Breaking: Gay marriage ban overturned in Calif.

I'm still trying to determine how marriage is "sacred" when husbands and wives cheat and the divorce rate is so high.

Marriage is between a man and a woman.

Why? Just because?

Note: I didn't say anything regarding couples unable to procreate, that is not their choice, but something biologically wrong, stopping the process of birth.

Ah yes, because two men having sex are able to procreate.

You just blew away your own point.

Of course, regarding the issue of choice, assuming you didn't just whip that out to mask your own bigotries, you would absolutely support banning marriage for straight women who've had hysterectomies, and straight men who've had vasectomies, right? After all, getting those were definite choices.

When a woman can have sex with another woman, or two men have sex and produce a child naturally without any type of artificial insemination, they they can legally become married.
...
Note: I didn't say anything regarding couples unable to procreate, that is not their choice, but something biologically wrong, stopping the process of birth.

You mean like being the same sex? What about heterosexual couples that choose to not procreate? What about people who use contraceptives? Since when is procreation a condition of marriage?

I was able to procreate when I was married. I had lots and lots of great sex. But I didn't have kids - and hate to burst your bubble, but that was completely by choice, not biology or anything else. This is one of the worst arguments against gay marriage that people keep bringing up.

Other groups than homosexuals like civil unions, seniors for example, so that the won't lose their pensions.

That way both heterosexuals and homosexuals are walking away happy, divided, and equally protected.

"Separate but equal" doesn't have a good track record.

Why should we be divided? What is so threatening about allowing a gay couple to use the term marriage to define their union, just as I can?

How can a marriage be legal if it cannot be consummated?

Indeed, we should prohibit abstinence after marriage, and anyone with severely injured genitals, prohibiting sex, should be barred from marriage.

Jack you left out the paralyzed. It's about damn time we told those paralyzed people they're not allowed to redefine marriage to suit their own perverted interests when they're not able to consummate the marriage. I have had it up to here with the powerful paraplegic lobby shoving their agenda down upon us decent god fearing folk.

j/k

Vincent, please be a dear and read the definition of sexual intercourse from Meriam-Webster as well:

Main Entry:
sexual intercourse
Function:
noun
Date:
1799

1 : heterosexual intercourse involving penetration of the vagina by the penis : coitus
2 : intercourse (as anal or oral intercourse) that does not involve penetration of the vagina by the penis

Number 2 clearly is not an impediment for gay people, but still does leave the paralyzed without a leg to stand on (so to speak... damn i am so going to hell)

Number 2 clearly is not an impediment for gay people, but still does leave the paralyzed without a leg to stand on (so to speak... damn i am so going to hell)

Don't worry, I've got a good reservation.

Hi David.

if people are related to the environment (good or bad) around them, then why are people being so bad to people who want to marry some one of the same sex?

There are those who cling immutably to select traditions of the past as a way to excuse the bigotries of the present. Unfortunately, there are many such people in our society, unwilling to entertain rationality and change for fear of the internal instability they might bring if they question what they've unquestioningly believed.

My Gramps tells me there are ancient values being questioned and that's why my friends are taking it so hard and I get that. For years the church believed earth was the center of the solar system and science proved that incorrect- so why is the church still refusing to see that these acnient values are just a form of ancient misunderstandings and hatreds?

Institutions like the Church are founded upon deriving power from unwavering obeisance to tradition, for they presume to dictate tradition, and in turn, dictate the minds of their constituents. All authoritarian rule operates in fundamentally the same way, though claiming to speak for God is a bit more powerful than claiming to speak for Pol Pot.

likewise my friends- my friends arent mean- they're just uneducated.

Indeed, but keep in mind that many are uneducated in this manner often not by choice. Indoctrination and isolation from new ideas eventually closes a person off from these new ideas, preferring the narrow-mindedness of certain familiar traditions, believing the the values they were raised with are a righteous universal metric with which to judge, oppress, and persecute.

We've seen this demonstrated throughout history, especially in civil rights movements: black civil rights, women's suffrage, gay rights. Opponents of all three have used precisely the same abstract arguments to make their case, and are just as consistently oblivious to the cyclical nature of their supposed concerns.

I just hope that sometime soon my family wont be so torn over this.

I've seen friends shunned by family members and heard stories of gay children being kicked out of their families, so I know how hard this can be for families, especially those with members who cling desperately to tradition as a sole source of order.

Maybe with time we can all look at each other and not ponder out preference but our likeness.

Perhaps, but you are far more optimistic than I in entertaining that possibility.