything.

One thing i dont understand is WHY do gay people need the right to be married??? They already HAVE civil unions which give them ALL of the rights of marraige....so whats the problem? Its obvious that gay people would have a tough time being married in a church because homosexuality is considered a sin.

One thing I don't understand is WHY you need to deny them the right to be married??? Even if civil unions were exactly the same as marriage, what is the problem with calling it just that...marriage...so whats the problem?

Just because a church would not marry someone does not mean they can't get married. I didn't get married in a church....so who a church wouldn't allow to marry is not relevant when it comes to who the government will allow to marry.

Why cant they just be happy with what they have?...

Sounds like something you say to someone who you don't want to treat as an equal. But, since thats how you feel, why can't you just be happy?

but ignore the majority who are equally offended because they cannot incorporate that religion into their lives.

I can think of about a million ways you can incorporate religion into your life, so what are you talking about?

gays make up a TINY SUM of the population.....i dont see why they get so much pull.

You don't deserve less rights because you're in the tiny minority. Besides, the majority group CAN get married, while the minority group can NOT get married, so I'm not sure what "pull" you are talking about.

thats just the thing dna.....i wouldnt mind denying them marraige because my definition of marraige is man and woman......they should just be happy with a civil union and move on......its just a title, why cause so much comotion!

If you get a raise at work and more benefits....would you mind if they still called you what you were? I bet you'd take the raise and benefits and walk out the door a happy man.

Im not personally offended....but i play devil's advocate and say: Hey! they are OFFENDING me!! MY definition of marraige is man and woman!!! the government must work for ME now!!!!! Hey!! look over here!!!! Im offended!!!!

thats how i see it.

Originally posted by Decka
One thing i dont understand is WHY do gay people need the right to be married??? They already HAVE civil unions which give them ALL of the rights of marraige....so whats the problem?

You are sadly misinformed. First of all, to my knowledge, Vermont is the only state that allows gay "civil unions" so I don't know where you got the idea that gays already "have" civil unions.

As for your assertion that civil unions give people the same rights as marriage, that is completely false.

Here are a few rights that are not granted to people who are not married, but are involved in a civil union. Note that these rights are granted by the federal government, which does not recognize state sanctioned civil unions.

1. Immigration Rights: Cannot have a non-U.S. spouse become a full citizen.

2. Social Security: Cannot collect benefits upon death of a spouse.

3. Federal Taxes: Cannot file jointly as a married couple

As I said these are just a few of the rights that gays are not granted because they are currently not allowed to marry.

What's the problem? There are many...

The idea that gays should be happy with civil unions is absurd. The idea that we should accept being given the same rights but under a different name is equally absurd.

`The history of our nation has demonstrated that separate is seldom, if ever, equal.''--SJC opinion.

``The dissimilitude between the terms 'civil marriage' and 'civil union' is not innocuous; it is a considered choice of language that reflects a demonstrable assigning of same-sex, largely homosexual, couples to second-class status.''--SJC opinion.

its just a title, why cause so much comotion!

If its "just a title" then why would it bother you to let them have it???

If you get a raise at work and more benefits....would you mind if they still called you what you were? I bet you'd take the raise and benefits and walk out the door a happy man.

I don't know if I'd complain and risk losing my job, but if I was doing the same work as others but had a lesser title, then I guess it would be kind of offensive. But, you keep implying that the title is not important...so why do you care?

MY definition of marraige is man and woman!!! the government must work for ME now!!!!! Hey!! look over here!!!! Im offended!!!!

One side is always going to be offended. I'm offended by the way lots of other people live their life, but that doesn't mean I can have the law treat them differently (unless they are harming someone)...there is no law protecting you from being offended.

Originally posted by Overdose
This is the sickest thing to happen. The religious right is sickening to my soul. Everyone citizen in the United States deserves the right of marriage…yet the religious right is so blind to equality. They will put their ideals of Christianity, and force them down the lives of all Americans. They do not understand that our Government has a strict wall, separating it from religion. Marriage is a right, which is instituted into law. Every couple, who wants to loves each other deserves the right to marry.

This ruling wasn't about gay rights. It was about ensuring that the law is followed, that a mayor can't replace the legislature and dictate which laws the citizens of his jurisdiction have to follow. No matter which side you support, this is unquestionably the right call if you are not an anarchist.

Even though I am in favor of gay marriage, I agree that the SF mayor made the wrong move. This should be done through the correct process.

I am on the other hand obviously not in favor of gay marriage or civil unions. Marriage is a privledge not an intrinsic right. If it were a right, then there would be a person for everyone, and we all know there is not.

Originally posted by ConservativeMan
I am on the other hand obviously not in favor of gay marriage or civil unions. Marriage is a privledge not an intrinsic right. If it were a right, then there would be a person for everyone, and we all know there is not.

Happily, the US Supreme Court holds a different view on whether or not marriage is a "right" or a "priviledge".

In the case of Loving v. Virginia, which struck down Virginia's ban on interracial marriage, the court had this to say:

"The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men. Marriage is one of the `basic civil rights of man,' fundamental to our very existence and survival."

I am probably just repeating myself, but here is my stance on same sex marriage.

I do not personally like it, because it is after all an abomination, but I do not feel justfied in legally restricting them to not be married. I think it is a matter to be left up to them and God.