CA Prop. 8 shot down

[dixon76710]

So you want heterosexuals to be "special" seeing as how they are extending the privilage to any two consenting adults.

They are not. 6 states with gay marriage still have laws prohibiting closely related couples from marrying. Still have laws that annul or disolve platonic marriages for a failure to consummate the relationship. The prop 8 case doesnt seek to extend marriage to any two consenting adults, but instead only extends it to gay couples. They use the judicial fiction/finding of fact that the limitation of marriage to heterosexual couples, as old as human civilization itself, was not intended to include heterosexual couples, the only couples who procreate, but was instead purely to exclude homosexuals, motivated by animus towards homosexuals. Which is absurd. From BC Roman law, BC Rome that celebrated and relished homosexual behavior,

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

Its freakin biology. Has nothing to do with animus towards homosexuals. Has as much to do with animus towards homosexuals as the fact that all the birds around here pair off into heterosexual couples each spring to build nests, has to do with animus towards homosexual birds. Not at all.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

You most certainly are condemning an entire group of people. The people who don't believe in Queer marriage are being labeled by you as "HATERS and BIGOTS". Now you're lying. That's also a sin, Mr. Christian.

Not believing in something is guite different then trying to get the Government to ban it.
I don't believe in oily peanut butter, so is it correct for me to petition the Government and force everyone to give up their oily peanut butter?

 

[Damocles]

???? I answered your question. And Im 51 yrs old. Been married 1 1/2 of those 51 years, back in the 80s. Im not seeking government blessings. Since you havent quite figured out what is going on with prop 8, it is the homosexuals who soooooooo desparately seek government blessing of their relationship. Seeking "respect" from the rest of society and "dignity" for themselves, believing that government endorsement will bring them.

Again, because you have a government "blessing" or sanction, they seek to have the same. Why not get rid of your sanction and let the gays do whatever they please? Why is it so important that the government make your life easier because you are married? Why should the government have the power to bless your relationship and deny blessings?

Why do your blessings come from government?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

That's fair. So stop saying homosexuals are born that way. Look at your birth certificate. Does it say you sex is male/female or does it say homosexual/heterosexual?

You're not helping your point here at all.
Since it doesn't say heterosexual or homosexual; all that proves is that one is predominently male or female genitalia.
This alone does not equate to sexuality.

 

[Alias]

How are they being prohibited from free exercise of our religion?

As a Christian, how do you feel about teaching creationism in our public schools?

 

[USFREEDOM911]

The term "seperation of church and state" is not in the US Constitution. It's' in the Communist Manifesto. The US Constitution says congress shall make no law prohibiting the free exercise of religion, yet Christians are being restricted every day in their religious freedom.

I agree and also feel that the public has misinterpreted what the restriction meant; but that's not part of this disagreement.
And now by your own admission; the Government has no right to say that homosexuals can't marry.

 

[dixon76710]

How do you reconcile that you are wanting to base laws solely on one religion?

??? No, youll find the same limitation to men and women in all the religions.

 

[WinterBorn]

??? No, youll find the same limitation to men and women in all the religions.

Hinduism has writings that both encourage and discourage homosexuality. Taoism has no official position on it. But there are writings that seem accepting of it. Most pagan religions have no problems with homosexuality. Universal Unitarianism supports gay marriage and homosexuality.

 

[dixon76710]

I'm talking about allowing two people who love each other sexually and want to establish a loving household.

Limiting marriage to sexual couples still must be justified by some legitimate governmental interest that would only be served in the case of sexual couples, just as you demand the limitation of marriage to heterosexuals must be justified. The single mother and grandmother down the street, who have joined together to raise their children, have formed a loving household. The presence or absence of sex between them is irrelevant to the stated governmental interest in forming loving homes.

 

[dixon76710]

Hinduism has writings that both encourage and discourage homosexuality. Taoism has no official position on it. But there are writings that seem accepting of it. Most pagan religions have no problems with homosexuality.

I was speaking of religions limitation of MARRIAGE to a man and a woman. Not limitations of sex to a man and a woman. Ancient greek and roman religions embraced homosexual behavior, but marriage was still limited to a man and a woman. Boys in the Sambia tribe all at about age 10 begin performing oral sex on the young warriors, believing the semen will make them great warriors. And when they get a little older they get them a 10 yr old boy to perform oral sex on him. BUT, when it comes time to have children, they all marry a woman.

Universal Unitarianism supports gay marriage and homosexuality.

Yeah, I should have limited my statement to pre 1990s

 

[USFREEDOM911]

They are not. 6 states with gay marriage still have laws prohibiting closely related couples from marrying. Still have laws that annul or disolve platonic marriages for a failure to consummate the relationship. The prop 8 case doesnt seek to extend marriage to any two consenting adults, but instead only extends it to gay couples. They use the judicial fiction/finding of fact that the limitation of marriage to heterosexual couples, as old as human civilization itself, was not intended to include heterosexual couples, the only couples who procreate, but was instead purely to exclude homosexuals, motivated by animus towards homosexuals. Which is absurd. From BC Roman law, BC Rome that celebrated and relished homosexual behavior,

"matrimonium is an institution involving a mother, mater. The idea implicit in the word is that a man takes a woman in marriage, in matrimonium ducere, so that he may have children by her."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Same-sex_marriage

Its freakin biology. Has nothing to do with animus towards homosexuals. Has as much to do with animus towards homosexuals as the fact that all the birds around here pair off into heterosexual couples each spring to build nests, has to do with animus towards homosexual birds. Not at all.

There are scientific reasons why close relatives are prohibitied from marriage, that involve inherant genetic problems.
We're not talking platonic relationships; but instead were discussing people who are in love with each other.
Prop 8 does not exclude heterosexual couples from marrying and nothing has been suggested that would preclude heterosexuals from marrying.
Since you like referring to history and other cultures; are you aware that there were Native American tribes that felt that a homosexual (our description) was a link between the man spirit and the spirit of women.
They were respected and treated with honor.

You also keep referring to biology and biology is what drives all of us; whether it be a heterosexual or a homosexual. It is "normal" for the majority of people, to want to be with and loved by someone we are compatible with and is willing to put up with our flaws.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Limiting marriage to sexual couples still must be justified by some legitimate governmental interest that would only be served in the case of sexual couples, just as you demand the limitation of marriage to heterosexuals must be justified. The single mother and grandmother down the street, who have joined together to raise their children, have formed a loving household. The presence or absence of sex between them is irrelevant to the stated governmental interest in forming loving homes.

After reading my previous response, I realize that I should have used the word "intamacy".
Are you suggesting that the mother and grandmother are being intimate?

 

[dixon76710]

I agree and also feel that the public has misinterpreted what the restriction meant; but that's not part of this disagreement.
And now by your own admission; the Government has no right to say that homosexuals can't marry.

Nonsense. Christianity has prohibitions against murder. That doesnt mean that government cant adopt christianity's prohibitions against murder. Doesnt make a christians advocacy of laws against murder, illigitimate in the governments view.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Nonsense. Christianity has prohibitions against murder. That doesnt mean that government cant adopt christianity's prohibitions against murder. Doesnt make a christians advocacy of laws against murder, illigitimate in the governments view.

But you've failed to recognize that the governments prohibition against murder was set by the PEOPLE and is addressed in many religions.
You're really clutching at straws here; but you are building a nice straw man defense.

 

[dixon76710]

After reading my previous response, I realize that I should have used the word "intamacy".
Are you suggesting that the mother and grandmother are being intimate?

An intimate relationship is a particularly close interpersonal relationship that involves physical or emotional intimacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimate_relationship

No. The single mother and grandmother down the street have a very emotionally intimate relationship. You meant what you originally said.

 

[WinterBorn]

Yeah, I should have limited my statement to pre 1990s

Oh, so only older religions count where our gov't is concerned? lol

 

[WinterBorn]

Nonsense. Christianity has prohibitions against murder. That doesnt mean that government cant adopt christianity's prohibitions against murder. Doesnt make a christians advocacy of laws against murder, illigitimate in the governments view.

Laws against murder are not based on Christianity. They protect the citizens from being killed.

What would laws against gay marriage protect citizens from?

 

[dixon76710]

But you've failed to recognize that the governments prohibition against murder was set by the PEOPLE and is addressed in many religions.
You're really clutching at straws here; but you are building a nice straw man defense.

Just as governments limitation of marriage to heterosexual couples was set by the PEOPLE and is addressed in many religions. Sooooo not sure of your point.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

An intimate relationship is a particularly close interpersonal relationship that involves physical or emotional intimacy.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intimate_relationship

No. The single mother and grandmother down the street have a very emotionally intimate relationship. You meant what you originally said.

No I mean exactly what I"ve explained. If people only wanted a sexual relationship, men would marry whores. It's the intamacy that people crave, wether they are hetrosexual or gay.

 

[USFREEDOM911]

Just as governments limitation of marriage to heterosexual couples was set by the PEOPLE and is addressed in many religions. Sooooo not sure of your point.

And now it's being address by the PEOPLE and many religions.
The laws are going to be changed, so that gays are going to be allowed to marry somene they love and want to have a relationship with.
No one is going to force 51 year old men to marry a man.