California Supreme Court struck down the state's gay marriage ban

Discussion in 'Current Events' started by Oversoul, May 15, 2008.

  1. Mooseman Isengar Tussle

    He's only part robot....... How about Roberto, the bank robbing robot..... sorta like Nixon....
  2. rokapoke Man Among Gods

    Sounds like somebody's itching for a clamping...
  3. DarthFerret Evil Sith Weasel

    I am all for here goes the counterpoint (and no, I do not take offense at various or differnt opinions)

    As for this first one. Genesis is chronologically before Leviticus and Deuteronomy. If you do believe in the Bible (which I do) then you know that Adam and Eve were the first and everyone else would be a brother or sister. Therefore, in the interest of population alone, interfamily relations are a must. However, after a certain period of time (be it acutal time, or measurement of population growth) God puts in place the law that you should not lie with your sister. Not sure if this is a good job of the chronological order or not.

    First off, 2 very different parts of the Bible. The first one is in the Old Testament and was part of the 10 Commandments. The second is in Romans, after the birth, death and ressurection. It is also stated that the comming of Jesus would break off all rules including the ten commandments and replace them with a simpler set. Will not go into all of that now, but hopefully shows how this is not a contradiction.

    It is a bit late, and I am a bit too tired to actually look this up, but statements this short are quite possibly taken out of context.

    I actually do not think that "keep them for yourselves" necessarily dictates rape. Mayhaps it means make of them your wife? We all know that women did not always have equal rights. They were told who to marry and when, and that was that.

    This is merely in rebut against the Bible contradictions.

    As for gay marriage, well, I do not agree with it. Many do not agree with me. That is why I love this country (America). Because we can voice these opinions, have friendly debate, and not hate each other, and it is legal. Not sure what I would do in a country that did not allow me to say such things (or would I even realize that it was a problem?) for the lockerroom comment...that is just the first example that came to mind. Same as a health club, or even a sports locker room. I do not think that female reporters have a "right" to be in a male team's locker room. Same as if it were a "gay" man. Also vice-versa.

    Also, I was citing the example of rape in nature to show that even though it is present, it does not make it right. I guess my biggest fear is where does it stop? Will gay marriages be enough? Or will it eventually grow to the point of something that seems really extreem right now. Will pedophiles ask for equal rights? What about confirmed and self-admitted terrorists? What about my equal right to crash this entire message board (don't worry, I have no intention of and no clue how to do that...he he)? Does the free information act cover child porn? Curse words? Sexually explicit material? Illegal drug sales (they are not illegal in every country right?). Lines must be drawn somewhere. The question is not only who draws the lines but where they must be drawn.

    If I believe gay marriage is immoral. Does that make it so?

    If someone else believes that pornographic material falls under freedom of the press, does that make it right?

    It will take much smarter minds than mine to figure this out. Until then, all I can do is stand by my own moral code and religious beliefs. And I expect everyone else to stand by thier own moral codes, etc, wheter they are the same or different than mine.

    Was any of that clear? It is late, and I am tired. I hope this made some semblence of sense.
  4. Oversoul The Tentacled One

    Um, first amendment again? The government doesn't get a say in who churches appoint as leaders. If a church wants to exclude gays from being pastors or whatever, it can. And if a church wants to have a gay pastor, it can do that too.

    Um, yes. Why not?

    Fine, except what's this about a right to exist? If you changed your mind and decided some people didn't have a right to exist, would you go around killing them or something?

    Actually, it's NOT the same as saying that not all men will rape a woman, but do you really want a guy in the girl's locker room? Locker rooms are segregated by gender because it's a societal standard. While we could debate the nuances of this standard and its origins, I don't think you could make a reasonable case that rape prevention was factored into it, because it was never about that. They are not segregated by sexual orientation.

    Let's see your proofs.

    Well, aside from the fact that it's misleading to say that the seal raped the penguin (it mounted it and humped it for a while), it is not "apparently" common. The even you're referring to was the first observed instance of its sort. And what's this about mammals being the most prevalent? That's wrong too. Where are you getting your information?

    And what does this have to do with anything? You seem to be trying to justify your belief that homosexuality is immoral. But you already granted that this was your personal opinion and you weren't about to tell people what to do, so how is it relevant?

    First amendment, once again.

    I'm not an anthropologist. What you're saying might be right, but I don't see how it accounts for polyandry.

    Well, I think that if the government is going to sanction marriage at all, then yeah, it should sanction any marriage between adults. But personally, I don't like marriage. Not that there aren't some good things about it and some rights people should have are kind of bound up in it now with the way it works, but we could do without government sanctioned marriage.

    DF's example was a high school locker room. A pedophile is someone who is sexually attracted to children. High school students are adolescents or even legal adults (I turned 18 when I was in high school). I know this is kind of nitpicky, but I think it's important because you put DF on the defensive by turning his example into the infamous "gays go after young boys" line.
  5. Oversoul The Tentacled One

    Yes, I'm double-posting. Sue me.

    Actually, I just thought my post was getting a little long and I wanted to address DF's last post separately.

    Okay, so Modus did open up the biblical contradictions can of worms. While I don't mind discussing that, it seems like it would hijack the thread. I don't really see how biblical contradictions relate to gay marriage.

    Oh well, I'll bite...

    Well, that's not really a contradiction. But it's kind of messed up. Something that was okay or even necessary before is all of the sudden "wicked"?

    But your idea that intrafamily (which is what I assume you mean when you say interfamily) relations was a must because a sizeable population needed to be developed does contradict our knowledge of biology. A single family that all has the same parents is much, much too small to survive as a population. And by that I mean they don't have enough genetic diversity. The inbreeding would wipe them out after a few generations.

    Context: The first scripture explains why the Sabbath is so special. It's because it is a sign of the covenant between the LORD (I forget which god that's referring to, El or Yah) and his people. It represents the seventh day of creation, on which he rested. The second scripture is part of Isaiah's prophecy about how Babylon would enslave the Hebrews. After making this dire prediction, there's a whole lecture on the glory and majesty of the LORD/God. The bit that's relevant to our discussion is one in which we learn that he never gets tired.

    There you go. Context. Unless I missed a part in one of those chapters where it said, "The following is a list of lies" it's a contradiction. Something that never tires can't rest.

    So after killing the kings of Midian and butchering all of the men, capture the women and children, then bring them to Moses. He is absolutely livid because some of these women may have had something to do with Balaam (like, talked to him). So he has them butcher all of the male children/babies and all of the women that are not virgins. But he has them keep the virgin females alive for themselves.

    And all you can say is that he might not actually have been instructing them to rape these girls? Where is your sense of proportion?

    Actually, you left the contradiction alone. If you seriously think there are no contradictions in the bible, I can generate a much more exhaustive list than what Modus did. And I'll even leave out implied contradictions or contradictions having to do with whether something was right or wrong at a given time.

    The part about Midian had nothing to do with contradictions though. Modus was using it as an example of rape being considered okay by biblical standards. I wouldn't even say it's implied, because in context, that's what "take them for yourselves" meant. Of course, I'm not an historian and I can't be sure that's right, but I must say the case for there not having been any rape going on there doesn't look good. And it's not the only rape-friendly passage in the bible. Not by a long shot. But even if we assume that "take them for yourselves" meant something other than rape, that doesn't change the bit about massacring everyone except for the virgin females.

    What kind of right? And are you saying that gay athletes should be barred from using locker rooms? This all seems pretty ridiculous.

    Okay, so this is a slippery slope fallacy. But why not? Why can't pedophiles and terrorists have equal rights?

    You're not making any sense. You do understand what equal rights means, don't you? It means if I am allowed to do something, you should be allowed to do it too. If I'm allowed to wear red and the government bans you from wearing red because you fit into some group, then we don't have equal rights. Neither of us has the right to hack other people's websites. Equal rights doesn't mean you can do whatever you want. It just means you aren't marginalized. This seems simple.

    Well, there's this thing we have for that called the law. You may have heard of it. It's not perfect, but it does draw lines, lots of them.
  6. Mooseman Isengar Tussle

    Does anyone really have to answer this question? Isn't it obvious? These types of people are infringing on another's rights without their consent......

    What about Polygamy? If all parties are of legal age and are consenting without any coercion? Marriage is now a governmental institution that confers certain rights and responsibilities to the parties involved..... Church's are free to not preform certain marriages as they deem necessary..... But, those same said church's should have no extra power to tell the Government what kind of marriages it can perform and sanction.....

    That said, I think both polygamy and other non-standard marriages should not be sanctioned by the government.... there are enough provisions for non-standard unions in our legal system..... what I don't think is needed is for insurance companies and governmental assistance to be burdened with non-standard marriages.
  7. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Here's a thought: Did all of these rights/privileges now conferred by the government originate when religious institutions WERE the government?
  8. Modus Pwnens Eligible for User Title

    An interesting choice of words, as that's exactly what this whole debate is all about, whether gay people should be allowed to marry or not. Or do gay people have no rights?
  9. DarthFerret Evil Sith Weasel

    Kinda wierd how you automatically assume that if a gay person is not allowed to marry that he/she has no rights at all. Sounds like 2 seperate arguments.

    A gay person should be entitled to all rights that non-gays are, however, what makes it a right to enter a marriage. Is that not more of a privelege, kinda like a drivers license?

    Maybe the standard definition of marriage needs to be gone over. I recently (not sure why) looked up common law marriage. In Texas it is not called that, but it boils down to the same thing. To be common law married there are 3 requirements:

    #1. There must be co-habitation.

    #2. They must have introduced themselves as husband and wife at least 3 times in a public venue of any sort.

    #3. They both must agree at some point to become married.

    That is all it takes. The only confusion I had is, does this forego the need of a marraige license? I still have not found an answer. The closest I came was that you could go to the courts, and file something that would show the legality of your marriage.

    Back to the gay marriages now. Is marriage a priveldge or a right? After that is defined, it should be pretty simple.

    If it is a right, then obviously they can get married, no matter what anyone thinks of it. However, any religious organization should also have the option to refuse to perform the service. (not sure how you could force them anyway).

    If it is a priveledge, then it is back up for debate.

    Everything else aside, this may be where the arguments should be going to.
  10. Modus Pwnens Eligible for User Title

    If that's all, let's take a quick look at the Universal Declaration of Human Rights (yes, i know you Americans have Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib, but let's stick to the subject here), in specific article 16:

    Article 16.

    (1) Men and women of full age, without any limitation due to race, nationality or religion, have the right to marry and to found a family. They are entitled to equal rights as to marriage, during marriage and at its dissolution.

    (2) Marriage shall be entered into only with the free and full consent of the intending spouses.

    (3) The family is the natural and fundamental group unit of society and is entitled to protection by society and the State.


    So yes, I would say it's a right. (No references to drivers license there by the way ;))
  11. Mooseman Isengar Tussle

    That is not what this is all about..... it's about health and financial benefits from a state recognized marriage.... period..... all people, regardless of all orientations can have #1, 2 and 3 in the US...... but to get the benefits is the key to the argument.....

    MP: Are you a hater of the US? Granted those two instances are a stain on our national pride, but you can't be condoning those that it was done to, they were not innocent victims?.
  12. Modus Pwnens Eligible for User Title

    It being noted that I have nothing against individual Americans (stupidity isn't a crime.. sorry, couldn't resist :p), I do dislike the way America thinks it's so much better than the rest of the world.

    And just a quick reply, before we return to the topic, if those people really aren't innocent, why not give them a fair trial?
  13. Mooseman Isengar Tussle

    Because the Bush admin thinks being sneaky is better than being open and honest..... we Americans were mislead in our fear after 9/11 and have been trying to undo the harm done, but it takes time to peacefully move an entire nation..... Try getting the EU to agree to something quickly..... it takes years.....
  14. Melkor Well-Known Member

    I'd have to say it's one big constant orgy of sex and violence here at ground zero in San Francisco. The roaming mobs in the street are so large and dangerous that straight people can't even get to City Hall to turn in their now worthless marriage licenses. Fire also appears to be raining down from the heavens, cleansing at least parts of the City. Should be a good party while it lasts.
    This just in, dogs and cats living together! Mass Hysteria!

    Common law marriage doesn't even exist in most states now, it was mostly a creation of frontier times when it wasn't always practical or convenient to get official marriage licenses.

    I agree with DF that the Government shouldn't be in the marriage business but the fact of the matter is it is, and isn't getting out anytime soon. So if the Government is going to give legal rights to certain people, then they have to give them to others, unless there is a compelling state interest otherwise. The potential "damage" caused by homosexuals getting married is just too speculative and attenuated to be judicially cognizable. That's my legal response. My political response is that this issue still needs time to work itself out in the public forum and I'm not sure whether the Court's action helps or hurts.
  15. Oversoul The Tentacled One

    I'll grant you that for terrorists if you like. It's a matter of semantics. We arrest people for murder, trying to blow stuff up, etc. Not for being a terrorist or admitting to being a terrorist. I would say that terrorists should have the same rights as everyone else. But being able to commit acts of terrorism without consequence isn't one of those rights. Of course, if it is necessary for one to commit an act of terrorism in order to be considered a terrorist (and I'm guessing that you would say it is), then terrorists are indeed infringing on the rights of others.

    But pedophiles? I'm guessing you mean child-molesters. It's a pet-peeve of mine, but common enough that I should expect it. Not all child molesters are pedophiles and certainly not all pedophiles are child molesters.

    Having a driver's license isn't a right. But being able to get one, provided one meets the prerequisites, is. If the government denied all homosexuals the ability to obtain a driver's license, I'd call that an infringement of their rights. Excluding people for medical reasons is different: it presents too great a safety risk. Getting married doesn't risk anyone's life.

    America doesn't think anything. It's just a country. People think. Countries are stupid. What does this have to do with anything, anyway?

    Edit: Meh, I didn't realize that your reply to Mooseman was because he asked you about the way you brought up Guantanamo Bay. So that's fair. I find it irrelevant and bit snide. On the other hand, it's worth mentioning that the U.S. doesn't have a flawless human rights record and our current system may not exactly be the gold standard for such things...
  16. Mooseman Isengar Tussle

    There is a difference, but is that enough to make a difference..... both are a danger to society.
  17. Oversoul The Tentacled One

    So someone who has never committed a crime and has no intention of doing so is a danger to society?
  18. Mooseman Isengar Tussle

    Yes, Oversoul..... There is no defense for either... and intentions are never exact or always kept...... You can never know another's intention, just infer or deduce it, even if they tell you..... you can only know your own.....
  19. Melkor Well-Known Member

    Yay, Thought Crimes~!
  20. Mooseman Isengar Tussle

    Actually, I just said they are a threat, not criminals...... And thus do not deserve "equal-rights".....

    What I don't ever hear from anyone is anything about equal responsibility. Just rights, rights, rights..... maybe people should take the responsibility along with the rights....... Unfortunately there is no Bill of Responsibility.....

    Maybe I should write one..... ha ha ha ha

Share This Page