Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I have already presented a reasoned argument. When will you provide one?
You've presented an appeal to tradition and an appeal to authority. "wiser men", remember.
Quote:
Second, the purpose of society is to survive and provide a framework for the members to live, prosper and grow.
Not bad.
Quote:
Allowing a small group of them, check that, a tiny fraction of them, to force a change in the rules of society that will damage said society, is not in the best interest of the people of said society.
Actually, Prop 8 was a change to the rules, but we'll let that lie for now. You have not yet presented an argument that gay marriage will damage society. All you've argued is that it will change society.
Quote:
I have articulated why marriage is an important building block that should, absent extraordinary evidence showing that change will benefit the institution that benefits society that benefits ALL the people, survive unscathed. In short, if it isn't broken, don't fix it.
The exact same argument used to fight mixed-race marriage.
Quote:
You are potentially sacrificing, or at least weakening a critical institution in our society, and seem to do so glibly.
How? How does gay marriage "sacrifice" mixed-gender marriage?
Quote:
As far as your "remark" re Scientology, I'll ignore it as the gibberish it is.
Come on, now. By your own logic, there's no discrimination happening as long as everybody is equally Scientologized. Or does the will and desires of the individual suddenly take on a bit of significance?
Not that it matters. You can fight a delaying action, you may keep a few gay couples from visiting each other in hospitals, see to it that they don't feel equal, add a little to the suffering in this world - but you're losing.
I understand the judges defined the ruling very narrowly so that the U.S. Supreme Court has the option to sidestep the larger issue of whether or not denying gay marriage conflicts with the U.S. Constitution.
Absolutely true.
I read a very compelling legal analysis by a law scholar who made this very point. Apparently the 9th Circuit crafted their ruling so narrowly to include only California and not the other states in their jurisdiction so that the US Supreme Court can avoid this "hot button" issue by refusing to hear it. The ruling carefully cited Justice Kennedy's opinion in Romer v. Evans to enhance the wisdom of this decision.
Today was not a good day for opponents of Marriage Equality.
In the absence of compelling evidence that it is in the best interest of society as a whole, to redefine marriage in either the sexes involved or numbers involved, my opinion is leave it as it has served society so well over the centuries.
I guarantee you that at some point, somebody will demand that she and her two lesbians friends should be united in marriage, or a man and his two prospective brides be so united. Once you have erased the traditional definition, you have no legitimate standing whatsoever to extend such treatment to other deviations from the traditional definition.
This cese will be reviewed if for no other reason than one of the judges had a dog in the hunt inasmuch as he is an admitted homosexual.
As long as when the legalize it they treat everyone the same then it will pass the equal protection clause. But if and when the legalize it the attempt to exclude particular threesomes then it will be a violation of the equal protection clause.
I think both sides in this debate tend to frame the issue incorrectly. The state doesn't get to define marriage any more than it gets to define other things it must legislate. Murder is murder, for example, whether or not the state happens to have laws against it. Motherhood is motherhood. Labor is labor. Debt is debt. The job of the state is to conform its laws to reality, not pretend to "create" reality by decree.
Just as the state doesn't get to define marriage, neither do numerical majorities get to define marriage. Marriage exists as an objective reality apart from what any majority happens to say about it. Same-sex "marriage" will continue to be a fiction even when a majority of voters approve of it.
An even bigger threat to society than same-sex "marriage" itself is the false idea, which is embedded in the proposal, that the state has the authority to define reality out of existence. That's an incredibly dangerous precedent. Next thing you know the state will start declaring certain categories of persons to be non-persons ... oh, wait, the state already does this with unborn children.
If the opposing argument is simply that majorities get to define reality, well, that isn't much of an improvement in my view.
So what's the solution? If marriage exists as an independent, objective reality apart from the state and apart from the votes of majorities, who decides what it is? God decides. God is the author of marriage. God has a voice, and that voice is the Church. If we ignore God and ignore the Church in this debate, we are ultimately throwing ourselves at the mercy of the state.
The courts aren't deciding what your Church does concerning marriage. The simple fact is same-gender marriage was legal. Same gender couples who were married prior to Prop 8 are still legally married in CA. Prop 8 violated the equal protection clause of the US. Constitution. The state is prevented from "declaring certain categories of persons" by the equal protection clause.
so if, by referendum, voters decided to give the green light to something like internment camps, some of y'all would be OK with that?
Internment camps are constitutional. Not sure it would be up to referendum it would be a national security issue a function of the executive branch.
A society has every right to define its social institutions. Despite the best efforts of the gay lobby the voters of California decided that marriage is between one man and one woman as it has been for 6000 years or so.
Two liberal judges don't get to out vote millions of citizens. SCOTUS will get it right in due time though.
In the majority of jurisdictions in the US, is remains unbroken. However, it might become shattered in California if the prop falls. As anyone but a buffoon knows, marriage in the US has historically, in the main, been between 1 man and 1 woman. In fact, of all the thousands of married couples I have met either in Europe or America, since 1960 or so, I have met exactly 0 who were other than 1 man, 1 woman.
It should, IMHO, remain so, even though from time to time the idea of multiple wives has a certain appeal to it. Nonetheless it isn't about my desires, it is about the desires of society for its best interest.
Come to CA. There are lots of legally married same-gendered couples. The lead lives pretty much like anybody else. The facts remain that in CA same-gendered marriages were legal in CA prior to prop 8, it really doesn't matter what the rest of the country does. CA most treat all its citizens equally according to the US. Constitution.
Location: San Luis Obispo and Santa Barbara Counties
6,390 posts, read 9,681,502 times
Reputation: 2622
Quote:
Second, the purpose of society is to survive and provide a framework for the members to live, prosper and grow.
Quote:
You are potentially sacrificing, or at least weakening a critical institution in our society, and seem to do so glibly.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Flame Angel
Or,
If it isn't broke, don't fix it.
Based on the actual fact based universe, none of your contentions hold water, to whit:
Quote:
Nearly 40 percent of babies born in the United States in 2007 were delivered by unwed mothers, according to data released last month by the National Center for Health Statistics. The 1.7 million out-of-wedlock births, of 4.3 million total births, marked a more than 25 percent jump from five years before.
That was in 2007,, undoubtedly higher today. Add to that, about 50% of marriages in America end in divorce, it is fact, that marriage as a foundation stone of our society is done broke.
Sorry, but that's just not true. There were gay unions in human history in different cultures.
I would like to see historical evidence of that. Find a link.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
How do you think we have interracial marriages?
I would like to see your scientific evidence that proves that races exist, therefore "interracial marriage" should have been prohibited.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
How do you think women are allowed to vote and own property?
Suffrage.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
Your position is neither logical nor supported by historical evidence.
None of yours are either.
Quote:
Originally Posted by jbcmh81
If you are really not religious, then your reasoning makes even less sense.
I'm not religious, I use science and logic to support my beliefs on homosexual marriage.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
