Posted on 05/15/2008 10:02:52 AM PDT by NinoFan
Opinion just released.
Not with each other.
and have many of the same options available as any infertile heterosexual couple.
Which numerous courts have held as irrelevant. (Whether you like it or not.)
What “basic biology” are you talking about? Want to be more specific?
Oh, you know, that thing thing about sperm and egg uniting to form a separate unique individual.
You write with such passion, but you don’t back up your statements. If you do believe marriage should only be permitted between individuals who can and will produce biological children without intervention, then you must believe infertile heterosexual couples should be denied the right to marry. And if you don’t, why? You can’t just say “because!” You have to come up with a reason.
I already gave you the reason. Why don't you look back and read it, and while you are at it, read through the various MAJORITY opinions of the MAJORITY of courts to address this issue.
I agree with you, though, the government may have no business issuing marriage licenses in the first place. That would be a good solution at this point. Take out the word “marriage” from civil unions and leave that to religions. Give opposite and same-sex couples civil unions/domestic partnerships/what-have-you for legal purposes.
Why give civil unions? Why does the government have to endorse any union if the union is not linked to procreation and the existence and survival of the human race. (See; Loving and Skinner et el.)
You’ve missed the point (again). We have civil marriage now, yes. I have said, about forty times, that I think one solution to this problem would be to stop using the word “marriage” to describe civil unions, and let religion have dominion over that word, since it is meaningful to many religious people. That way, everyone gets a civil union, and the “gay marriage debate” is over. People can still be married in the church of their choice, as well as, or instead of getting a civil union, but the government wouldn’t be involved in labeling anything a “marriage.” Churches would make their own rules about who could and couldn’t get “married” in their church.
When did I lecture anyone about Sharia law? I told someone who was yearning for it that he or she wouldn’t have a problem finding it. Please don’t make things up. It’s time-consuming for both of us. Your “reasoning” didn’t follow mine at all. You said same-sex pairings could not be called “marriage,” I said it’s already happened in places, they are already called marriages, so your statement is simply wrong. Do you understand now?
Believe it or not, people can squeeze circular logic and a a slippery slope fallacy into the same post. I’ve seen it done. They might even throw in a straw man and a red herring. The pit is bottomless.
Let me keep this a simple as possible for ya. If some group of people wanted to change laws so they could marry kangroos (who are these people, are they your friends?), then they’d have a long, hard slog ahead of them. To suggest kangaroo marriage is nipping at the heels of gay marriage is so flatly ridiculous, it is the ultimate slippery slope fallacy. In fact, that very example is used pretty often to illustrate the slippery slope fallacy (not necessarily using kangaroos, that’s your special animal). AND, people used EXACTLY the same argument against interracial marriage. That was pretty silly and offensive in retrospect, no? So is your comparison. I’m sorry you don’t get it. I’m really, truly sorry.
Did you READ your own hilarious circular argument? Please do. Just re-read it. I really don’t have the energy to look it up. It went a little something like this — same sex couples can’t get married, because they can’t get married, because they’re of the same sex. Really, it was priceless. Just enjoy it. Own it.
Civil marriage is not a static institution. It is, in fact, whatever the government says it is, for better or worse, and that varies and changes over time. I think you already understand this, and you’re just being ornery now.
Isaiah 5:20 Woe to those that call evil good and good evil. Which is exactly what is going on today in this country. How can people see evil when so many are living evil lives and supporting it. Especially when this country has 50 million deaths of children due to abortion. But yet we don’t have enough Christians who will stand up against it to change anything.
CholeraJoe to Friendofgeorge
I was quoting another poster. That’s why I put the statement in italics. Please try to pay attention. I can only assume that since Cheney’s daughter is a lesbian, that poster had issues. ...............
MY MISTAKE! sorry :)
Claiming “numerous courts have found it irrelevant” doesn’t absolve you from the responsibility of making your own argument. If you’re going to suggest reproductive capability is a prerequisite for marriage, then YOU have to explain why infertile heterosexual couples should be allowed to marry under your own rules.
I’ve got news for you. Sperm and eggs unite when homosexual couples have children too, in just the same way they unite when infertile heterosexual couples children. So, again, what do you mean by “basic biology”? Basic biology is essentially the same every time a child is conceived by any means. What point are you trying to make?
You’re the one suggesting the government needs to be involved in civil unions and marriages, again, on the basis of reproductive capacity. You keep suggesting that, then when questioned, you say, “except I don’t really mean it!” Then you suggest it again. Why do you do that?
Very, very well written analysis of the situation, puroresu! Bravo!
Yes, I opted for "clown".
"Weak-assed self-important wannabe bossy-boy" seemed a bit wordy.
It's cute you think you are "countering terrorist propaganda" by clicking a button.
Punk.
Again you missed the point. I feel you are doing it purposely.
Anderson v King County: The fundamental right of a man and woman to marry is linked with the related fundamental right to procreate, as noted in Skinner . Skinner v. Oklahoma , 316 U.S. 535, 541, 62 S. Ct. 1110, 86 L. Ed. 1655 (1942) ("[m]arriage and procreation are fundamental to the very existence and survival of the race"); Zablocki v. Redhail , 434 U.S. 374, 98 S. Ct. 673, 54 L. Ed. 2d 618 (1978). Every United States Supreme Court decision concerning the right to marry has assumed marriage as the union of one man and one woman. Every party in every right to marry case that the Supreme Court has ever decided included one man in union with one woman. Those decisions do not support any claim other than the right to marry a person of the opposite sex. Only opposite-sex couples are capable of intentional, unassisted procreation, unlike same-sex couples. Unlike same-sex couples, only opposite-sex couples may experience unintentional or unplanned procreation. State sanctioned marriage as a union of one man and one woman encourages couples to enter into a stable relationship prior to having children and to remain committed to one another in the relationship for the raising of children, planned or otherwise. Although society's continuing existence depends upon children, marriage has never been considered as solely a mechanism to increase the number of births. Modern circumstances confirm that marriage is needed in today's society more than ever. As amicus notes: "Widespread contraceptive and abortion rights may actually make more salient, not less, the traditional role of marriage in encouraging men and women to make the next generation that society needs. The more legal, cultural, and technological choice individuals have about whether or not to have children, the more need there is for a social institution that encourages men and women to have babies together, and creates the conditions under which those children are likely to get the best care." Amicus of Families Northwest at 14-15. Herndanez v Robles: the Legislature could rationally decide that, for the welfare of children, it is more important to promote stability, and to avoid instability, in opposite-sex than in same-sex relationships. Heterosexual intercourse has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not. Despite the advances of science, it remains true that the vast majority of children are born as a result of a sexual relationship between a man and a woman, and the Legislature could find that this will continue to be true. The Legislature could also find that such relationships are all too often casual or Temporary. It could find that an important function of marriage is to create more stability and permanence in the relationships that cause children to be born. It thus could choose to offer an inducement -- in the form of marriage and its attendant benefits -- to opposite-sex couples who make a solemn, long-term commitment to each other. The Legislature could find that this rationale for marriage does not apply with comparable force to same-sex couples. These couples can become parents by adoption, or by artificial insemination or other technological marvels, but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse. The Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples, and thus that promoting stability in opposite- sex relationships will help children more. This is one reason why the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only. There is a second reason: The Legislature could rationally believe that it is better, other things being equal, for children to grow up with both a mother and a father. Intuition and experience suggest that a child benefits from having before his or her eyes, every day, living models of what both a man and a woman are like. It is obvious that there are exceptions to this general rule -- some children who never know their fathers, or their mothers, do far better than some who grow up with parents of both sexes -- but the Legislature could find that the general rule will usually hold.
As for your PATHETIC attempt to place words in my mouth, I was asking you a hypothetical. If your premise is correct (it isn't), then why does the government have to be involved in sanctioning civil unions? If the union is not linked to procreation, and if the union is solely about establishing a relationship, give me one good reason for the government to be involved at all?
Governments license marriage for a very specific reason. Can you guess what it is?
You really don't understand the dynamics of this issue, do you? Aside from the rather obvious fact that substituting civil unions for marriages is just a name change, do you really think that would solve anything? The homosexual lobby wouldn't "tolerate" churches refusing to perform same-sex "marriages" anymore than they tolerate the Boy Scouts. There would be a constant war to obliterate every church, every private club, every publication that ran counter to the "gay" lobby and its demands.
When did I lecture anyone about Sharia law? I told someone who was yearning for it that he or she wouldn’t have a problem finding it. Please don’t make things up. It’s time-consuming for both of us. Your “reasoning” didn’t follow mine at all. You said same-sex pairings could not be called “marriage,” I said it’s already happened in places, they are already called marriages, so your statement is simply wrong. Do you understand now?
I understand that you don't understand, yes. The whole point was that to allow the state to redefine a traditional institution to mean something antithetical to it, particularly without the consent of the governed, is totalitarian. And it is.
Let me keep this a simple as possible for ya.
Believe me, going over people's heads is something you'll never have to worry about.
If some group of people wanted to change laws so they could marry kangroos (who are these people, are they your friends?), then they’d have a long, hard slog ahead of them.
That's funny, because that's what they said about same-sex "marriage" not so long ago. BTW I see you attended Cultural Marxism 101, where one of the propaganda points is to accuse anyone opposed to "x" of engaging in it or having friends who do. You're more transparent than talk radio seminar callers.
To suggest kangaroo marriage is nipping at the heels of gay marriage is so flatly ridiculous, it is the ultimate slippery slope fallacy. In fact, that very example is used pretty often to illustrate the slippery slope fallacy (not necessarily using kangaroos, that’s your special animal). AND, people used EXACTLY the same argument against interracial marriage. That was pretty silly and offensive in retrospect, no? So is your comparison. I’m sorry you don’t get it. I’m really, truly sorry.
Actually, I think you're really, truly naive. I'm doing my best to give you the benefit of the doubt in that regard. There really are no depths to which the left will not plunge. Once they secure one atrocity, they go for another, and then another. To think that human-animal "marriage" is beneath them is absurd. No one believes it will happen overnight, but surely it will happen, unless this downward moral spiral we're on is halted.
Did you READ your own hilarious circular argument? Please do. Just re-read it. I really don’t have the energy to look it up. It went a little something like this — same sex couples can’t get married, because they can’t get married, because they’re of the same sex. Really, it was priceless. Just enjoy it. Own it.
I think you really need to get a grip. I said same-sex couples can't marry because marriage is a bonding of people of the opposite sex. That is why marriage was created in the first place. It wasn't created so that robotic autonomous human units could self-sctualize their sexual desires without regard to gender.
Civil marriage is not a static institution. It is, in fact, whatever the government says it is, for better or worse, and that varies and changes over time. I think you already understand this, and you’re just being ornery now.
If the state can define marriage to have a meaning totally antithetical to it's actual meaning, and can do this by fiat, then we simply no longer have a free society. I know you don't particularly care because I think you'd sacrifice freedom in a split second to appear fashionable and "on the cutting edge", but I would recommend that you study some real history (cutting and pasting from wikipedia doesn't count, not that the links you provided even backed up your position). I would also recommend being observant regarding the loss of our traditional freedoms in America, Canada, and many European nations, in large part to accommodate politicized homosexuality.
I may or may not respond to any additional posts in this thread. I don't think you're the type to ever let anyone else get the last word, so I'd be here forever. I'm comfortable enough in the strength of my opinions not to worry about that. So if you want the last word, take it.
Thanks! I appreciate the support!
Liberalism is a mental illness and you Ms Mommy are ill.
As you’ll see if you look back, another poster suggested he or she was giving up on the United States and would rather live under Muslim rule.
Get real. Your post was to me. Here's the relevant idiocy:
"And do you really believe it’s the job of the public schools to “preach religion”? Why would any religious person want that kind of state interference in the first place? And which religion would you have the public schools preach? Scientology? Islam? Buddhism? A little of everything?It is no wonder religious/social conservatives are losing so many battles with arguments like this. Egads.
This idiocy addressed to me was in reply to this statement by me:
"When the state, in this case 4 small folks in black robes, puts it's imprimatur on homosexual marriage then the state requires that public schools treat homosexual unions and heterosexual unions as equivalent. This is called indoctrination. It is just another case of the secularists imposing their views on the religionists using the unlimited power of the state. I'll make you a urge your side from preaching secularism in public schools and I'll urge my side not to preach religion in public schools. Then you, me and the First Amendment are all happy."
Public schools are secular entities, as they should be. Do you really disagree with that? Do you want the state promoting yours, or anyone else’s religion?
Idiocy. Which, btw, is not an ad hominem attack. Your reply to the above statement is sheer idiocy, idiocy being descriptive of your statement, not you. You may be a very nice TraditionalMommy but your idiotic rant and then your attempt to weasel out by claiming you were addressing somebody else doesn't speak well of you one would think.
I understand now you’re not capable of posting without personal insults and namecalling, and that takes up a lot of space, but making a little room for common sense would do you good.
And I understand that you, like many others I've debated this topic with, have a close relationship with folks who happen to be homosexual. Thus you are willing to throw a couple of hundred years worth of American jurisprudence out the window along with common sense, logic and our constitutional republic in order to support them.
Loyalty is an admirable quality. Let's leave it there.
“I don’t see how we can vote to restrict the freedoms of others.”
Your remark reflects a common misconception:
“Same—sex marriage will secure new liberties for homosexuals.”
This has not happened because no personal liberty was being denied them. Gay couples can already do everything married people do—express love, set up housekeeping, share home ownership, have sex, raise children, commingle property, receive inheritance, and spend the rest of their lives together. It’s not criminal to do any of these things.
Homosexuals can even have a wedding. It’s done all the time.
Gay marriage grants no new freedom, and denying marriage licenses to homosexuals does not restrict any liberty. Nothing stops anyone—of any age, race, gender, class, or sexual preference—from making lifelong loving commitments to each other, pledging their troth until death do them part. They may lack certain entitlements, but not freedoms.
Denying marriage doesn’t restrict anyone. It merely withholds social approval from a lifestyle and set of behaviors that homosexuals have complete freedom to pursue without it. A marriage license doesn’t give liberty; it gives respect.
That is precisely what the homosexual activists long for - societal and governmental recognition/approval of gay relationships granted them by a marriage license.
What’s kind of funny is that heterosexuals have been living together for years enjoying every liberty of matrimony without the “piece of paper.” Suddenly that meaningless piece of paper means everything to homosexuals. Why? Not because it confers liberty, but because it confers legitimacy.
Same-sex marriage is not about civil rights. It’s about validation and social respect. It is a radical attempt at civil engineering using government muscle to strong-arm the people into accommodating a lifestyle many find deeply offensive, contrary to nature, socially destructive, and morally repugnant.
You’ve probably heard of columnist Jeff Jacoby of the “Boston Globe”. Here’s what he said in one of his articles concerning this (about a year ago):
“The marriage radicals…have not been deprived of the right to marry—only of the right to insist that a single-sex union is a “marriage.” They cloak their demands in the language of civil rights because it sounds so much better than the truth: They don’t want to accept or reject marriage on the same terms that it is available to everyone else. They want it on entirely new terms. They want it to be given a meaning it has never before had, and they prefer that it be done undemocratically—by judicial fiat, for example, or by mayors flouting the law. Whatever else that may be, it isn’t civil rights.”
That’s exactly what the Supreme Court of CA did yesterday - they legislated from the bench and swept aside the will of the voters of California - forcing everyone to “accept” the court’s definition of marriage on the rest of us.
Homosexuality is broadly tolerated in this country. Gays are allowed to pursue their “lifestyles” without reprisal, even to the point of forming committed, monogamous unions. They may not be universally respected or admired, but they have the liberty to live as they choose. This is all they have the right to demand.
Your defense of marriage and the rule of law was marvelous. Your opponent appears to be banned. Your attempts to get her to understand the legal, moral, and societal impact of this travesty were wasted on her but no doubt helped the rest of us refine our own stands on the issue.
I really wonder how much more we’ll take. I still believe most people are moral and at least marginally conservative. At what point will we push back?
I didn't read past your second paragraph. I just rest my case.
“But be of good cheer, Republicans. Nothing will get evangelicals to the polls to vote Republican like this ruling. Remember 2004?”
Truer words have ne’er been spoken...
“...we conclude that to the extent the current California statutory
provisions limit marriage to opposite-sex couples, these statutes are
unconstitutional.”
Are they referring to the CA supreme ct or the SCOTUS? Forgive me if this was answered already...
I've never been big on eschatology and end times scenarios, and I'm not a millenialist (pre-millenial, post millenial or any other - I'm amillenialist) but none of this is really surprising to me anymore. I really think God has removed his hand of protection from this nation and given us up, and there are many reasons for this (abortion being one of the biggest), but certainly homosexuality being accepted and validated by the state is part of it. God has abandoned us. I'm convinced of it. And our punishment, I believe, is about to fall upon us in the form of an Obama presidency with a veto proof Democrat Congress and Senate.
God help us.
Well, great Revolting cat! can now officially marry Disgusting cat!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.