Breaking: Gay marriage ban overturned in Calif.

But it is generally preferable for the legislature to enact laws. It is frowned upon when the courts do it.

Sorry, but a victory for common sense and human rights would be the opposite and maintain marriage as it has always been intended, aka (common sense). There is more at stake here than just a "feel good" ruling.

But it is generally preferable for the legislature to enact laws. It is frowned upon when the courts do it.

The California legislature has twice approved gay marriage, but both times it was vetoed by Gov. Schwarzenegger, who stated that he wanted to leave it up for the courts to decide. It's not how I would normally conduct legislative business, but it's hard to label this a case of "judicial activism".

Wrong - on WAY too many levels. You're gay? Marriage in its current form is not your choice.
Sorry -

Common sense and equality. This is the decision that should have been made years ago.

People complaining that "their vote doesn't count" need to realize this isn't about water rights or road repair. This is people's rights, which should never be placed to a vote.

I celebrate this decision and hope that more people, both religious and non, will see this is a positive step for this country and more specifically, for the people of California.

Whatever happened to the separation of Church and State? Marriage is a sanction of the Church or Religion. It was the Government that stuck their nose into it many, many years ago.

If you want a legal marriage, you must have government involvement. Licensure is a function of government. A marriage license necessarily involves government.

A 'marriage' as a commitment between two or more people requires nothing more than that commitment.

This is people's rights, which should never be placed to a vote.

I think the justices voted. Perhaps what you meant to say is that, at least on this issue, only people that agree with you should get to vote.

NGH - Matrimony is the religious ceremony (in tjhe Christian church) Marriage is a civil union which requires a license but not a minister - Justice of Peace, Ship's Captain, Judge, all perform "marriages"

Agreed. I have been married for 14 years...complete with children; I have never understood the argument that gay marriage was an assault on the institution of marriage...it certainly has never been an assault on my marriage!

The fed/state was wrong to adopt a religious institution as a state norm; as a religiously ethnically and socially pleuralistic society, we should have adopted civil union as a state norm and left the blatantly religious option of marriage where it belongs...in churches.

Whats at stake here is society. Laws shape the society. If you want to know or understand the character or the goals of a society then one only need look at the laws of that society.

Fact of the matter is that within 3 to 5 years of the enactment of any law, that law will begin to have impact on and shape the direction of a society.

Why?

Simple ....laws are established to not only establish within a society the behavior that society will condone, but laws are also passed to promote particular behaviors within a society. This is where we get the distinction of good laws and bad laws. Bad laws are usually those that promote undesirable behavior or put another way, they promote behavior that does not benefit that society. Good laws are those which promote desirable behavior or put another way promotes behavior that will benefit society.

Examples of good laws are laws against murder, selling drugs, rape or civil laws like those that promote equal housing, equal opportunity, anti discrimination etc, etc, these all benefit society. These laws cover all people in the society, gays included

It is of less value for a society to promote the union of 2 men or 2 women. In fact one could argue that these types of unions only benefit the parties involved in satisfying only THEIR desires and consequently of no benefit to society as a whole, except in the less valuable aspect that the society has placed an overwhelming priority in elevating the needs, desires and whims of the individual over the overall needs of the society.

On the other hand the value of the union between a man and a woman benefits society in obvious yet basic and common sense ways. This is why, despite and in spite of the strong religious basis of the institution of marriage by ALL RELIGIONS, ALL societies and governments have historically condoned promoted and encouraged marriage between a man and a woman. That is why for example in the USA and many Western nations marriage has a two fold certification, one by the government and one by organized religion. We not only require the legality but also many desire the moral seal of approval of their particular religion if they have one.

Even in societies where homosexual activity was acceptable and common, ancient Rome Greece Sparta for instance, those who indulged in such activity nevertheless acknowledged the institution of marriage as the bedrock, the pillar and the foundation of a strong society and never sought to dismantle or uproot it so that sexual preferences on the one hand did not undermine the strenght of the society on the other. One can even argue that in the long run, those activities did contribute in some way to the demise of those societies but thats another topic.

Homosexual marriages will only serve to weaken a society and not strengthen it and I will go so far as to say there is no sound argument to the contrary because homosexual unions only benefit the individuals involved and not the society as a whole.
One can even argue that a society that stays on the course of passing laws allowing homosexual marriages will eventually weaken in correlation with the growth of that trend. As that trend is more and more deemed as acceptable and appropriate behavior the society will eventually have more and more of what is not valuable to its needs and less and less of what is valuable to its needs.

Putting homesexual marriages aside for a second, there is already concern that the institution of traditional marriage is weakening for a lot of other reasons. Many arguments have been made which purport the weakening of that institution as one of the major causes for the collapse and weakening of a nation, not only here but in the majority of Western societies.
At a time when traditional marriages and families need to be strengthened so that society can get full strength back on course, laws passed affirming homosexual marriage are simply another dagger in a list of factors already contributing to a breakdown in traditional marriage and hence society.

Lastly the precendent set by legalizing condoning same sex will contribute to a rise in legislation of other special interest groups seeking to legislate and promote marital arrangements that suit their own individual needs desires and whims.
As we see today in Texas, such is the case with polygamists that marry 20 wives and impregnate young ladies to bear children as well, a self perpetuating circumstance that only benefits in this case controlling manipulating, selfish, sexually insatiable men and consequently its a behavior that only benefits those indivduals and their group and is consequently proven to be of no benefit to society.

Some will even argue that incest laws are not constitutional, others will even argue the same for bestiality. I know you think I'm being extreme and you think I am fear mongering by stating this but the fact is, these activities though shunned and taboo, do exist and there are people who enjoy and celebrate them, just as there are people who enjoying wife swapping and all other variations on the theme of sexual pleasure and companionship.

However in a society that elevates the needs, wants, desires, and whims of the individual over that of the overall good of the society, it is not far fetched at all that eventually individuals with preferences of all types will eventually shed the shackles of taboo and come forth demanding their rights as well. In fact that is more likely than not.

One last thing .... no same sex marriage right exists in the constitution, it is a fabricated right fabricated by selfish individuals to impose their will on society, grafted off the back of Black civil right laws

I've often read that the State's compelling interest in marriage is societal stability. OK. Marriage within a single gender seems to be consistent with this. I've often wondered who in their right mind would argue against legal protection/recognition of monogamy?

Also, I think the difference between marriage and civil unions is federal recognition. (Think spousal Social Security benefits.)

Homosexual marriages will only serve to weaken a society and not strengthen it and I will go so far as to say there is no sound argument to the contrary because homosexual unions only benefit the individuals involved and not the society as a whole.

How is a committed gay couple any different than a committed straight couple? Because they cannot, between the two of them, produce offspring? Our planet is grossly overpopulated and this is becoming more and more apparent as we see riots for food in places like Myanmar. My partner and I choose to not have children for various reasons - which would make us the same reproductively as a gay couple - but because we're a man and a woman it makes us more of a benefit to society? Please explain this to me.

Also, homosexuals are a large part of the economy, often being in higher paying jobs and contributing more to local businesses. In a UCLA study it was determined that gay marriage would boost the economy in Iowa.

Another thing I don't understand is how promoting people of any sexual orientation to be in a committed, monogamous relationship is a negative thing. The more sexual partners you have, the greater your risk of contracting and spreading STDs. If more people were encouraged to be in monogamous relationships (such as legal marriage which requires a divorce or annulment to get out of), then we would likely see a slowing in the spread of STDs. Beyond that, what is so "bad for society" about promoting love between two consenting adults (not children and adults, as you refer to above, as children cannot consent to sex)?

You also refer to people's "needs, wants, desires, and whims." I can infer from this that you believe homosexuality to be a choice. I know it to be innate. There are people out there who experiment with the homosexual lifestyle who eventually return to heterosexuality, and there are homosexuals out there who experiment with heterosexuality before returning. It makes a big different when you believe homosexuality to be a choice and when you believe it to be a part of someone. I know that people are born gay just as people are born straight. To deny this part of themselves is cruel. To be forced to deny it because of laws is wrong.

While you may fear the government sanctioning homosexual marriage for whatever reason, just because you fear it / don't like it / don't understand it doesn't mean that you, nor anyone else, has the right to put limits on an adult's freedom to love another consenting adult.

On the other hand the value of the union between a man and a woman benefits society in obvious yet basic and common sense ways

What benefits? There is no need for marriage to reproduce. That is just another "social norm" that humans have projected onto their societies.

This is why, despite and in spite of the strong religious basis of the institution of marriage by ALL RELIGIONS, ALL societies and governments have historically condoned promoted and encouraged marriage between a man and a woman.

Historically, the United States didn't allow the marriage of a black person and a white person. Historically, monarchies beheaded people at the monarch's whim. I think "looking at this historically" is a pathetic excuse of saying "I don't like gay people getting married, it's gross."

Lastly the precendent set by legalizing condoning same sex will contribute to a rise in legislation of other special interest groups seeking to legislate and promote marital arrangements that suit their own individual needs desires and whims

Wrong. They're not changing what marriage means, they're changing who is allowed to get married. There is a big difference. This is not a precedent for changing the fundamental meaning of marriage - it's a precedent for equal rights.

By your logic, allowing black people to vote would have resulted in other minority special interest groups trying to get voting arrangements that suit their own individual needs and desires - HOW HORRIBLE. People wanting to vote...what is the world coming to?

One last thing .... no same sex marriage right exists in the constitution, it is a fabricated right fabricated by selfish individuals to impose their will on society

Your weakest argument yet. There are a huge number of rights not explicitly written into The Constitution, for example: right to privacy, right to bear arms, the right to a trial by jury - none of those phrases exist in The Constitution, but we still respect the, right?

Mis Dev
Our planet is not grossly overpopulated....didn't someone tell you that was nonsense and is the played out liberal rhethoric from the 60's.
One of main goals of the fear-mongering rhethoric of over population was "legalized abortion" and the resulting planned parenthood national abortion chain store success has already been achieved.
In fact that organization is now a multinational multi billion dollar enterprise with a budget of $700 million in 2008 alone for federally funded abortions

In fact in America, like a lot of Western nations there is a concern that not enough children are being born. There are a ton of issues and concerns connected with declining birth rates in Western societies.

In fact in the long run, the societies that have healthy birth rates will overtake the societies that don't....thats just simple math 1+1
As far as monogamy among gays is concerned, you're dreaming! Not that there are not a lot of monagamous gay couples but you cannot in no way state that fidelity among gay couples is greater than that of straight.
In fact an argument can easily be made that there is more promiscuity among gays than there is among straights because most gay relationships are based upon sexual preference in the 1st place and therefore it can be argued that to a greater degree than straight people sex is the reason for the gay relationship. All acroos America gays meet in bars and health spas which are for the sole purpose of sexual liason. In many places, they as reported in the news recently gay men meet in public restrooms for the purpose of sexual liason. Even some of the most infamous parades sponsored by gays are nothing but a parade of sexual deviance....So why are you trying to sell us on the image of the gay Huxtables.
You concluded your rebuttal quite nicely, reiterating what I have already stated..... Simply put, as I have previously stated ... legalized gay marriage is the result of society elevating the needs, desires and wants of the individual above that of the needs desires of the society in that it only benefits those individuals and has no benefit to the society except that those individuals get what they want....period!

All acroos America gays meet in bars and health spas which are for the sole purpose of sexual liason.

So straight people attending strip clubs, swingers clubs, etc. isn't the same thing? They exist for both groups.

Hey Ben thanks for the example of bad laws when you pointed out how historically, the United States didn't allow the marriage of a black person and a white person.

You're quite right in that those laws did not benefit society so they were replaced with laws that did

Another good example of a bad law is monarchies beheading people at the monarch's whim with no due process which is why people in the middle east try so hard to avoid being kidnapped by Jihadists and their women are scared to report a rape

I think if you're "looking at this historically" you need to stop making pathetic excuses for assuming people don't like gays when the truth is people don't want to institutionalize behaviors that only benefit the needs of individuals but do not benefit the future of society

Also scientifically and historically it is evident that ones race is not synonomous with ones sexual preference. As a Black man I find offense in gays equating their blights with that of my people...just though you oughta know that piggy backing your right to institutionalize gay sexual preferences on the back of our civil right struggles demeans the value that civil rights brings to our society.

Quite naturally gays benefit from anti discrimination laws also but taking it beyond their equating a persons sexual preference to a persons race is not appropriate...even though it has come to be the norm

Lastly I think you should probably reread the Constitution, the Declaration of Independence and the Bill of Rights

Ben...on the whole being straight does not equate one with being a connoisseurr of sex clubs and swinger clubs...However being gay is by definition a sexual preference and is the reason gay people to a large degree disproportionately frequent these sex spas, gay bars and the like.

In the same way straight people do not have parades that celebrate sexual deviance, in fact if they did they'd be arrested

Gay coalitions which are so influential and demanding, prevent authorities from disrupting their public displays of vulgarity.

Before you get too riled up over the term vulgar, I assure you if their were public displays of hetero sexuality I would consider that vulgar as well and so would society at large and law enforcement agencies would consider it a viloation of obscenity laws

You would hate "Spring Break"...

spooky....you're right, if its about over active hormones and an atmosphere of sexual hedonism you're right!

add to that Girls Gone Wild and any other display of vulgarness

So...gay people only think about sex, but straight people have time to benefit society with their thoughts?

I think the justices voted.

No, they interpreted the law's constitutionality. They are well-versed in Constitutional law and should be the ones with the final say on rights.

Wow, I can sense the fear anti-gay rights people have in here. It's amazing...They are in their death throes and they know it. Mark this, they will be on the wrong side of history.

The argument that gay marriage is selfish, or self-motivated and hetero marriages aren't is so ludicrous. It's the most ridiculous argument I've ever read. You'd have to be negative IQ to believe such an argument.

Our entire system of economics is doing what is good for ourselves..it's called capitalism. You can't pretend that hetero couples are benefiting society by creating offspring. I know many couples that should NOT have children, and hurt society by reproducing. There will be plenty of progeny despite any legislation enacting gay marriage.

Keep grasping at straw. Meanwhile, the enlightened world will get along just fine without you.

It was a 4 to 3 vote. So the three CA Supreme Court justices don't count, de facto?!

Homosexual marriages will only serve to weaken a society and not strengthen it and I will go so far as to say there is no sound argument to the contrary because homosexual unions only benefit the individuals involved and not the society as a whole.

Yes, yes because the Bachelor & similar programs keep marriage strong. And also the high divorce rate. Marriage in doesn't strengthen a society.

Hatred for homosexuality is nothing more than perversion, because all people care about is what they do with their genitals. And not what they do with their minds. That weakens society.

I have no problem with this law. Gay couples sometimes get together and set up housekeeping for life. They have a right to life, love, and the pursuit of happiness under the Constitution, just like you and I.
And like this law is going to affect YOUR life personally or something if you're straight. If you think it does, then face it: You're a bit homophobic.

Let the gay folks have marriage. Gay men and lesbians are not going to do the traditional male/female marriage scenario, anyway...no matter how much you think they should.

Charles, your arguments are full of crap. No one honestly believes it matters to society who gets married and who doesn't. Some right-wing sheep-herder sold that to you to make you feel better about supporting policies that hurt people. That puts you up there with people who still think we faked the moon landing.

Those same sheep-herders have believed throughout America's history that one reform or another would cause society to collapse, and society hasn't collapsed yet. If it does in the next few years, it will be because of the unaccountable actions of the right-wing frat-party over the last eight years destroying it with actual, observable actions. We're in a war, a recession, and on the brink of natural disasters, and you're worried about gays getting married. Grow up.

Either you're lying about what you believe for convenient social advantage, or you're one of the worst sheep I've ever even heard about. No one with half an ounce of analytical skill actually believes the tripe you're selling, it's discreditable at FACE VALUE.

These legal bans on Gay marriage are a new thing in American legal and constitutional practice: a horrible thing that should rejected as a legal practice regardless of the merits of Gay marriage itself.

Our constitutions protect many individual rights. Often those individual right must be vindicated because of majoritarian oppression aimed at discrete minorities. We all know that. It's a major feature in our national history.

But it is a new thing for American legal history for the political system to purposefully put in place legal prohibition on extending individual rights to members of a discrete minorities. In effect, the law is saying, "We the majority can exercise a specific right or privilege under the law, but you--a specific minority, never shall."

This purposeful disabling of the availability of rights and privileges under the law aimed at specific minorities who otherwise enjoy equal protection under the law is new to American law.

It is specifically discriminatory--aimed at a specific class of Americans. It is a business we should not let our laws get into. If it is justified here, where would the precedent not justify its use in the future? What discrete minority's individual rights could not be disabled by principle? This is the slipperiest of all slopes for a liberal (in the sense of the term the founders used) republic to climb onto.

The Goose-Gander Doctrine applies with ruthless reach in the law--if it is good for the goose, then it is good for the gander. If tradition or religious definition of terms incorporated into the law or inferring a contribution to social stability justifies a law disabling the availability of a right or privilege to one class of citizens why not for another?

The rule of law and our constitutional traditions require that all citizens enjoy equal protection under the law. This is the first case in our history where the majoritarian impulse is to create legal classes of individuals and, in advance, say thou shalt never have the right I exercise.

Why Courts?

It is indeed always better if the legislatures acts on policy questions. The legislature is designed to take its time in reaching policy decisions, to hold hearings, to collect information and testimony, to call in the relevant experts and involved parties, to discuss at leisure the issues involved and--yes, to weigh the preferences of the electorate.

Legislatures are designed to consider policy in the broad and to generate, if necessary, broad and detailed enactments. Courts are designed to deal with individuals before them on a one-by-one basis. When an individual shows up and say, "The legislature as enacted a law that violates my personal constitutional rights," the courts must consider the case. If a constitutional right has been violated, courts must strike the law. The two branches operate by different methods and with different purposes--both equally important to democracy under the rule of law.

In this case, there is no doubt that Gays are being denied equal protection under the law. What is being said to Gays is that laws that can provide privileges to others Americans cannot provide the privileges to them because of a system of classification of free Americans established in the law itself.

It would be better for legislatures to recognize the equal protection aspects of their lawmaking, but when they don't, the courts must act. Moreover, the final security of all rights is vested in the attitudes of the public. It is best when individual rights are protected by majoritarian action through the legislatures, but that is not the only way the the public can be educated on an issue--courts can do it too.

James Madison famously said that the American democratic cycle was one of education of the public by the legislatures and, in turn, instruction to the elected officials by the vote. Note that he did not see simply measuring public preference as the whole of government's duty. He believed an informed and educated public could act in an enlightened way.

The press report says the following:

Marriage is a "basic civil right" guaranteed to all Californians, "whether gay or heterosexual, and to same-sex couples as well as to opposite-sex couples," Chief Justice Ronald M. George wrote in a 121-page ruling. He repeatedly said the ruling was based on the California court's first-in-the-nation decision in 1948 to end the state's prohibition on interracial marriage, nearly 20 years before the U.S. Supreme Court took the same action.

Just as the courts educated the public and through them legislatures on the issue of interracial marriage and its importance to equal protection under the law, so too can they educate us on the important republican values inherently threatened by adopting new laws that consciously class citizens for the purpose of disabling rights.

These legal bans on Gay marriage are a new thing in American legal and constitutional practice: a horrible thing that should rejected as a legal practice regardless of the merits of Gay marriage itself.

It is really tiresome to hear misstatements repeated over and over.

Same gender unions have never been licensed unions until recent rulings in Mass., etc. Same gender unions are not being banned. They just do not meet licensure requirements.

Single gender unions do not meet the requirements for legal marriage in most states in the U.S.

Multiple partner marriages similarly do not meet the licensure requirements of most states in the U.S.

Failure to meet licensure requirements does not prevent single gender unions nor does it prevent multiple partner unions.

There is no 'right' to approval from society.

To assert that single gender unions are suddenly being banned is to be at least disingenuous.

There are indeed many...countless definitions in the law that rule in and rule out practices. What is new here is that majoritarian action is being taken to reinforce a discriminatory definition with a second law that says the definition is more than just that--it is, in fact, a required new classification of citizens enacted by this new law, that in and of itself requires the classification allow some privileges that other can never enjoy.

That is new. Interracial marriage is a case in point. A definition prohibiting it was built into the law. No attempt to place that definition out of reach for the the political process or for the courts was ever made, unlike with Gay marriage today. State laws are attempting to bar the definition of local ordinances to vest equal protection on Gays. Constitutional Amendments are being attempted to bar legislatures and judges from applying equal protection to definitions in the law.

There is no 'right' to approval from society.

True. I don't approve of many people and things some people do and say, but it is never a legal issue.

You may not approve of trucks barreling though a downtown area at the same speed as automobiles, but your approval is irrelevant to the laws governing trucks. Laws must have a rational basis in a public interest. When a law creates a permanent classification between free citizens and causes different treatment of them under the law, the justifying standard is higher than a mere "rational basis:--it is either a "substantial relationship to a public purpose" or a "compelling public purpose."

Which of those three standards do you think is met by laws discriminating against Gays wanting to marry? Which of those standards would prefer to live without?

There is no law ever justified by anybodies' "approval or disapproval."

Thinking the law is about your personal or your churches' approval of someone else is totalitarian.

Failure to meet licensure requirements does not prevent single gender unions nor does it prevent multiple partner unions.

Did you misstate yourself here. I'm missing your point and usually you are clear enough even for a gormless dolt like myself to understand.

It is the licensure requirements and the definitions of terms therein that do bar Gay and group marriages.

Did you misstate yourself here. I'm missing your point and usually you are clear enough even for a gormless dolt like myself to understand.

It is the licensure requirements and the definitions of terms therein that do bar Gay and group marriages.

To obtain a drivers license, I must meet the testing requirements and physical ability tests to obtain a license. To obtain a license to practice medicine, I must meet all the requirements for licensure as a licensed physician.

I don't get to choose what those requirements are. They are set by the legislatures of the various states in response to the directives of the electorate.

A marriage license is no different. Standards are set by the various states in response to directives from the electorate.

That the electorate do not approve licensing same gender marriage is abundantly apparent. The courts should not be used to overturn the will of the people.

But at the least, it should be noted that same gender marriage is not and never has been the norm. There is no movement to 'ban' same gender marriage. There is a strong response to the courts overturning the will of the electorate.

Comparing a marriage license to a license to practice medicine? Do you not see how silly you sound?

A marriage license is a contract between people. A medical license is permission to practice medicine, proof that you have met the requirements and passed the tests required.

Are you suggesting tests and permission to marry someone?

no same sex marriage right exists in the constitution

Can you point out to me where a male/female marriage right exists in the constitution? Or were a same sex marriage prohibition exists in the constitution?

TheJonesGirl,

Are you suggesting tests and permission to marry someone?

Not at all, though that is often the case. There may be medical test requirements. There may be pre-marital counseling requirements.

What I am saying is that states issue licenses. They determine the requirements to be met to obtain those licenses. A marriage license is a state issued license like any other state license.

Perry O,

Can you point out to me where a male/female marriage right exists in the constitution? Or were a same sex marriage prohibition exists in the constitution?

Licensure is a right reserved by the states. See the 10th amendment to the U.S. constitution.

@jpark -

That the electorate do not approve licensing same gender marriage is abundantly apparent. The courts should not be used to overturn the will of the people.

The voters of California did not ban gay marriage, rather Governor Schwarzenegger vetoed two bills that made gay marriage legal.

A marriage license is no different. Standards are set by the various states in response to directives from the electorate.

Come on, you know better.

If the standards are discriminatory--classifying citizens and granting or denying rights, privileges or protections based on those classifications without justifying public purpose, court do and should strike the "directives of the electorate" incorporated into law by legislatures.

Or, when the "directive of the electorate" has no relationship to public welfare--such as when obnoxious free speech is proscribed, always a recurring circumstance in democracies--there too must courts act.

In thousand different context you'd probably be making this argument to me--race, gender, religion, national origin, handicap, place of residence.

The simple majoritarian perspective would prevail if we and our founders were able to ignore the history of majority abuse of minority individual rights. In such a world there would be no need for a Bill of Rights at all.

Nope, we've got to impose standards on our majority "directed" laws. They've got to be conceived on a "rational basis to serve a public purpose," and --depending on the value of the individual right burdened, they may also have to bear a "substantial relationship to a public purpose" or even be justified only by a "compelling public interest."

Equal treatment under the law is a pretty important value and right.

No, the argument has to go past tradition and majority preference. You'll have to make a case beyond those first line of defenses. You have to look deeper into your mind and soul for the real purpose served by these discriminatory laws.

Oh yeah, forgot to ask: do you think if licensure "standards" denied the privilege of driving or practicing medicine to Gays, they could pass constitutional muster? There has to be a relationship to a public interest. Identify that public interest and we might disagree on a point on which disagreement is possible, but tradition and majority wins alone is not ground any free person can long stand on.

Oh yeah, forgot to ask: do you think if licensure "standards" denied the privilege of driving or practicing medicine to Gays, they could pass constitutional muster?

Not germane to this discussion. Men and women have equal access to marriage regardless of gender.

Many gay and lesbian people do enter into the state of marriage licensed by the state.

Since marriage is not denied to anyone based on gender or sexual preference, the question is not relevant.

Wow, JPark, you really think you can detail away the fact that gays are being discriminated against in this country. Do you really think this debate is going to be won and lost in the details? Do you really think it's going to hinge on the deffinitions of "discrimination," and "legal right" or "liscense?"

Do you really think you can obfuscate the harm being done by shifting around legalistic constructs?

It's not flying anymore. The shift is happening, and it's happening because we're getting tired of hurting people through hate and neglect and indifference, and we are also getting tired of following rules that require us to be wastefully hurtful. The shift is happening because we'd rather just let people exist as long is it doens't harm people, and even then, we're willing to endure a few minor inconveniences sometimes. Try and detail that away.

And consider whether you want to be remembered on the side of defending ideas, or humans.

Please disregard my comment above, I misspoke.

Governor Schwarzenegger has twice vetoed laws that would have made gay marriage legal, but the voters in 2000 did extend a 1977 law banning gay marriage.

However, it is the judicial branch that determines the constitutionality of laws. I believe there are proposals being drafted to turn the issue of amending the constitution over to the voters (even the Governor does not support amending the Constitution), but, until that point, it is the judicial branch is right in saying this law is unconstitutional.

Like I stated .....laws are designed to benefit society in either one of two ways to discourage bad behavior or to promote good behavior. Laws discouraging bad behavior against homosexuals are already in place, just like they are for the disabled, the obese, the elderly and every other group that has an unfair fight against discrimination. All this was accomplished on the back of Black Civil Rights achievements. Those laws discourage bad behaviors that are harmful to society, and engourage good behavior through laws that created equal opportunity for jobs, schools, eating in public places, getting housing etc, etc...in short prohibiting bad behavior and promoting good behavior.

Withing 3-5 years any law passed to promote a behavior will begin to have its affect in the community. The law passed in California having no residency requirements will result in a fast track of promoting this particular behavior nationwide because people will come to California just to get married, then return to Podunk Iowa and Smackover Arkansas and their states not recognizing their marriages will be sued for discrimination.

The problem with this particular behavior is it only benefits the individuals by giving them what they want fufilling their desires and making them feel good about themselves with the ultimate inevitable payoff of weakening the society at large. A victory for the me myself and I generation.
How is society weakened you ask?...Simple, I'm glad you asked.....

Since Gay advocates like to bring inter-racial marriage up in their defense lets take a look at it how was a good law promoting good behavior and how it benefited society. Though its apples and oranges they like to model their behavior after inter racial marriage, so I will show the positive benefits of inter-racial marriage correlates with the "positve"( if you can call it that) benefits of gay marriage. If I'm wrong please tell me the benefits gay marriage has to society. I concur it only benefits individuals and not society, therefore it should be an indivdual choice and not a societal promoted behavior.

1st of all it dealt with the case of race. Aside from the ludicrous remarks of Rev Wright and people who think like him, its pretty well established that people of different races are all the same, we're all human, we all bleed red blood. Racial designation cannot be equated in any way whatsoever with gender or sexual preference. There are males and there are females, obviously a lot of you don't like it that way but your anatomy pretty much designates whether you are an egg bearer or a seed bearer. You're either one or the other no matter what you feel about it. Personally I like men's rooms being exclusive to men and ladies rooms being exclusive to women. I am not an as enlightened as some of you in that regard or as some of European counterparts.

Any way I've strayed so lets get back to my comparison....As it became law, the unjust taboo removed, inter-racial marriage increased. Quite naturally in the more integrated environment of our nation children and teens of different races developed friendships and were raised understanding that people are people, regardless of race...thats good

Putting marriage aside for a sec, in the case of gay lifestyles, its abundantly clear that as the taboo of homosexuality has been removed due to the promotion of this behavior through the media including TV and Movies ( industries heavily populated and run by gays ), Gay behavior has dramatically increased, not because more people are born gay as gays advocate, but because more people, especially young people began to pattern their behavior after this newly promoted way of life. In other word a new option was created and made to appear normal....thats bad

As with any behavior, smoking cigarettes, getting high, racing cars, getting drunk, young people began experimenting with same sex relationships. Many who were best friends became more curious how it will feel to have sex with their best friends. Despite all the rig-a -ma-ro about being born gay, a very high proportion of gays are gays through this type of choice.

Now as gay marriage becomes an acceptable institution in our society, the society will weaken because children, the hope of our future are much better off with a male and female parent, not only do studies show that, but its also basic common sense. Even if a child doesn't have both, they are still better off growing up with a sound idea of what a male is and what a female is. To blur the line is to further weaken the foundation of what makes a healthy society and thereby a strong nation vis a vis, male female relationships, the roles of mothers and fathers, the foundation basis of human life and the human race.

Furthermore before you bring up whats going on in Europe as an example of genderless society. Europe is a very sad place. Many of those nations are devolving into pathetic shells of what they once were. Without strong US support, they are doomed to military defeat even more so then they were in the 1940's. Over taxation, legalized drug addiction, legalized prostitution and gay marriage is only serving to create a role call, a list of names if you will for those who will be systematically persecuted when those countries are over run by communist / Islamic powers. Despite a strong Euro, societal Europe is pathetically weak. Communist Socialists know it, Marxists know it, Fascists know it and Islamic Fundamentalists know it, all are biding their time. There's already talk of Putin embracing Islam as the national religion. Not only that I'm sure you most of you know what happens to gays under Sharia law and I'm sure you understand that Muslim birth rates are the highest in Europe.

Here's an excerpt from an article I found that expounds more succinctly on the weakness factor

"The struggle for gay and lesbian liberation has the potential to become a significant force in the ongoing struggle to transform capitalism into communism. The most advanced — the most radical — sections of the gay and lesbian liberation movement represent the potential vanguard of the struggle for sexual emancipation in the socialist transition from capitalism to communism. This does not mean that gay and lesbian liberation can or should replace the proletariat as the vanguard of the whole movement of revolutionary struggle and transformation of capitalism into socialism and communism; instead, it means that gay and lesbian liberation can and should become a vanguard within, and as a relatively autonomous part of, the larger proletarian vanguard as this proletarian vanguard carries out the larger task of reconstructing all of social reality in the total movement of revolutionary transformation from capitalism to communism."

from
Marxist Theory of Homosexuality: Past, Present and Future
by Bob Nowlan

Not germane to this discussion. Men and women have equal access to marriage regardless of gender.

But it is! The law enabling the licensure must be rationally related to a public purpose. The incenses create two classes of citizens--those qualified to drive or practice medicine and those not qualified.

Gayness is not a characteristic that affect any public purpose relating to driving or practicing medicine and that's why you correctly intuit that the constitution would not permit Gayness of be a standard on which those licenses could be withheld.

What makes it relevant to issuing marriage license? Define the public purpose? Get down to the brass tacks in your attitudes. You are avoiding engagement, are you not, or are you content to rest on majority rule and tradition alone?

Charles, your premise that gay marriage benefits no one but the individual is utter BS, for two very important reasons:

A) Gay marriage does benefit society as a whole, as presented in arguments you conveniently ignored, and

B) this nation is built on capitalism. What is the founding principle of capitalism?

THAT IF EVERYONE ACTS IN THEIR OWN BEST INTEREST, the laws of supplies and demand will create a natural balane.

You're just mad that demand is shifting.

this isn't about supply and demand, or what's good for society. This is about outdated and un-resourceful social traditions masquerading as morals and being presented as a banner to be followed by lambs being led to the slaughter. Doesn't it bother you to be used like a foot-soldier in this way by people who are just trying to gain political leverage?

The accademic debate over gay marriage is over. It ended when the very arguments you continue to parade out were refuted--over, and over, and over, and over again, on this forum, on other forums, in the news, in scientific publications, by the courts, and everywhere else they have been trotted out for the last five years. There is no legitimate excuse anymore, you're just being stubborn.

Withing 3-5 years any law passed to promote a behavior will begin to have its affect in the community.

We've had gay marriages for about 4 years now in the great Commonwealth of Massachusetts. We have not yet had fire rain down upon us from the heavens.

What the court just did was annul the voters of California which means in common language that what we vote for counts for zilch. The constitution of the United States of America does not in any degree say anything about gay marriage. If it does, please send me some new reading specs and tell me which article of the constitution mentions that. Also, if we let the courts continue to rule the country, we do not need a legislative branch of government nor do we need to take the expense to set up elections..Legislating from the bench of the judiciary is a slippery slope that I am afraid we have entered and more troubling is that we have not figured out a way to really combat the action. People are just too easy in accepting the rulings. "oh, the court said so!!" does not make it correct. The "people" should be the deciders. Of course I will admit that I think gays are a mentally disordered group and very sick. Demented sex is the real winner here...

Behold, the voice of the other side. "We're upset because we're not getting our way. By gum, we VOTED to persecute other people because they're vile, dirty, filthy, and demented! Does that count for nothing?"

And you have the audacity to be surprised about the way this debate is going? You've just presented case-in-point of every point I've bothered to make in this discussion so far. What you just said is the VERY REASON this part of the culture war is going so badly for you: Your side is incapable of speaking with a humane voice.

I think vindicating the principle of equality before the law is an important advantage in and of itself. When we wander from that principle to use the law to establish classes of people who are then treated differently by the law, adherence to our national values and constitutional principals should be enough to correct the wrong, even without the many more reasons to eradicate this hateful prejudice from our laws.

The only benefit gay marriage will have is to make gays feel better about themselves aside from that there is no benefit to society at large...none whatsoever.

Their selfish need to present their desires as normal will only be used as a footstool and a springboard for other deviant behavior groups to call on society to cast off the taboos that hinder them from openly expressing their own selfish desires.

The example of Massachusetts is not a good one, no where as far reaching as the law in California and of far less impact on the society at large, a ripple in a puddle if you will.

The law passed in Cali will set a precedent for polygamists who will argue in the same manner as gays. Followed by advocates for incest and pedophiles. Now you think I'm out on a limb don't you?

Okay then go to wikepedia and do a search on Pro-pedophile activism under that you will find the following.......

"Pro-pedophile activists have described their movement as analogous to other new social movements, in particular the LGBT social movements,[12][11][4][5] and some call for what they describe as "children's rights", to allow children to make their own decisions about sexual relationships without constraint by the authority of their parents or other adults."

Then while you're trying to wrap your mind around that do a search on bestiality or zoophilia

From that search you'll find the following....
"While sexual zoophilia is legal in a few countries (see: legal aspects), it is not explicitly condoned anywhere today, and in most countries sexual acts with animals are illegal under animal abuse laws or, less commonly, laws dealing with crimes against nature. Philosopher and animal liberation author Peter Singer argues that zoophilia is not unethical if there is no harm or cruelty to the animal, but this view is not widely shared, with the majority opinion supporting the view that animals, like children, are not capable of informed consent"

NOW .....
...Please tell me all you want how far fetched these scenarios are but I in turn will tell you that whatever humans can imagine, humans can rationalize and reason and bring into fruition. But I submit to you everything reasonable is not wise, but everything wise is certainly reasonable. In the case of gay marriage it is well reason to promote same sex marriages but the jury is out on the wisdom of it and will convene at a later time. On the other hand we can all pretty much agree that civil unions and contracts are a wise compromise but gay advocates are not interested in compromise because for their own self interest they would rather lead society at large to go wear fools dare to tread.

In our present atmosphere of elevating individual rights above the needs of society all that is required is the desire of enough individuals who have a strong enough will to put forth a cause that they believe is meritorious enough to deem acceptable....All they have to do is present a strong enough rationalization based upon IMAGINED civil rights and some imagined notion that the original intent of the Constitution had people like themselves in mind.

Basically an argument based on complete balderdash

But a defeat for morality, decency and the great country we once were.

You not only ignored Miss_Dev (in comment 1.17) when she soundly refuted your claims that there is no benefit to society at large, you continue to trot out the much-discredited slippery-slope argument, and to it you attach the unmitigated arrogance of presuming to tell other people whose civil rights are real and whose are immagined.

Why do we even bother having these discussions? I might as well attach numbers to these arguments and to the standard rebuttals and just say, "argument number 4? see rebuttal number 6." In this case, you also warrant the rebuttal I gave James Penland, above: your statements make the poster-case for why you're losing the culture war.

I must be a horrible person in your eyes, Charles, because I was married and yet we chose not to have children. So by your reasoning, I guess I shouldn't have been allowed to get married either, because I wasn't benefiting society. And one of the main reasons I get into relationships is for the sex, just like all those perverted gay people. There are a ton of other good things about relationships, but I can get most of those from platonic friends.

And to equate homosexuality with pedophilia or zoophilia ... you have some major sexual hangups, apparently. Nobody is suggesting that either of those should be legal.

What the hell difference does it make to you if someone wants to have sex with a man, a woman, themself, or nobody at all? How on earth is it selfish for a gay person to want the right to have their desires met, just like anyone else? Why is it wrong for a gay person to want the legal right to visit their partner in the hospital or take advantage of the other benefits of being in a committed relationship?

Charles - There have been / are a number of societies in which same sex marriages are legal including native american and pacific island societies and there is no way you could say these marriages do not benefit those societies the same as different sex marriages.

That argument does not hold water.

Marriage is not a religious ceremony (matrimony is) marriage is a civil union that is recognized under our laws for some 1138 specific federal benefits alone.

Your arguments about pedophilia and zoophilia just reinforce what you have not considered - the vast majority of pedophiles are straight, as are zoophiles; in fact the vast majority of pedophiles are married.

So is your bringing this up to suggest that gays / lesbians / bisexuals / transgendered are better off without marriage?

Who are you to decide?

Charles, your views are rather... remarkable.

Laws discouraging bad behavior against homosexuals are already in place, just like they are for the disabled, the obese, the elderly and every other group that has an unfair fight against discrimination.

As far as I know, fat, old marriage is legal across the US. Next?

As with any behavior, smoking cigarettes, getting high, racing cars, getting drunk, young people began experimenting with same sex relationships. Many who were best friends became more curious how it will feel to have sex with their best friends. Despite all the rig-a -ma-ro about being born gay, a very high proportion of gays are gays through this type of choice.

Wow, you really know nothing about homosexuality, do you? Preferring to wallow in your self-referential cesspool of ignorant arrogance, you've ignored sociological and medical studies destroying your pathetic little dramatization done in the last 50 years.

The only benefit gay marriage will have is to make gays feel better about themselves aside from that there is no benefit to society at large...none whatsoever.

Same with straight marriage.

Their selfish need to present their desires as normal will only be used as a footstool and a springboard for other deviant behavior groups to call on society to cast off the taboos that hinder them from openly expressing their own selfish desires.

The same was said of interracial marriage. Well, now that there are interracial marriages, polygamists are gittin' hitched left and right, eh, Junior?

Now you think I'm out on a limb don't you?

No, you're freefalling from the end of that limb.

On the other hand we can all pretty much agree that civil unions and contracts are a wise compromise but gay advocates are not interested in compromise because for their own self interest they would rather lead society at large to go wear fools dare to tread.

Haha, what cheek you have to so glibly spew such ignorant bulls---. Since you apparently like to reference Wikipedia, look up Wikipedia articles on LGBT activism, and edumacate yourself, por favor.

All they have to do is present a strong enough rationalization based upon IMAGINED civil rights and some imagined notion that the original intent of the Constitution had people like themselves in mind.

The Constitution originally had only land-owning white males in mind. Darn, there go women's rights and minority rights.

Basically an argument based on complete balderdash

At least you know how pathetic your argument is.

@dukeofgloucester - Thank you for pointing that out. I've given up with this particular individual because, as will all ignorant individuals, he chooses not to listen nor to learn. He has his beliefs and makes the choice not to allow himself to be educated. Luckily, he is in the minority, here, as most people on Newsvine, although many are stubborn, are at least willing to listen.

@katrix - I completely agree. I made the same point above, which this person chose to ignore. Apparently you and I, because we choose to not reproduce are a scourge to society. I can't think of anything worse than being in a secure, monogamous relationship without children in which both people work and contribute to their communities. Gosh, how horrible! (/sarcasm)

@Jack - I love you. But you knew that. What - you're a male, right? Because if you're not, then, we're clearly not healthy, contributing members of society.

Once again please don't offend the entire Black race by equating gay folks struggle and desire to legitimize and normalize their sexual preferences to the struggle for racial equality for my race.

There is nothing the US or California Constitutions that constitute a right for gays, just as is none that constitutes a right for abortion

These are imagined fabricated rights that can only be extracted from the Constitution through interpretation of those who hold the opinion that it is legitimate

I made the same point above, which this person chose to ignore

I've had a hard time on this thread figuring out what was pointed out before, because of all the drivel I have to wade through, but I'm glad I'm not the only scourge out there! Nice to meet you, Miss Dev..

And Charles - none of us are trying to make you have sex with a man. We're simply trying to point out that it's none of your business what other people do in their bedrooms. What happened to you as a child to make you so concerned about it? You're starting to remind me of the hypocrites who get busted in bathrooms.

There is nothing the US or California Constitutions that constitute a right for gays

For now. There was nothing in either constitution (Cali didn't even exist) that gave such rights to blacks in the 1800s.

These are imagined fabricated rights that can only be extracted from the Constitution through interpretation of those who hold the opinion that it is legitimate

The same argument was made against racial equality 100 years ago.

Insult? The only insult here is the ignorance you possess about your own race's struggles.

@katrix - no worries! Over 1100 comments is rather daunting - here's what I was referring to (comment 1.17):

How is a committed gay couple any different than a committed straight couple? Because they cannot, between the two of them, produce offspring? Our planet is grossly overpopulated and this is becoming more and more apparent as we see riots for food in places like Myanmar. My partner and I choose to not have children for various reasons - which would make us the same reproductively as a gay couple - but because we're a man and a woman it makes us more of a benefit to society? Please explain this to me.

I'm glad that you reiterated the point, because it cannot be said enough: just because two people won't or can't produce offspring does not make their love and commitment less valid than those who can or will.

katrix...
...I absolutely and wholeheartedly agree what people do in their bedrooms is certainly not my business thats exactly why what they do in the bedroom should stay in the bedroom.
The problem is that gays want so desperately to feel good about themselves they want to cram acceptance down other people's throats, people like me for instance who could actually give a care about what they do and who they do it with.
But when gays start having public parades and changing public policy for their own selfish desires, they make what they do everyone elses business...get it?

Gays are now far more than my friend, my family member or my co-worker who happen to be gay....Gays are now a special interest group, they have lobbyists, PACS and they are trying as best as possible to impact public policy and doing a great job at it I might add.
They have been successful at altering public school curriculums in many school districts with children as young as kindergarten age discussing, designating declaring gender and homosexuality....or didn't you know that?

And you're tellin me its their business?!!! You start teaching my children about your sex life at an age when girls should be yucky and girls don't know what a period is....you make itr everyone's business!!

All kinds of people have numerous types of sexual preferences and fetishes, you do not see these people "coming out of the closet" forming advocacy groups to legislate changes in society that change the foundational basis of established institutions.
By the way inter-racial marriage did not change the institution of marriage.. so you can skip that. Also the basis for those laws being changed are found in the Constitution and the corresponding constitutional amendments concerning the emancipation of Black people.

You want gays to get married, amend the Constitution!!!

At the risk of getting a little risque to make a point, for instance I'm sure if a group of toe lickers came out and starting making it everyone business ....there would be other people who do not like people who suck toes. Even so there are discrimination laws in place to protect those people too and most people won't give a lick ( bad pun ) about what those people do, even if they think its disgusting.

On the other hand when the toe lickers start trying to change public policy and public school curriculums.....no doubt they will run into problems making it everyone's business

Sexual orientation isn't a sexual fetish. Furthermore, education from a young age teaching children about gender identity and homosexuality is intended to combat bullying and help children who would otherwise feel out of place. It isn't the same as a comprehensive sex education program, nor is anyone going around telling your kids about their sex life.

The problem is that gays want so desperately to feel good about themselves they want to cram acceptance down other people's throats, people like me for instance who could actually give a care about what they do and who they do it with. But when gays start having public parades and changing public policy for their own selfish desires, they make what they do everyone elses business...get it?

Ah yes, because if gay marriage is legal, everyone must mandatorily love "teh gay."

As for "changing public policy for their own selfish desires," interracial marriage absolutely did the same thing, so your pathetic little dismissal doesn't work.

I pity your gay acquaintances.

Alistair Brown.....The fact of the matter is that because Gays want so badly to feel normal and be accepted for their sexual preferences, at the expense of every other right, children are being indoctrinated at there most impressionable ages to accept homosexuality as a normal thing
The truth is that you cannot justify opening the eyes of children to sexual orientation at kindergarten, 1st and 2nd grade ages...sorry, it ain't right!!!
At that age boys already like boys and girls already like girls.....however thats in a non sexuallly polluted and innocent way.

In fact a lot of little boys don't like little girls and vice versa, so tell me what gives Gay Advocacy groups the right to tamper with childhood innocence?

Answer: Coldhearted Selfishness at the expense of childhood innocence...give me a break!
This is exactly how so called liberals, while always crying for more freedom, wind up slipping into the most repressive totalitarian type practices and policies.

You may want to teach your 5, 6 or 7 year old about sexual orientation but you cannot determine for me whats a good age for my child to learn about sexual orientation.
This ain't Cuba mio!

Men who like other men are not gay men, its only men who romantically and sexually like and want other men thats what makes a person gay...therefore being gay IS all about sex ...leave my kids out of it

Jack .....inter-racial marriage did not change the fundamental foundational basis of marriage....husbands and wives are still husbands and wives, thats what marriage is..... bride and groom, husband and wife, not husband and husband or wife and wife. Do you understand that? Its not tradition, it is what it is a male and a female, grooms men and bridesmaids the who shebang is based on male and female...get it?

When you pass a law re- defining marriage as husband and husband or wife and wife.....guess what?
..... you have changed the foundational fundamental basis of the institution...its really that simple, so simple a child could see it...that is until they get re-educated er-r-r I mean indoctrinated

You can quit bothering, Charles. No one is buying it.

Listen to how you sound. Look at what you're defending. Do you honestly think you can ever be right defending ideas against real people? People will win, every time. There's a reason for that. You can reframe it all you want, you can dress it up any way you want, you can pretend all you want, but you're just the voice of an idea, and it will never stand up against the voices of real people. Nothing will ever change the fact that no matter how you play three-card-monte with the words, you're choosing to tell people that they jut have to suck it up and suffer for a concept. Is that how you want to be a part of this? Are you going to be a bitter old man telling your grandkids (who will have no problem whatsoever with homosexuals, btw) how you fought the good fight, and you're still right, dangit!? Are you going to be trying to convince them that it was the world that went wrong, and not you? Like some old relic from the Confederacy? Is that how you want to be?

Here's a hint: It's not heroic, it's not honorable, it's not the truth. It's just pathetic. Look at the voice of your side, look at the voice of mine, and figure out for yourself why the world is changing.

Okay Dennis then nevermind everything I said ........NOT!

Sigh.

The fact of the matter is that because Gays want so badly to feel normal and be accepted for their sexual preferences, at the expense of every other right

At the expense of... what other rights? Name some, if your brain can handle concrete rhetoric.

You may want to teach your 5, 6 or 7 year old about sexual orientation but you cannot determine for me whats a good age for my child to learn about sexual orientation. This ain't Cuba mio!

There's always home school.

Men who like other men are not gay men, its only men who romantically and sexually like and want other men thats what makes a person gay...therefore being gay IS all about sex

Liking someone romantically or sexually doesn't always lead to sex. If it's all about sex, are abstinent people asexual?

inter-racial marriage did not change the fundamental foundational basis of marriage

It changed the US legal definition of marriage. End of story.

Do you understand that? Its not tradition, it is what it is a male and a female, grooms men and bridesmaids the who shebang is based on male and female...get it?

Marriage isn't tradition? Wow, have you got some learnin' to do.

Okay Dennis then nevermind everything I said ........NOT!

One too many words, there, kiddo.

Except after a while you want to turn the gun on yourself.

It's like a shooting gallery, Jack.

I feel like I'm shooting marshmallow Peeps with an MP5: instead of completely blowing apart, the arguments just messier and goopier.

Jack
you asked ......At the expense of... what other rights? The right for my 5,6 and 7 year old children to attend public without being given a seminar on sexual orientation brainiac! You people, the typical liberals you are, are so off balanced you're more concerned with sexual preference rights than you are with the right of parents to be parent their children. Don't you know that's fascism!!!
Jack you said .....There's always home school.
Thanks how tolerant of you! Why because we don't have the right to put our young aged children in public schools and not expect them to have their eyes open to sexuality before the time we see fit? Your way or the highway huh? Hypocrite!
jack ....You said Liking someone romantically or sexually doesn't always lead to sex.
I say whether it does or not men liking other men as friends and women liking other women as friends do not constitute a homosexual relationship. But you're the rhetorical genius here so maybe can you tell us what does constitute a homosexual relationship.
If you'd be honest and stop deceptively and hypocritically romanticizing the issue, you'd have to admit that homo-SEX-ual, SEXual preference and "same SEX marriage" all have one word in common can you tell us what that word is...?
Jack you said inter-racial marriage changed the fundamental foundational basis of marriage because it changed the US definition of it.
I say as intelligent as you think you are ....you probably need to get yourself a Websters and look up the words fundamental, foundational and basis....once you do get back to me and tell me how the building block of marriage husband and wife, groom and bride Mr and Mrs was changed by erasing the racist content of the law.
Just in case you missed it again the key words here are "foundation", "fundamental" and the word basis which is closely related to the word "base"
Jack you're poking at a straw man, trying to infer that I'm saying Marriage isn't tradition
Obviously marriage is a tradition...Just like the Boy Scouts is traditionally for boys. Unfortunately gay people have a problem with that too! But I stray
A man opening the door for a woman.... that's a tradition, giving your daughter a sweet 16 party..... that's a tradition, tipping a waiter for your meal.... that's a tradition.
Equating marriage with either of those is sheer idiocy and shows a lack of common sense and wisdom...but hey no surprise there!
Anyway
People get married because it is a traditional thing to do but that in itself is not what makes up the components of what constitutes a marriage.
You see..... every culture has its own traditional approach to marriages concerning the way its done and in that regard there's as many traditions of marriage as there are cultures.
But the fact that people get married predates any tradition just as it predates any civil law requirements regarding it.
To see marriage simply as a tradition is vastly understating the institution....which goes to show how little you and people like you value the "institution" of marriage.
Maybe you should look up the word institution, that may help you to get a sense that marriage is a little more than just a tradition.
The victory for gays in any court ruling in their favor is only in making themselves feel good about their choices by undermining everyone else. Its like gays saying, "you see the court even said we're really no different than the rest of you, we're human too" ( as if no one knows that ) Its like they're saying, "see we're just like you and can do anything you can do so there.... na, na na na na na".

To me gays are already as good as any one else therefore however they pursue affirming their own self worth is their business ...that is until they set out to undermine the social institutions and parental rights of others for their own selfish reasons.
If Gays were sincere they'd establish their own institution of civil unions and be proud that their own is just as credible as everyone elses....
..... and above all they'd leave our children out of their selfish little game!

Lastly Jack, I must say in some of your comments you kind of insulted me and upset me a little, so now I have to take back my retraction to Dennis and must assert that I meant every single thing I said ........ :-)
You said one too many words, there yerself, bud!

I rest my case.

The right for my 5,6 and 7 year old children to attend public without being given a seminar on sexual orientation brainiac!

Meh, that has nothing to do with gay marriage. However, if you declare that a right, I can declare ignorance of any part of elementary school education to be a "right", and legitimately say that all school curricula violates that "right."

I declare immunity from arithmetic to be a right. OMFG, education system, stop violating my child's rights!

I say whether it does or not men liking other men as friends and women liking other women as friends do not constitute a homosexual relationship. But you're the rhetorical genius here so maybe can you tell us what does constitute a homosexual relationship.

Again, cowering behind semantic vagaries.

Romantic attraction (a bit different from "like", and a bit different from "cool, we shagged") doesn't need sex. Care to address that?

If you'd be honest and stop deceptively and hypocritically romanticizing the issue, you'd have to admit that homo-SEX-ual, SEXual preference and "same SEX marriage" all have one word in common can you tell us what that word is...?

Interesting, so celibate priests can't be heterosexual. They're just ____-ual.

Jack you said inter-racial marriage changed the fundamental foundational basis of marriage because it changed the US definition of it.

Nope, I only said it changed the US legal definition. There is no single fundamental definition of marriage. Different cultures have different definitions.

Obviously marriage is a tradition...Just like the Boy Scouts is traditionally for boys. Unfortunately gay people have a problem with that too!

Boy Scouts is traditionally for openly Christian boys, and since when did gay people want girls to join the Boy Scouts? Keep diggin' that hole.

A man opening the door for a woman.... that's a tradition, giving your daughter a sweet 16 party..... that's a tradition, tipping a waiter for your meal.... that's a tradition. Equating marriage with either of those is sheer idiocy and shows a lack of common sense and wisdom...but hey no surprise there!

Actually, those things are "etiquette." Perhaps you'd like to look up "wisdom" and "common sense" before again making a fool of yourself.

Cute how you just said "marriage is a tradition, and marriage is not a tradition" in one long breath. How's that self-contradiction workin' out for ya?

The victory for gays in any court ruling in their favor is only in making themselves feel good about their choices by undermining everyone else.

Undermining everyone else? Marriage as a general tradition has included monogamy, polygamy, and polyandry across different cultures, your petty ignorance notwithstanding. So again, we can revisit the "undermines me" tripe when states outlaw straight marriage and start mandating gay marriage.

If Gays were sincere they'd establish their own institution of civil unions and be proud that their own is just as credible as everyone elses....
..... and above all they'd leave our children out of their selfish little game!

Now when have I heard that one before? Oh, right:
If Gays blacks were sincere they'd establish their own institution of civil unions "separate but equal" rights and be proud that their own is just as credible as everyone elses....
..... and above all they'd leave our children out of their selfish little game!

and above all they'd leave our children out of their selfish little game!

Ah yes: Civil equality, the Hungry Hungry Hippos of legislation.

so now I have to take back my retraction to Dennis

Ummmm... what retraction?

You're hilarious, but we're not laughing with you. ;-)

P.S. - Line breaks are your friend.

Dennis I do apologise - I started taking pot shots in the beginning. You will notice every argument that is countered with fact and logic is ignored. Intellectual debate doesn't scare them because they aren't actually listening. Personally I think Jack is having fun.

I am having fun.

Persistent dolts are amusing.

Dennis, Dennis Dennis...nice thread but tell me this...

Are you that pathologically liberally illiterate and so hopelessly left winged stunted that you actually abhor childhood innocence to such a degree that you believe that the eyes of kindergartners, 1st and 2nd graders should be opened to sexual orientation.... for the sake of Gay Pride no less?

Do you actually believe you are holding some kind of cherished enlightened viewpoint on that topic?

Are you of such an intellectual elitist socialist mentality that parental concerns regarding what their children are taught and when are a joke to you?

Do you not have any regard at all for parents wanting their children to at least approach puberty?

In your Utopia where you are obviously so on fire zealous for Gay Rights.... do parents not have any rights regarding their own children as you see it?

For the sake of uncovering any redeeming virtue that may reside within you under the much and mire of shallow liberal thinking.....I hope for your sake that you answered no to at least most of those questions if not all!

Thanks again for the thread and the opportunity to quibble

Jack you said .....Nope, I only said it changed the US legal definition. There is no single fundamental definition of marriage. Different cultures have different definitions

Thanks for you answers...you're so brilliant and have been so patient and kind with me... I'm such a dolt sometimes so can you help me out

Please give us about 10 different examples of marriage definitions in 10 different cultures. I'd like to educate my fellow church members...

Unlike you we're so baa baa-d with facts

If I may jump in here. I am a parent and my young child is already starting asking questions about men marrying men and women marrying women. I tell him the truth. His closest friends come from a lesbian home and he wants to understands how families are built.

I let him know that there are all types of families. I want those families to enjoy equal rights.

My son's innocence remains intact. His idea of family and relationships built on love and support remain intact. His vision of the world remains absolutely innocent, wide eyed hopeful and accepting. How does learning about Gay marriage change that?

Dennis you didn't answer the questions you're for education ....duh, are you sure your name ain't Obama or some other politician?

We're all for education, even Rev Wright is for left and right brained education depending upon race but that was not the question.

If you ain't runnin for office answer the question!

Specifically

The question is this

Is Gay Pride so important that the innocence of 5,6 and 7 year olds needs to be sacrificed for the sake of teaching them about sexual orientation in public schools without parental consent?
Do you agree with that yes or no?

Why thank you Dennis. You know I am a complete cynical prat most times but my son is all joy and beauty. May as well live vicariously through him before he encounters the ugly world and its ugly bigoted people.

Thanks for you answers...you're so brilliant and have been so patient and kind with me... I'm such a dolt sometimes so can you help me out

No problem.

Please give us about 10 different examples of marriage definitions in 10 different cultures. I'd like to educate my fellow church members...

Too lazy for 10. Here's 6:

1. Mormons.
2. Polygamous marriage was practiced among Jews in biblical times (as cited in the Torah, in a Rabbenu Gershom decree).
3. Tibetan nomads practice fraternal polyandry, where two or more brothers marry the same woman. Resources are scarce, and fraternal polyandry kept family resources together.
4. Islamic polygamy.
5. African polygamy (even among the diaspora).
6. Arranged marriages, sometimes with a child bride, in modern India. (this doesn't count if you consider child marriage to be fundamentally identical to your modern interpretation of marriage)

Unlike you we're so baa baa-d with facts

I know. You'll learn, albeit very slowly.

Very good, Charles, you've come around to making arguments for people instead of ideas: Children vs. the idea of "Gay pride."

Now let me tell you why that's not working out for you. First, children are in no danger from learning about basic relationships from an early age. They already start to learn about basic male-female interactions from their parents, and exposure to the general public. Some of them learn about "where babies come from" from other sources entirely, like my cousin who grew up on a farm. She knew all about the mechanics of sex before she was 5, and is one of the best adjusted people I know. Like most children that age, she thought homosexuality was icky, but had no problem with homosexual people, or even with them doing whatever they needed to do for themselves.

Your children are in no danger. No one can point to any examples of children being harmed by public exposure to two men who care about each other. Meanwhile, numerous examples exist of real homosexuals who are harmed by your fear.

So my advice is don't try to use my rhetorical tactics until you are able to.

And, Jack, let us not forget European marriages for political alliance. That may not be a different deffinition, but it sure is a different meaning.

And, Jack, let us not forget European marriages for political alliance. That may not be a different deffinition, but it sure is a different meaning.

If we include those, we've got to include Vegas shotgun weddings, then, too: Just Married (Because We Were Schmammered).

A fair point. I'm simply noting that the meaning of marriage is far more important, faceted, deep, and dependant on far more than just the "definition."

Au contrare' Jack you weren't being too lazy you actually took some time and effort to put together this list and I really appreciate your effort

Lets examine this

1. Mormons. -

Okay I say thats Polygamy

2. Polygamous marriage was practiced among Jews in biblical times (as cited in the Torah, in a Rabbenu Gershom decree).

I say well yea, okay, in the ancient past and again .......Polygamy

So far we're up to 1

3. Tibetan nomads practice fraternal polyandry, where two or more brothers marry the same woman. Resources are scarce, and fraternal polyandry kept family resources together. ...............

Okay thats 2 ....Now Tibet and I must point out thats a splendid example of a strong society. Seems more like a survival tactic but anyway you're up to 2

4. Islamic polygamy.

uh okay ........again that Polygamny

So far we have 2 whole traditions, you're doing great. You're extremely brilliant now lets see whats next

5. African polygamy (even among the diaspora)

.....uh is that polygamy again?

I think the count still remains at 2.....

Hey heres a question......did you spend cash money for your education or did you take out a student loan?

6. Arranged marriages, sometimes with a child bride, in modern India. (this doesn't count if you consider child marriage to be fundamentally identical to your modern interpretation of marriage) -

Okay thats stretching it but you put so much effort into this task lets make this one 3

Summary - This is good, really good!

I think we've really accomplished something here!

So far you've listed 3 whole traditions and all of them are them are conspicuously based upon relationships between males and females...Wow!!! Good job
Seems like you've proven that marriage is the basis of maintaining a strong society and the foundational fundamental institution of marriage between males and females is the basis of that institution...I rest my case

I couldn't done better myself.

In the future I'll take the shortcut and allow you to make all my cases for me

You ever heard of a person playing possum?

Ya'll come back now...ya hear!!

Wow. I am truly impressed with you ability to be intellectually dishonest. Good luck convincing your grandkids you were right today.

schmammered?

Hamskied. Zonked... Quakered.

charles:

You said:

once you do get back to me and tell me how the building block of marriage husband and wife, groom and bride

I see no plurals, there.

I can give you some pointers if you wish to learn how to employ plurals in your rhetoric. It's not too difficult, really.

So far you've listed 3 whole traditions

You need to work on your fundamental mathematics, ol' boy. Of course, 3 > 1, so your "husband and wife is the only traditional kind of marriage" argument has vaporized.

Of course, you then say:

Good job Seems like you've proven that marriage is the basis of maintaining a strong society and the foundational fundamental institution of marriage between males and females is the basis of that institution...I rest my case

I couldn't done better myself.

Does that mean you're okay with polygamy and arranged child marriage?

Polyandry is not polygamy. One has multiple males (polyandry), one has multiple females (polygamy).

There are mathematically only a certain number of combinations possible with two genders.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_same-sex_unions

In China, in the southern province of Fujian where male love was especially cultivated, men would marry youths in elaborate ceremonies.[1] The marriages would last a number of years, at the end of which the elder partner would help the younger find a (female) wife and settle down to raise a family.

In Japan , Shudo (衆道 shudō), the Japanese tradition of age-structured homosexuality was prevalent in samurai society from the medieval period until the end of the 19th century. Shudo, in its pedagogic, martial, and aristocratic aspects, is closely analogous to the ancient Greek tradition of pederasty (paiderastia).

The practice of same-sex love in antiquity often took the form of formal pairings of men with youths, which had many of the attributes of marriage but were limited in duration. (It is important to note, however, that marriages in Ancient Greece between men and women were also age structured, with men in their 30's commonly taking wives in their early teens.) There were also marriage between men, at least among the Romans

In Hellenic Greece, the pederastic relationships between Greek men (erastes) and youths (eromenos) who had come of age were, it has been argued, analogous to marriage in several aspects. The age of the youth was similar to the age at which women married (the mid-teens, though in some city states, as young as age seven), and the relationship could only be undertaken with the consent of the father. This consent, just as in the case of a daughter's marriage, was contingent on the suitor's social standing. The relationship, just like a marriage, consisted of very specific social and religious responsibilities and also had a sexual component.

Same-sex marriage has been documented in many societies that were not subject to Christian influence. In North America, among the Native Americans societies, it has taken the form of Two-Spirit-type relationships, in which some male members of the tribe, from an early age, heed a calling to take on female gender with all its responsibilities. They are prized as wives by the other men in the tribe, who enter into formal marriages with these Two-Spirit men. They are also respected as being especially powerful shamans.

In Africa, among the Azande of the Congo, men would marry youths for whom they had to pay a bride-price to the father. These marriages likewise were understood to be of a temporary nature. In Ancient Egypt, Khnumhotep and Niankhkhnum are considered by many to be the first male couple in history. They shared the title of Overseer of the Manicurists in the Palace of King Niussere during the Fifth dynasty of Egyptian pharaohs, and are listed as "royal confidantes" in their joint tomb.

Hate to ruin everyone's fun but this will be my last post on this topic ( the crowd roars )

chasen cash a parent who's young child is already starting asking questions about men marrying men and women marrying women.

Its good you tell him the truth why lie...it exists especially if his closest friends come from a lesbian home and he wants to understands how families are built.

Don't know how old he is but since he is your child I guess its a good idea for him to understand what it means to be a lesbian and just what that entails right?

Is that what you're saying? Are you saying you have to explain to your child why his friends live in a home that has children and two women or are you saying you have to explain to your child why those two women are also lovers?
Hopefully the former and not the latter. You didn't state the child's age either but since you addressed my earlier points on the topic I would assume you're talking about a kindergartner, 1st or 2nd grader.

Your child is your child so thats your right as a parent and you may be very enlightened yourself and have a very special child as well. But my personal pointy of view for my young age child, like most young age children is that they be sheltered from the mechanics and specifics of sexual relationships.

For instance would you and the other enlightened parent who responded to and rebutted my earlier points....would either of you think that your child is so well balanced that it would be appropriate for your young age child to look at Adult entertainment or Magazines?

Maybe its because I was raised in the hood but when I was coming up it was common for a child to know that there are all types of families. Just men, just women as well as men and women, husband and wives or single parent or extended families.

Theres no reasons those families cannot enjoy equal rights. ....the problem only arises when those families make their private sexual activity of everyones concern.

Hopefully your son's innocence remains intact because you explained to him that its alright for a family to consist of two women or two men.
If so his idea of family and relationships built on love and support will remain intact.

Also his vision of the world will remain absolutely innocent, wide eyed hopeful and accepting just as long as your explanation did not include a description of what lesbian love entails and how it is expressed because is that which they do thats makes a lesbian a lesbian otherwise they're just two women who are just very good friends...get it?

So in summary , do I mind my 5 year old child knowing that not all households have a husband and a wife and that some households have 2 men or 2 women or 1 woman or 1 man ....of course I don't mind that...thats been the way of life for quite some time and nothing at all new with the onset of gay expression.

But do I want them learning the difference between 2 men
as opposed to 2 men that have sex with each other....heck no!!!!!

I don't even want my 5 year old to know what sex is all about ....sorry, you don't like that thats your right but don't knock me for my way of assuring that my child is not bogged down with matters of puberty and adult situations before its necessary and useful information for them to have.

Otherwise I might as well sit down with him and together we'd peruse a copy of Karma Sutra.

However I prefer to wait until that information is useful for them. At the same time I will shield them from the ugliness of bigotry as well as the ugliness and shameless vulgarity common in most Gay Pride Parades which are nothing more than a public exercise of deviant expression and nothing anyone should be proud of!!!

Okay I lied...one more post this to Duke
I'm glad you were truly impressed with my ability to intellectually dismantle that nonsense Jack posted that did nothing but prove my point.

The key words were foundation and fundamental as the basis for marriage between MEN and WOMEN.

Jack aside from having only citing 2 or possibly 3 marriage traditions, rather than listing 10 as requested, only suceeded in proving that the basis of a strong society has always been marriage between men and women.

Having gone full circle..... I repeat Gay marriage elevates individual rights above the needs of society and therefore only benefits the individuals at the expense of the society.

Lastly I might add that the strength of Western Civilization has been that it was built and firmly rests upon the foundation and the institution of marriage between men and women. Furthermore I submit as that institution weakens as it has for various and sundry reasons ( not related to gay marriage )
Society itself has weakened and been on a decline. Once again gay marriage is just one more dagger in the back that will only serve to further weaken that institution and thereby society will be further weakened as well

As the framework of society is further dismantled and weakened,
certain downward trends will continue and both your grandkids and mine will wonder why we didn't do more to prevent them from experiencing a world of increasing moral decadence, a lack of civil decency, lack of prudent values, sound wisdom and judgment while we had the chance

Hey if you guys get a chance maybe you should listen to Dennis Prager on this topic. In fact he'll be dealing with it 11am pst today

Be nice to hear some of you call in get your arguments shredded

The key words were foundation and fundamental as the basis for marriage between MEN and WOMEN.

No, you said "husband and wife."

You realize that those two nouns aren't plural, right?

So again, you're all for polygamy and arranged child marriage?

only suceeded in proving that the basis of a strong society has always been marriage between men and women.

The basis of a weak society has also always been marriage between men and women.

Belgium, Spain, Canada, and South Africa have already legalized same-sex marriage. Feel free to point out how those societies are crumbling.

The rest of your tired little rant can be translated as follows, without loss of information or solidity: Gay marriage is baaaaad, mmmkay?

Marriage is not sacred, it is not some strong bond that holds our society together, it has become a joke. What is wrong with giving legal rights of marriage to all whom love each other? My mother and father were a heterosexual married couple for 22 miserable years of abuse and fighting. Why are they more deserving of marriage then two men or two women who are in love?

Answer to Andimia

Because they're not a male and a female....which is what makes a marriage, two opposites...thats the basic of what constitutes a marriage

A plug and a wall socket, a pencil and a pencil holder, cup and saucer, eggs and bacon, peanut butter and jelly, bread and butter.

But I understand liberals seem to have a hard time seeing the simplicity in things

Its like the California version of See Spot Run,

Spot can indeed run but Spot must remain on a leash, in the doggy park with Dick and Jane following close behind with a pooper scooper and a glad bag.
Thats See Spot Run California liberal style...... sophisticated and enlightened, it will also keep an Angeleno from getting a ticket!

Its been fun...later

Because they're not a male and a female....which is what makes a marriage, two opposites...thats the basic of what constitutes a marriage

Or maybe three males and four females, judging by your past comments?

Any number of opposites. ;-)

But I understand liberals seem to have a hard time seeing the simplicity in things

Yeah, liberals did have a hard time seeing that blacks were simply inferior creatures.

But I understand liberals seem to have a hard time seeing the simplicity in things

Its not that hard, I don't understand why you cannot see it.

All humans are equal.

Sometimes we see greater simplicity than you can imagine. And sometimes we have a hard time seeing the simplicity of things because we have a hard time not seeing the complexity of things.

Charles,

You asked about 5,6,7 year olds being corrupted by knowledge of gay marriage - I point out that knowledge about gay marriage doesn't corrupt anyone, particularly young children.

So you extend your argument that talk of marriage must include talk of sexual practises.

Well sitting 5,6 and 7 year olds down to talk about the mechanics of sex when explaining marriage isn't normal and who in their right mind would think that when explaining marriage to a young child they must then define the graphics of all sexual acts likely to be performed. WHAT KIND OF SICK @!$%# ARE YOU?

Is that what you're saying? Are you saying you have to explain to your child why his friends live in a home that has children and two women or are you saying you have to explain to your child why those two women are also lovers?

Seriously, my son has met many people who are married, heterosexual, homosexual whatever and I have never ever had to take him aside and explain the sexual nature of their personal relationships because who the hell does that? I explain people connect because they love each other and build families.

Your child is your child so thats your right as a parent and you may be very enlightened yourself and have a very special child as well. But my personal pointy of view for my young age child, like most young age children is that they be sheltered from the mechanics and specifics of sexual relationships.

Talking about any marriage to young children does not include details of sexual mechanics -so your point is ridiculous unless you think it is normal to discuss sexual practises of marriage with young children.

For instance would you and the other enlightened parent who responded to and rebutted my earlier points....would either of you think that your child is so well balanced that it would be appropriate for your young age child to look at Adult entertainment or Magazines?

So marriage and talk of love leads to talk of pornography? Your vision of marriage is really skewed. Some people include pornography in their heterosexual relationships - that is none of my business. I do not discuss the matter with children and only a sick @!$%# would contemplate it.

Theres no reasons those families cannot enjoy equal rights. ....the problem only arises when those families make their private sexual activity of everyones concern.

You are the only person here discussing marital sexual practises. Most people don't discuss it - whether heterosexual or homosexual. Talking of marriage to very young children does not lead to explicit discussion of sexual mechanics unless you are a sick @!$%#.

Also his vision of the world will remain absolutely innocent, wide eyed hopeful and accepting just as long as your explanation did not include a description of what lesbian love entails and how it is expressed because is that which they do thats makes a lesbian a lesbian otherwise they're just two women who are just very good friends...get it?

I am not likely to discuss with any child the fact that Aunty Joan and Uncle Claude like oral sex before penetrative sex any more than I would discuss the fact that my friend Elise's husband likes anal sex while she doesn't. I am unlikely to point out the fact that most heterosexuals like oral sex and by the time they are 44years old approx. 40% of heterosexuals are likely to have tried anal sex.

Discussion of sexual practises with young children is not something I or other normal people contemplate. SO it follows that I am not going to discuss the sexual practises of my lesbian friends because it is none of my business and it is an inappropriate discussion to have with small children.

But do I want them learning the difference between 2 men as opposed to 2 men that have sex with each other....heck no!!!!!

Again - you are projecting. Talking about marriage with small children does not lead to a discussion of sexual mechanics.

I don't even want my 5 year old to know what sex is all about ....sorry, you don't like that thats your right but don't knock me for my way of assuring that my child is not bogged down with matters of puberty and adult situations before its necessary and useful information for them to have.

What makes you think my child has any knowledge of sex? My 5 year old has no clues about sex except the childhood talk at school about kissing. Good god - what is wrong with you? Marriage talk with children is about love and commitment - you are the only pervert here thinking gay marriage should have other rules of social discussion.

Otherwise I might as well sit down with him and together we'd peruse a copy of Karma Sutra.

Pervert.

However I prefer to wait until that information is useful for them. At the same time I will shield them from the ugliness of bigotry as well as the ugliness and shameless vulgarity common in most Gay Pride Parades which are nothing more than a public exercise of deviant expression and nothing anyone should be proud of!!!

Well it is hard to hide them from your own bigotry - that is clear. Your sexual pre-occupation dominates your entire argument and you are simply projecting your ignorance, hypocrisy on others. Cool it already with the constant sex talk - its people like you we need to save our children from.

Don't get all in a tizzy...you're the one who said you had to explain to your child why his friends lived in a household with 2 women.

The simple question I asked that seemed to go over your head was...what is it you explained to him about the 2 women? I also inferred that it wouldn't be a hard thing to explain unless that is you were explaining that the 2 women were lesbians.

Otherwise they are 2 women and I can't for the life of me see what the big deal is and what is so laudible about you explaining to your son that 2 women can live in the same house.
So what who cares, 2 women, 2 men it doesn't really matter unless you're explaining the sexual aspects of their relationship.

Are ya getttin any of this?

Probably not so I'll reiterate in a different way

Since the beginning of time....................

Many men live with other men

Many women live with other women

So far nothing new in any of that.... right?

Men have best friends who are men and likewise women have best friends who are women.
Best friends are usually very close, they profess deep love and admiration of one another, they share clothes, share secrets, share food and money and have the closest of relationships.
They even call each other's parents mom and dad, just like many married couples

Many time they even sleep in the same bed...together, of course with no sexual involvemet whatsoever

So how is it a big deal explaining to a young child that his friend lives in a house with 2 women?

Answer is .................Its not!!!

Unless you are explaining to that child the nature of the relationship between the 2 women or the 2 men.

Your response proves that I struck gold on pointing out the blind disingenuious hypocrisy of Gay Advocates and people like yourself because the fact of the matter is the only differenece between same sex best friends and gays is......you guessed it romance and sex.

Whats way out to me is how you can somehow ignore and overlook those disgustingly vulgar Gay Pride parades that openly and overtly flaunt their Pride in sexually deviant behavior. Now I ask ya.....Do straight people have Sex Pride parades?
If they did they'd be arrested and thats a fact!

But nevertheless you find it very easy to loathe and be disgusted in me for pointing out the truth.

homoSEXuality is about Sex between 2 people of the same SEX...if it were not they'd just be really good friends.

So when your child ask why Bobby has 2 daddies...you should probably tell him that Bobby is just really fortunate to live in the house with 2 men because if you tell your child those 2 men are gay.....if you want to be honest you'd have to tell them the difference between 2 men and 2 gay men....and like it or not.... that my good friend will require a honest converstation and explanation of Sex

When you make points in an argument and someone counters them - constantly changing the goal posts does not help your argument, it simply suggests you cannot stay on point and deal with points raised.

You say a 5, 6,or 7 year old child innocence is corrupted by knowledge of gay marriage. I point out that isn't true. You counter with the idea that children can be corrupted by knowledge of sexual acts of gay marriage - I point out that also isn't true as discusssions of ANY marriage for 5,6,or 7 year olds does not include graphic details of sexual activity.

So where are we now? Oh that's right - you have now suggested that SEX is the biggest discussion we have with very young children when we tell them that their parents friends and relatives are married. WRONG.

A lot of my friends are married, heterosexual and sleep in the same bed ...I have not as yet had to explain their sexual acts. Are you really saying in all your bluster that I should have? Are you really saying that when I introduce my son to married people I must explain their sexual connection? Wow.

Get a clue, all children will grow up and want to know about sex. They don't need to know at 5, 6 or 7 years old and knowledge of gay marriage won't change that fact.

So when your child ask why Bobby has 2 daddies...you should probably tell him that Bobby is just really fortunate to live in the house with 2 men because if you tell your child those 2 men are gay.....if you want to be honest you'd have to tell them the difference between 2 men and 2 gay men....and like it or not.... that my good friend will require a honest converstation and explanation of Sex

Wrong again. I will say that Bobby has two daddies because they love each other and have decided to build a family. There is a time to discuss sexual mechanics as the child ages - your puffed up belief and protestations that 5,6,and 7 year olds will be corrupted by a discussion of gay marriage is a crock but you keep shifting the goalposts to try and hang on to your bigoted assertions.

the fact of the matter is the only differenece between same sex best friends and gays is......you guessed it romance and sex.

And similarly, the fact of the matter is the only differenece between opposite sex best friends and straight marriage is......you guessed it romance and sex.

I guess charles really does go into graphic sexual detail whenever he tries to explain marriage to a child. Otherwise, it'd be moronic to expect such things of explanations of gay marriage, and we know that charles is, of course, not a moron.

Sigh, I pity any kids who ask him about marriage. There goes their innocence.

I think Charles tries to make the point that 'deviant' behaviour can affect very young children yet the ONLY deviant behaviour I can see is his need to inform very young children of the mechanics of sexual acts employed and enjoyed by all types of couples.

Charles - marriage is an institution of partnership. Providing graphic sexual definitions of that partnership to young children is disgusting and must be part of an agenda to encourage bigotry, alienation and inevitably persecution.

Our children have no desire to hate or alienate others, they are completely innocent about skin colour, religion and sexual preferences and the persecution that people endure because of these things.

If only we could keep them from people who want to teach them alienation and hatred.

The sad part is, teaching them alienation and hatred not only screws them up, but it doesn't even achieve the end results the parent expects anyway:

One of my best friends was raised by bigoted conservatives, and he became an MTF transexual and a form of pagan polytheist. Charles's children aren't going to be able to help but be as liberal as it is possible to be.

Charles, marriage isn't all about sex and many people have sex without being married.

Whats way out to me is how you can somehow ignore and overlook those disgustingly vulgar Gay Pride parades that openly and overtly flaunt their Pride in sexually deviant behavior.

People walking through the streets taking a stand against discrimination is vulgar? I'm wondering what you though of Dr. King and the civil rights movement.

Andimia - Obviously you've never seen a gay parade cause for some odd reason you're comparing the carnival like displays of sexual deviance to a freedom march....hate to tell you this, but Black Civil rates by far surpasses and supercedes and celebration of sexual deviance. One is about civil rights, one is about sexual freedom of expression.

Duke - I do not teach my children to hate anyone...assuming that I do because I disagree on this topic is akin to you taking a leap of logic that defies all reason.
Futhermore my children are grown and very well balanced thank you very much.
Lastly if your logic follows....it would mean that all gay transgender and transexuals come from Christian Conservative households. That would make our way of life even more of a disaterous failure than you already believe it is ...wow another giant leap of flawed logic, the hits just keep on comin'!

chasencash - Actually if one would objectively look at my initial remarks to you about teaching young age kids and compare it to your initial response, everyone except Jack, because his argument has been totally slammered, but everyone else.... would have to conclude that yours is of the most graphic and explicit of the two by far

That aside, we got off track somehow because you missed my point and seem to be still missing it.
I brought up the topic of the success of gay advocates advancing the gay marriage agenda by infiltrating the school systems and teaching younger age kids about homosexuality, in an effort to teach children to accept gay households as a normal and acceptable reality.
That stated I went on to say that if we are teaching kids about households which have 2 men or 2 women that is fine and normal because for 100's of years theres has always been a variety of family arrangements. I went to say that being Black and having been raised in lower income communities, it is quite common to see all types of creative family arrangements from male or female single parent families, extended families, play aunties and uncles, 2 men and 2 women, etc, etc

However you stated the example of your son's friend having lesbian parents. My query regarding that, which you erroneously took as graphic was ....to a young child why would you explain lesbianism as opposed to the fact they the household includes 2 women.

Are you with me so far? Put another way, TO A YOUNG AGE CHILD what further explantion is necessary than that the household includes 2 women or in the case of males, 2 men.

Anything further would have to include a topic on romance and sex.

Similarly....if young age children are taught about Gay or Homosexual Relationships in school, curiosity being what it is combined with a childs natural inquisitive nature, a child, just about any normal child would ask...what is Gay or what is a Homosexual.
Again children being children, will certainly experience the premature opening their eyes to the idea of sex, the sex act and the difference in sex between men and women or males and males or women and women.

Thats my point! Please don't pervert any further.
Lastly...... though Gays are actual people with actual lives, feelings and concerns, if one is to be honest, one would have to admit that ultimately the topic of homosexuality is about sex! That reality is inescapable and both liberals and gays do themselves a disservice and make themselves out as dishonest when they deny the truth of that fact anymore than by tradition, a hetero honeymoon night is synomous with the act of sex

Furthermore any assertion that the topic of Men and Women Gays and Sex are exclusive of one another is totally unrealistic, disingenuinous and foolish!

everyone except Jack, because his argument has been totally slammered, but everyone else

Hahaha, actually, you've simply chosen to ignore my arguments without the semblance of cogent rebuttal.

Ignorance is bliss, and often the only recourse for the idiot.

Futhermore my children are grown and very well balanced thank you very much.

Let's hope, for their sake, that you say that without deeming yourself the paragon of balance.

However you stated the example of your son's friend having lesbian parents. My query regarding that, which you erroneously took as graphic was ....to a young child why would you explain lesbianism as opposed to the fact they the household includes 2 women.

Are you with me so far? Put another way, TO A YOUNG AGE CHILD what further explantion is necessary than that the household includes 2 women or in the case of males, 2 men.

So when talking to young children about marriage, you describe married couples as nothing more than housemates?

ultimately the topic of homosexuality is about sex!

So is the topic of heterosexuality.

totally unrealistic, disingenuinous and foolish!

As evidenced here, you are well-versed in the presentation of arguments very aptly described b those words.

Poor Jack

You're just sore because you wound up proving that the fundamental foundational basis of marriage, since ancient history both religious and secular has always been between a man and woman.
In essence, you proved that Gay Marriage changed the nature and definition of marriage...... and for that I am forever grateful.
Also in citing the vast variety of traditions of marriage that exist in different societies worlwide you came up with an exhaustive list of 3 whole traditions, one was Old Testament and no longer exists, an the other about arranged marriages was stretching it a bit.....but neverthless at least you tried and came up with 3 that were hands down all between mena and women.
and for that I am grateful as well so cheer up!

I will continue to use your now "classic" post to make those points as part of the basis of my arguments against Gay Marriage
Thanks again!
By the way ...... for what its worth ....you'd been far more successful if you had attempted to prove that homosexuality has always been around and has always been a common acceptable "sexual" practice in many societies throughout history.

Umm...All the pagans, athiests, gays, transexuals, and transgender people I know or have even heard about come from conservative Christian households. Your way of life is even more of a disasterous failure than you realize.

Sorry.

having gotten the glib retort out of my system, reason dictates that I do need to clarify my above statement:

--Every gay, transgender, transexual, pagan, and athiest person I know, have met, or have had discussion with at legnth came from a conservative Christian household, except one, now that I think about it, a straight athiest biology student who was raised by other biologists. I'm not claiming that ALL of any of the above come from conservative Christian households, or that all conservative christian households produce people with such outlooks, but I am saying outright that a hundred percent of my sample size did, and a hundred percent of my sample size were from the kind of rigid, unreasonable, nearly abusive (except in one case which was just always chaotic) Christianity that produces people unable to see reason about the gay rights arguments.
I'm not going to write a dissertation on statistics here. I'm simply pointing out a pattern.

One is never sore when a mental toddler proclaims he's right. One only pats him on the head and shakes one's head ruefully at his plight.

the fundamental foundational basis of marriage, since ancient history both religious and secular has always been between a man and woman.

Again. "a man" and "woman" are both singular nouns.

I've shown you numerous cultures which practiced polygamy.

There goes your point.

you came up with an exhaustive list of 3 whole traditions

From that statement, I can deduce that you didn't pass preschool math.

one was Old Testament and no longer exists

Yeah, Mormons and African polygamists no longer exist. You keep thinking that, kiddo.

By the way ...... for what its worth ....you'd been far more successful if you had attempted to prove that homosexuality has always been around and has always been a common acceptable "sexual" practice in many societies throughout history.

Hahaha, I can see your vapid retort coming from a mile away: "But it wasn't called marriage! Neener neener!"

But, now I'm curious: do you think homosexuality was a recently invented phenomenon?

What a strange and alien world you live in.

Again, you've offered nothing of substance in rebuttal, beyond lies, which can only lead me to conclude that you've exhausted your mental capabilities in that matter, and are now falling back on "Neener! Neener! Nyah-ha!" as an appropriate course of action.

A liar and a coward. What a fine role model you are for your children.

Duke 1st allow me to thank you for your well reasoned rebuttal, that is at least after your glib retort.

That said, it follows and is reasonable to assume or presume that since most people, regardless of whether they are "devout, church going students fo the Word" or not identify themselves Christians therefore it follows that most people come out of Christian homes, so that in itself is more an evidence of the preponderence of the influence of Christianity in our society than it is anything else.

Nevertheless in fairness I must admit that there is a tendency of many to exert a legalistic puritancal approach of the faith and to be condemnational and judgmental towards those who Jesus would embrace.
Even as that may seem condescending of me to you, it is still my view and the view of most people I know and the way we practice our faith to love and embrace all people, no matter what their personal choices of any type may be.

In the extreme case of murderers and rapists its more challenging aspect of our Faith, in the case of sexual morality and abortion, we find it a lot easier to Love people in their circumstances though we disagree with the morality of the choices they make.

Again, the fact that I am Black and raised in an urban envirorment tends to place me and others like myself outside of the cookie cutter concept you have of Conservative Christians as gay men have always been somewhat prevalent, as in the case in many "Black Churches" to this day.
While I no longer attend a "Black" church, in my present church, though we disagree with the scriptural immorality of homosexuality, we do not shun gay people nor do we bash them with critical and judgmental rhethoric or hateful and disdainful comments.

Lastly I must say, though you probably did not realize when you posted your recent remarks, your line of reasoning contradicts and goes a long way toward weakening one of the key premises put forth by Gay Advocates regarding homosexuality.
In other words, your response seens to be inferring that harsh, legalistic condemnational treatment by their families results in Gays becoming such. The obvious point I would make concerning that inference is that you seem to be saying that homosexuality is actually rebellion against authority or to put in other words a choice made to spite their families!

That I must say is quite an indictment of Christians while at the same time a validation of what many people believe, that at some point or another for some reason or another at some age or another, consciously or unconsciously....many who are gay, actually made a choice to be so....

Quite frankly your rebellion theory is a Catch 22 to be sure, you might want to re-think that or you'll be like Jack who Hung himself and ended up unwittingly making the case for my argument!
Not a pretty sight

Thanks for you response

Listen Charles if you want to play with the big boys - grow some balls and learn to play the game of logic. First you make childish assertions, then you keep shifting the goal posts and now you pretend that your points aren't really being countered as they are being misunderstood.

Actually if one would objectively look at my initial remarks to you about teaching young age kids and compare it to your initial response, everyone except Jack, because his argument has been totally slammered, but everyone else.... would have to conclude that yours is of the most graphic and explicit of the two by far

Crap. You talk about girls periods and sex being taught to Kindergarten children which is complete CRAP and you know it. You suggest that sex has to be discussed when talking about marriage. I clearly point out the ridiculousness of that point because only fools think that telling young 5,6 and 7 year olds about the mechanics of sex when discussing any type of marriage is appropriate.

ONCE MORE FOR THE STUPID PEOPLE: DIscussion of marriage with young children does not ever have to include descriptions of sex. That is simply your fixation due to your feeble bigoted attempts to get people to believe that talk of homosexuality means talk of sex.

Put another way, TO A YOUNG AGE CHILD what further explantion is necessary than that the household includes 2 women or in the case of males, 2 men.

Because I describe heterosexual marriage to young children exactly as I describe homosexual marriage - a partnership, a family. As I have pointed out I will say they love each other, as pointed out - I will not discuss sexual mechanics. Admit it - when you introduce a heteroxeual married couple to your children - is it necessary to discuss their sexual life? NO AND YOU KNOW IT.

Anything further would have to include a topic on romance and sex.

Romance perhaps - sex - NO. I have never had to discuss the fact the my son's teacher is married and therefore engaged in sexual acts that might shock me. He knows she is married, he has met her daughter...OMG and you suggest that that discussion should lead to talk of sex - NOT IN MY WORLD BUDDY AND NOT IN THE NORMAL WORLD...

Tell me do you tell your 5,6 or 7 year old that every married person he meets is likely to be doing the nasty in all sort of ways. NO NO NO - and only an ignorant person can still pretend that talking to very young children about marriage will lead the discussion to sex.

Similarly....if young age children are taught about Gay or Homosexual Relationships in school, curiosity being what it is combined with a childs natural inquisitive nature, a child, just about any normal child would ask...what is Gay or what is a Homosexual.

wow - heres an answer: "A homosexual or gay person loves another person of the same sex. Just like Mummy and Daddy love each other and we are boy and girl, boys can love boys and girls can love girls."

Again children being children, will certainly experience the premature opening their eyes to the idea of sex, the sex act and the difference in sex between men and women or males and males or women and women.

Wrong again fool because 5,6,and 7 year olds are usually ignorant of the mechanics of sex and dammit lets get to the mechanics if you really want to persist.

The mechanics of sex are the same for both types of couples and are based on choice. BIG @!$%#ING DEAL. Men and women, homosexual, heterosexual, bisexual and so on particpate in all types of sexual activities. When children are old enough to discuss sex they will learn those things. When they want to discuss children and conception they will learn those things. For god's sake stop pretending they need to learn them now. Only a pervert would discuss sex mechanics to very young children.

if one is to be honest, one would have to admit that ultimately the topic of homosexuality is about sex!

Only if you are ignorant because the topic of hetersexuality must follow the same logic.

That reality is inescapable and both liberals and gays do themselves a disservice and make themselves out as dishonest when they deny the truth of that fact anymore than by tradition, a hetero honeymoon night is synomous with the act of sex

Furthermore any assertion that the topic of Men and Women Gays and Sex are exclusive of one another is totally unrealistic, disingenuinous and foolish!

The only foolish person here is yourself with your disingenuous arguments and your perversion of the facts. Young children aren't being taught the mechanics of sex in kindergarten - but your fear makes you believe that. Only bigots are instilling that kind of rubbish.

Finally all adults assume a wedding night is about sex. 5,6 and 7 year olds usually ahve no idea about that.

So stay on point. You bring up young children knowing about gay marriage leads to sexual knowledge. I point out that you are spouting crap and for the record - you have no more countered Jack's argument than you have this one. Well informed intelligent people understand that only very sick people talk to very young children about the mechanics of sex and talk of homosexual or heterosexual marriage will not lead to a discussion of sex.

As for my graphic discussion - you fail to see that such discussions are not appropriate for children so THEY WON"T BE DISCUSSED unless someone like you has an agenda.

Seems funny that homosexuals and their supporters seem to want to uphold standards of decency and those who purport to be fighting for decency make indecent false accusations due to their own fixation about sex.

The edit function did not work.

Jack, jack, jack ......you're losing it man!
You're not even facing the reality of what you posted and the case you ended up making albeit unwittingly.
I find that rather sad for a person of your intellectual prowess so let me spell it out for you ...yet again so you can get on with life. Though I don't really know you, I still hate to see you or any person so bogged down in the muck and mire of defeat and delusion the way you are now.

1st You said there were numerous traditions of marriage

2nd - Me conceding that you may be correct I asked you to list 10 so that I might learn a little something from you

3rd - You listed polygamy as one, however you convoluted that tradition by varying it by nationality, religion and race i.e Mormons, ancient Judaism ( a practice which no longer exists ) and African. Anyone who can count can see that all you did was list 3 examples of one tradition ....namely polygamy!

4th - You listed polyandry....that was a good choice in making your case, however it was a poor choice in regards to showing how marriage strengthens a society as Tibet is not at all a good example of a strong society.... but at any rate, that brought the sum total of your list up to 2

Are ya wit me so far?

5th - You listed child arranged marriages. This one kind of stretched the envelope a little because it dealt mainly with the manner in which those people decided whom would marry whom rather than an actual type of marriage but at any rate you put in the effort and deserve credit for a job well done. Therefore that brought the sum total of your list up to 3

Now...for the sake of clarity lets rehash. You said there were numerous types of traditions of marriage worldwide in numerous societies. Considering there are up to 192 nations on planet earth and many more if you count past history, I don't believe 3 different traditions of marriage qualify as numerous.
Furthermore all 3 traditions you cited validated the fact that religion aside, societies the world over from ancient times to present have all maintained by some sort of tacit universal consent that marriage is always between a "man and woman", a husband and a wife, a male and a female.

So you see..... the case made by you on my behalf clearly supports my contention that Gay marriage changes the definition of marriage. Since it does, the question must be asked, does it weaken it or strengthen it. Since a very strong case can be made that the strength and durability of Western Civilization rests upon the fundamental building block of the institution of marriage at its foundation. The case can easily be made that the further weakening of marriage which is already undergoing a tremendous onslaught for a variety of reasons, only serves to further weaken society.

I don't have to rethink anything. Everything I said was factual. I never claimed homosexuality was or was not a choice, and whether it was or not has no bearing whatsoever on whether they should have the same rights as the rest of us or not. I was a nerd in middle school and high school, and it can be argued that I chose all the details that led to me being considered as such: I chose to do my homework, think things through, speak clearly, read, care about my accademic performance, and correct people who were inccorect in their reasoning. But BY GOD if you tell me I should have chosen differently, or that I brought my treatment on myself, you will get an emotional reaction from me, not a reasonable one, and you won't like it, because you've made some choices yourself. I was who I was, and I am who I am. Being gay is no more a choice than being a nerd was for me, or being Christian is for you.
That right there is also a good insight as to why I have chosen the stance I have on this issue.

That having been said, let me be perfectly clear about one thing:

I don't give a fat rat's hind end what your church or your religious beliefs do or don't say about homosexuality. That is not at issue. You're free to believe whatever reality-contradicting stance you choose, and you're free to pass it on to your kids.
But you support denying them equal rights. That is not religious expression, that is factual opression.

Throughout this conversation, you have given all manner of reasons why you support that stance. Each one was patiently shot down by the people who have debated you. Some you conveniently ignored, some you tried to detail away with semantic technnicalities, and at least one you simply thumbed your nose at in a verbal sense. Your reasons for supporting denial of equal rights to gays range from utterly without merit at face value to outright cowardly. But none of that matters, because those reasons weren't the real reasons--those reasons were excuses.

The real reason you don't support equal rights for homosexuals is an emotional one. Whether you admit it or not, whether you realize it or not, what it comes down to is that you feel they should be inferior because God said so and you are one of his chosen.

In other words, Charles, you are a bully. You have proven it by the approach you have taken in your arguments on this forum over and over and over again. You don't love the sinner and hate the sin, you hate the sinner and use the sin as an excuse, and you're not fooling anyone. Neither is anyone else in this puppet show who continues to voice the same tired, discredited arguments over and over and over again as if we'll forget that we already shot them down and they don't hold any water.

You have chosen which voice you will be contributing to, and your choice was cowardly and pathetic. I will respect you as a human being when you honestly examine what it is you really need out of denying homosexuals equal rights, and seek alternative means of achieving it. I am willing to give you the benefit of the doubt that it is fear that your children will run afoul of God because of ungodly influences, but by now you should have looked around and realized that you live on the same Earth as any other Christian. We're ALL tryinig to make our way as best we can, so quit @!$%#ing about the mean ol' other humans who are making your life scary. We're ALL scared of one thing or another, and we all make our choices how to deal with it.

chasen..... hello is anybody home in there?

You're really missing it, and on top of it you keep inferring that it is my opinion that you should tell young kids all about sex.

When actually I'm saying the exact opposite. The difference is while you're underestimating the inquisitiveness of children I'm not

1st Young children understand romance as much as they understand sex.......not at all!

You tell a child that 2 men love each other, a bright child will wonder what the heck you're telling him thats different than his own love for his own best friends or an older mans love for their best friends

Otherwise you're making a moot point...so why bother?

They ask you what a gay is, you tell them 2 men or 2 women that love each other....they go to a church where the people are taught to love everyone as Jesus loves everyone.

So what are you actually telling that distinguishes gay men from men?

My answer nothing.................that is unless you take it further! Quite obviously thats a rhethorical suggestion on my part, so calm down from your over exagerated hyper active disgust you're getting all worked up over nothing.

Neither you or I would discuss the mechanics of sex with a young child. Therefore I conclude that telling a young child 2 ladies or 2 men love each other or live together is pretty lame.

I further suggested that, given a classroom scenario if you really believe that topic will end there and go no further, you are more naieve than I first thought!

Point being as a parent I would not want local school boards, the state and federal governments or any form of big brother teaching my children anything about sexuality and alternative lifestyles while they are just getting a grip on the lifestyle of being a child.....get it.
Because I know my children, and know where they are in their develpment and maturity and they are my children, its my choice, and neither you or a gay advocacy group has any right to usurp that authority from any parent! No matter how your heart bleeds, how enlightened you may think your view of the world may be or how magmanimous you may feel about the cause of Gays

Can't get no more simple than that!
Bye now

So what are you actually telling that distinguishes gay men from heterosexual men?

I added a word for you.

What distinction is there to make besides the fact that one is ruled by fear of looking like the other? You're way too focused on sex when relationships aren't just about sex. Teaching a kid about love is way more important.

You tell a child that 2 men love each other, a bright child will wonder what the heck you're telling him thats different than his own love for his own best friends or an older mans love for their best friends

Otherwise you're making a moot point...so why bother?

They ask you what a gay is, you tell them 2 men or 2 women that love each other....they go to a church where the people are taught to love everyone as Jesus loves everyone.

So what are you actually telling that distinguishes gay men from men?

My answer nothing.................

HOORAH , HALLELUJAH, GLORY BE - you get it now - you admit your point is wrong. Talk of love and marriage won't lead to talk of sex which wont lead to innocence corrupted. It took a while but all that matters is that you got there in the end and HAVE TO CONCEDE that young children won't be corrupted by talk of gay marriage. Good for you....I did not think you had it in you.

Neither you or I would discuss the mechanics of sex with a young child. Therefore I conclude that telling a young child 2 ladies or 2 men love each other or live together is pretty lame.

I can only conclude that you also think it is lame to discuss marriage of any sort with a young child because it does not ever have to include sexual mechanics.

However if children are taught that all types of unions are normal and in your book 'lame' without ever having to talk about sex then VOILA - A MIRACLE - no fear, alienation, bigotry associated with relationships of love and commitment such as marriage. Damn you have come a long way.

I further suggested that, given a classroom scenario if you really believe that topic will end there and go no further, you are more naieve than I first thought!

Nope - missed that extension of the goal posts sorry. You said the the education system was explaining homosexuality and therefore sex and that parents would have to explain sex - NO you were wrong to suggest such a thing. Now your goalposts move to suggest the idea of gay marriage will lead to further investigation...(somewhere, somehow, sometime) - Okay so now we are past fear mongering and on to speculation.

Point being as a parent I would not want local school boards, the state and federal governments or any form of big brother teaching my children anything about sexuality and alternative lifestyles while they are just getting a grip on the lifestyle of being a child.....get it.

Well they aren't doing that - as you already admit - get it? Marriage is not an alternative lifestyle, neither is love or commitment. You are focusing on what happens in the bedroom as the only point of difference and come on now some things should be kept private - for the sake of decency.

Because I know my children, and know where they are in their develpment and maturity and they are my children, its my choice, and neither you or a gay advocacy group has any right to usurp that authority from any parent! No matter how your heart bleeds, how enlightened you may think your view of the world may be or how magmanimous you may feel about the cause of Gays

Here is the empty rhetoric - you have to and do finally admit that teaching a child about gay marriage will not include graphic sexual details. So teaching them about gay marriage only deals with love and commitment and families - which is innocuous (lame).

But that doesn't suit your fear-mongering tactics because somehow, sometime, somewhere they will learn the graphic details of sexual acts. Listen - sorry to have to tell you this but sex education is going to happen one day - when they get older and you can prepare now.

If you are really worried about sex education in terms of homosexuality - you needn't worry, they do what heterosexuals do too. But rest assured 5,6 and 7 year olds will not be corrupted by such details as most people try desperately to uphold standards of decency against fearmongering bigots. Homosexuals, heteroseuals, bisexuals, transexuals - dammit most people are on your side on that score. Don't be afraid.

Can't get no more simple than that!

Agreed, can't get no more simple.

I said:

Nope, I only said it changed the US legal definition. There is no single fundamental definition of marriage. Different cultures have different definitions

And I supported that. Heck, I would've fully supported that simply by saying "look at Mormons."

You're the one who decided that there are no numbers between 1 and 10. Learn to count.

You said there were numerous types of traditions of marriage worldwide in numerous societies.

No, I didn't. Liar.

Furthermore all 3 traditions you cited validated the fact that religion aside, societies the world over from ancient times to present have all maintained by some sort of tacit universal consent that marriage is always between a "man and woman", a husband and a wife, a male and a female.

Polygamy is between a husband and wives, not "a husband and a wife."
Cross-check those two letter-by-letter if you don't immediately see the difference.

Since it does, the question must be asked, does it weaken it or strengthen it.

And you've provided no answer to that.

Since a very strong case can be made that the strength and durability of Western Civilization rests upon the fundamental building block of the institution of marriage at its foundation.

You haven't even made a weak case for that.

The case can easily be made that the further weakening of marriage which is already undergoing a tremendous onslaught for a variety of reasons, only serves to further weaken society.

Apparently, you fail miserably at what is easy.

chasen...your head is in the sand regarding childrens awareness of hypocrisy. The only think I agree with you on is that children need not be taught the mechanics of different sexual relationships.

You want your child to understand how two men or two women can be romatically involved, then you teach them, but please don't ask me to trust a government or a school board to teach my children about sexuality, romance, family values and marriage at a time when too many school systems in America are failing in the jobs they are funded to do like teach reading, writing and "rithmetic, and help to graduate some reasonably well educated children that can maybe find Boise or Madrid on a map! The grade for public schools in America is F, D at best and you want to give them another assignment. On top of that an assignment not even in their perview...Good idea, you guys are really smart, you must've graduated from......let me guess, public schools!

Furthermore, moving goal posts or even home plate in this discussion is neither here nor there as far as I'm concerned. To me people like you, Jack and Duke like most liberals are so decieved and so entangled in your webs of hypocritical enlightenment that you actually really have no clue about what you're arguing. You really think this argument is about gay rights....one day you'll see its not, but then you'll be arguing about some other nonsense from a different erroneous perspective. The sad part is that you none of you can even see that YOU are the ones that move goal posts to suit the argument of the day. Like most liberals you have one idea about freedom, one idea about life and one idea about love and each of them contradict the other in some way.
Yea we've racially integrated society but people on a whole are far less integrated as human beings than in times past.
Unlike intellectuals of the past who were fully integrated humans that were not just mere intellectuals but wise people that understood the wisdom of the ancients, of human history, metaphysics, astronomy, spirituality, the princibles and concepts that govern the universe human relationships, agriculture and they understood how religion, science, engineering, politics, government, life, love, liberty and freedom, music, art etc etc interelate and are all part of the same big picture.
They weren't subjetc to the hypocrisy of blind delusions that would lead them to be champions of life on the one hand and pro-abortion on the other.

All you people know is you think its a good idea for 2 men or 2 women to form a union and call it the same thing that men and woman have been doing for thousands of years only because thats what they want. ...Selfish foolish tinkering with things you don't understand.

Doesn't matter if its not the same or not, doesn't matter that marriage is not just a nifty idea a bunch of nitwits and fools decided to initiate thousands of years ago.
It doesn't even matter to you that marriage serves a greater purpose than just a nice idea every civilization on planet decided to try....and I admire you for that!
I admire you guys for being so smug in your intellectualism and that you have the bold arrogance to off handedly dismiss everything older than your pop culture mentality and wordlviews can even begin to appreciate. But that too is your right

Now......In the spirit of moving goal posts

Whats the enlightened spin do you put on the topic of abortion when you discuss it with your child?
Do you have a really clever way telling them how it is the woman nezt door that was pregnant yesterday is not today? Or do you keep them in the dark about how she decided theres not going to be a baby afterall?

Oh let me guess...you'll say whatever the Pro Choice special interest groups are pushing...huh?

That'd be whatever is necessary to elevating individual rights above the needs of society....again!
Orwell was right....anytime murder can be dressed up to appear as a reasonable choice and a right things are really backwards!

And I'm the one whos an extremist?

I don't know how much clearer we can be about this. Gays don't have the right to marry in America, we want to change that. In what way is that not about gay rights?

Is it instead about the will of the majority (an argument that has been refuted at face value)?

Is it about the religious supremacy of Christians (an argument that has been refuted at face value)?

Is it about benefit to society (an argument that has been refuted at face value)?

Judicial activism (an argument that...oh I'm tired of repeating myself so I'll just say "refuted" from now on)?

Parental rights (refuted)?

the deffinition of marriage (refuted)?

Why we can't do things differently because we've never done them that way before (refuted)?

What is this discussion really about, Charles? tell us. You tell us what need of yours is not being met, and we'll find a way to meet it AND give homosexuals equal rights, and then you'll have no excuse in front of all these witnesses.

Okay - you got nothing, so now we resort to a discussion of abortion, the public schooling system, my education, my liberalism, hypocrisy over something and yes abortion again.

FYI moving the goalposts simply indicates that when someone counters your feeble fear ridden bigoted attempts at discrimination you avoid the noise and move on to more empty rhetoric.

As for abortion - ummm...not the topic of this thread - perhaps you would like to try and stay on point. Oh that's right - got nothing huh?

PS - Thanks - I am really smart - guess I credit that to the fact that we were taught to think and evaluate ideas and issues for ourselves rather than regurgitate unsubstantiated crap.

Yea we've racially integrated society but people on a whole are far less integrated as human beings than in times past. Unlike intellectuals of the past who were fully integrated humans that were not just mere intellectuals but wise people that understood the wisdom of the ancients, of human history, metaphysics, astronomy, spirituality, the princibles and concepts that govern the universe human relationships, agriculture and they understood how religion, science, engineering, politics, government, life, love, liberty and freedom, music, art etc etc interelate and are all part of the same big picture.

You realize that those intellectuals of the past were in a tiny ruling elite, right?

They weren't subjetc to the hypocrisy of blind delusions that would lead them to be champions of life on the one hand and pro-abortion on the other.

They're also not like the neoconservatives of now, who proclaim love of life when restricting women's rights, yet laud sending soldiers to their deaths.

Making the partisan because you've run of rants beyond "dern libruls!" isn't helping your case, kiddo.

...Selfish foolish tinkering with things you don't understand.

Hahaha, understanding anything beyond angsty ranting is obviously not within your purview, making it rather amusing that you'd indict others for not understanding things.

Your pathetic lack of knowledge of such things, coupled with your apparent disdain for schooling leads me to think that you, ahem, prematurely ended your education.

anytime murder can be dressed up to appear as a reasonable choice and a right things are really backwards!

And I'm the one whos an extremist?

Comparing gay marriage to murder? Yeah, I'd say that qualifies you as an extremist. I imagine the secret love child of Wright and Falwell would sound much the same as you do.

Breaking news:

Military Gay Dismissal Struck Down

The military cannot automatically discharge people because they're gay, a federal appeals court ruled in the case of a decorated flight nurse who sued the Air Force over her dismissal.
Related Articles

The three judges from the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals did not strike down the military's "don't ask, don't tell" policy. But they reinstated Maj. Margaret Witt's lawsuit, saying the Air Force must prove that her dismissal furthered the military's goals of troop readiness and unit cohesion.

...

Witt, a flight nurse based at McChord Air Force Base near Tacoma, was suspended without pay in 2004 after the Air Force received a tip that she had been in a long-term relationship with a civilian woman. Witt was honorably discharged in October 2007 after having put in 18 years — two short of what she needed to receive retirement benefits.

She sued the Air Force in 2006, but U.S. District Judge Ronald B. Leighton dismissed her claims, saying the Supreme Court's ruling in Lawrence v. Texas did not change the legality of "don't ask, don't tell."

The appeals court judges disagreed.

"When the government attempts to intrude upon the personal and private lives of homosexuals, the government must advance an important governmental interest ... and the intrusion must be necessary to further that interest," Judge Ronald M. Gould wrote.

Duke - Gays don't have the right to marry in America, and you want to change that.
You asked in what way is that not about gay rights?

Answer: This may seem like a way out answer but its on point if you are able to think outside of your box for a minute. Gay marriage is about gay rights the same way gun control is about reducing crime. There is so much more involved than the appeasement of the special interest of one group of people so they can feel good about themselves. Gays can have their own unions, gay unions, their own type of arrangements.

Okay let me stop pussyfooting around with you folks and ask you this!

Did you know that there are many gays who oppose gay marriage? Betcha didn't huh?
Do you think they're homophobic, how about biggots? How fear mongerers?
Could it be they, like me actually see this issue in its true light?

Maybe you should read this

In "A Gay Man's Case Against Gay Marriage," Michael Bronski writes:

"The best argument against same-sex marriage is the argument against marriage."

He adds, "Don't get me wrong. I completely support giving gay men and lesbians the right to partake of civil marriage, and the basic economic benefits that come with it," but goes on to argue:

"We -- homosexuals and heterosexuals alike -- might do better by spending some time rethinking how we want to live our emotional and sexual, private and public lives. ... Now that we have it, I wonder if people will think it was worth the fight."

So you see its not just Christians .....many homosexuals agree with tha point of view.
While the powerful homosexual lobby has pushed for the 'right' to 'marry' as part of its broader public policy strategy to gain acceptance and endorsement,

It's of particular interest to note that many homosexuals really don't want to marry.

Not all but many of them actually see marriage as a key feature of the heterosexual culture which they wish to demolish in their attempt to radically change sexual morality in our society." Notice I said not all. Many gays I know and associate with are regular people in the manner they live.

But the face of gays that we too often see are too often in those disgustingly vulgar Gay Pride parades that I have brought up several times and all of you have disingenuisously avoided and not addressed.

Why have you not addressed those public spectacles of indecency...I'll tell you because they do not represent the vast majority of what Gays want and how Gays see themselves, but yet the power of the Gay Advocates Lobby is such that these public spectacles of men and thongs, parading with whips chains and dildos are allowed on public thoroughfares while at the same time Gays and atheist and Christian haters like Duke come out of the woodwork to protest a public display of baby Jesus in Nativity Scene....talk about twisted morality. How do you justify that and keep your integrity intact?

The average Joe Gay, like people I work with and people I know do not have the extreme mindset of the powers that be behind the gay lobby and many average everyday gays just want to do their thing, be left alone and not denied basic civil rights....just like everyone else.....and guess what those laws are already in place! Gay Advocates no more represent the average gay person than Al Sharpton or Reverend Wright represent the average Black!

Are you following me on this...its really rather clear...

You asked - Is it about the religious supremacy of Christians?
I haven't said or suggested anything of the sort

You asked - Is it about benefit to society?
I said -There is no benefit to society at large, only a "further" diluting and weakening of its key foundational institution, which is already suffering. Gay marriage will result only further weakening marriage and thereby help to further weaken society

You asked about Judicial activism -

I say Black civil rights and civil rights for women are based on constitutional amendments. The decision in Californmia is not based on any real right or amendment within the Federal or Stae Constitution no more than Roe vs Wade is based on any. Each will be overturned and given to the people to vote

You asked about Parental rights?
I say Not if an already failing public school system plan to burden themself even further by taking on the task of teaching children lifestyle social concepts and promote agendas of special interest groups which are outside the realm of education, and especially if they teach young age children without parental permission. That would be an agregious violation of parental rights

You asked about the deffinition of marriage ?
You're smart enough to see the difference between man and wife and man and man or wife and wife aren't you. That ain't rocket science.
If you can't admit marriage is redefined by including gays you're out and out biased to the point of blindness. Whether you agree with me or not both you chase and Jack need to be at least a little honest on that point...
Besides if you look at it objectively you'd have to admit.... I thrashed his tradition argument anyway:-)

You asked -Why we can't do things differently because we've never done them that way before?
I say - Because the institution of marriage, the building block of civilization was not just a happenstance , passing thought or a nifty little idea every culture on the entire planet decided to try and see how it worked. Common sense dictates you don't tinker with things you don't understand without considering there may be some undesirable results.

You asked -What is this discussion really about, Charles? tell us.

I say this- Michael Bronski a gay man put it much better than I so maybe you should read his article....here is another excerpt

"Much of the discussion about same-sex marriage concerns deeper economic and social-justice issues: health care, raising children, and protecting family units from outside forces, especially poverty. But these too aren't really the concern of marriage. If you want to ensure that all families are secure and safe, if you want children to be healthy, and well fed and safe, there is plenty to do. You can fight for universal health care or a higher minimum wage, for a negative income tax that will benefit anyone living close to or under the poverty line, for federally funded childcare, for federal funding to pay parents (both mothers and fathers) who choose to work at home caring for their children. When it comes to fighting for social justice, the right to traditional civil marriage seems pretty low on the agenda.

The gay-marriage movement isn't about these things. Nor it is about commitment or the sanctity of marriage. It is about sentiment and the power of advertising. People-gay and straight, but especially women-have a profound emotional attachment to the idea of marriage. (It is no surprise that close to 75 percent of couples who have applied for same-sex marriage licenses in San Francisco and now in Massachusetts are lesbians.)"

Duke, Chase and Jack..... What names do you have left? Do you have a few you wanna call him? Uncle Tammy maybe? :-)

Po-o-o-o-o-r Jack

You hung yourself with that bogus argument about all the different traditions and all these posts later you're still trying to recover....give it a rest man!

Either that or work on honing that list :-)

Jack is probably working on some high powered financial deal at the moment - you know what that's like right? He isn't going anywhere and neither am I because your feeble arguments are fun and so is the comment count.

But seriously your last rant was too funny.

One gay man who incidentally still wants gay marriage wonders about whether its a worthy pursuit and that's what you lead with?

Betcha you didn't know that we knew that many heterosexuals now abstain from marriage because they also think it is a worn out overused symbolic waste of time but still they don't want to force their choices on others and discriminate against those that do want to marry.

Guess what - there are some gay people who are pro-civil unions, some are pro-marriage, some are anti marriage and DAMMIT IT ALL TO HELL there are many many heterosexuals who feel the same way.

HOWEVER the point to make is that the choice of marriage should be available to all.

PS - There is very little value in quoting at length the words of one gay guy as if he can possibly REPRESENT all gay people - the complexity of this argument may be beyond you but regurgitation does nothing for your argument.

Sorry Jack, I did not mean to speak for you, you may not return and you may just be pursuing any other more exciting activity which pretty much covers everything. I was trying to point out that you have a real life that may take precedence over this rubbish.

No problem, chasencash.

The lack of substance he tries to rebut me with is frankly rather funny, as if he thinks simply saying "Nyaha! I'm, like, totally right!" will cover up the fact that he wields reason as effectively as a toddler wields a howitzer.

You asked - Is it about benefit to society? I said -There is no benefit to society at large, only a "further" diluting and weakening of its key foundational institution, which is already suffering. Gay marriage will result only further weakening marriage and thereby help to further weaken society

Sigh, I'm still waiting for you to support this argument. Why would gay marriage weaken marriage beyond what Vegas shotgun weddings have already wrought? You're obviously fine with those, since your only issue is the sex of the two parties involved.

So here's your chance to say something marginally meaningful: how, specifically, will gay marriage weaken marriage and society at large?

Gays can have their own unions, gay unions, their own type of arrangements.

How's that blacks-only water fountain workin' out for ya?

It's amusing that charles asserts that gay advocates don't represent all gaydom, then whips out one guy's article, proclaiming views he cherry-picked to be that of gays at large because, you know, Bronski is King of the Gays.

How's that blacks-only water fountain workin' out for ya?

Thanks, I choked on and snorted my soup simultaneously.

The point to make is that the choice of marriage is available to all...heterosexual couples

The words of one gay guy THOUGH he cannot possibly REPRESENT all gay people, are as valid as one Black guy who cannot support Obama or does not consider Al Sharpton his leader

This argument IS NOT complex at all if you look beyond the regurgitation of Gay Right Advocates, the political underhanded manuevering of the Gay Lobby and the cunning that Gays Special Interest groups use in influencing politicians to pander for Gay votes

and to simply deny that all that is part and parcel of the Queer Eye for the Straight Guy mass media marketing and wooing of gay dollars does nothing at all for your argument but show that you are blindly denying the obvious.

Jack really did get hung up when he tried to enumerate marriage traditions....he came up with 3 altogether and they were all based on marriage among male(S) and female(S)
You can be for gay marriage and still at least continue to be honest!

The words of one gay guy THOUGH he cannot possibly REPRESENT all gay people, are as valid as one Black guy who cannot support Obama or does not consider Al Sharpton his leader

What? Seriously I think you are the most disingenuous dishonest person here. You regurgitate the words of one guy as if it means something and then move to agree that it cannot be representative.

I don't listen or spout the gay rights agenda. Here I have simply put forward my own thoughts on gay marriage based on my own responses to people in same sex marriage and my own knowledge of how bigotry, fear mongering and discrimination works.

I don't need to quote the media or statistics, or talk about Ellen DeGeneres. I can forward my own opinion and dammit it has not wavered in the face of your ever shifting fear mongering attempts to paint gay marriage as corrupt or deviant - you have simply painted yourself as such by your small minded bedroom oriented fixation.

Gay marriage is about acceptance, tolerance. equality and love and while you try to paint it as otherwise you constantly fail.

As for your latest diversion into media marketing - get a clue and check out the marriage industry for heterosexuals as well.

The point to make is that the choice of marriage is available to all...heterosexual couples

Just like freedom used to be available to all ... white males. The funny thing is that you made the exact opposite point than I think you were trying to make.

You're bigoted and every post you type makes that clearer and clearer.

Interesting, the "you'd agree with me if only you weren't brainwashed" defense.

I've seen 9/11 conspiracy theorists use that line, so you can tell how much sense it makes.

Still waiting for your support of why gay marriage will fundamentally weaken marriage and society anymore than Britney Spears already has.

Give us evidence of this vast Gay Conspiracy brainwashing the minds of America, or be relegated the grimy corners of reason occupied by Scientologists and TV psychics.

You can be for gay marriage and still at least continue to be honest!

Apparently the same possibility is unavailable for being against gay marriage, if your behavior is anything to go by.

I keep my integrity intact by not pretending it's about IDEAS, like "Morality" or "Integrity." I don't bow to words. You should keep that in mind when you keep saying "Marriage."

It's about people, and people being hurt, and people being defended, and people being hated, and people being dominated by other people who use their personal moral opinions--in other words, their ideas, their words--as an excuse. If you want me to stop defending a people, STOP ATTACKING THEM.

Well I guess you told me....anyway I don't know if you took the time to actually read the article, but if you haven't you can find it on the gay independent forum

Jack really did get hung up when he tried to enumerate marriage traditions....he came up with 3 altogether and they were all based on marriage among male(S) and female(S)

You hands must hurt from clinging so tightly to such inconsequential information. Is that the only straw you have to grasp?

Jack really did get hung up when he tried to enumerate marriage traditions....he came up with 3 altogether and they were all based on marriage among male(S) and female(S)

Yes, and you completely ignored my post on gay marriages in Rome, Greece, China, Japan, and Africa. Can't allow any facts into the discussion.

Brian:

Don't forget Boston.

Granted, not necessarily sexual or romantic in any way, but it does go towards the argument that "marriage" as a term has always referred to one man and one woman in all instances.