The Same People

JJooJJ here are my responses to your post:

1) your comment to nharmonic is funny to me because you are outraged by his beliefs yet you want everybody to accept your beliefs as a given right. I hope your partner isn't a gay black man or there will be trouble in your house.
2) bigotry is taught, this I agree with. But if the young people of today are so such more open why do hate crimes continue to sky rocket each year?
3) Coment to legalmama - naive to thin that laws can be put into place that are fair to all. There are laws in place that are unfair to a greater percentage of the population than your 1%.
4) coment to ajg221 is true but what I think you fail to realize is that many people are upset not because it is gay marriage as much as our politics and tv and left wing nut jobs in the government doing so much for such a small population when their time could be spent doing a better job for the masses. Also based on those numbers why would you want to get married (yes I am married, 5 years.)
5) I think that Jesus took care of the stoning thing with a simple statement, "Let he without sin cast the first stone."
5a) Before you bash a religion based government you bette rthink back to when this country was founded and during the making of the greatest country on earth our government was based 100% of religion. take a tour of DC and on all the buildings there religous quotes and scriptures.
6) Civil rights....discrimination or segregation on the ground of race, color, religion, or national origin or sex. According to the Civil Rights act of 1964 you have no civil rights as a gay person.
7) Move to Massachusets, but wait to move to California because the decision by the court can be voted in November by the people to be overturned. Remember:that this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom -- and that government of the people, by the people, for the people. We the poeple have the last word not 7 high and mighty want to be in the news judges.

Re: louis66 -- why should marriage between gay cousins be prohibited? You state that this should be illegal because of "the medically acknowledged risk of birth defects for any children resulting from such a union." But there can be no natural children from the "union" of a gay couple. So why the prohibition? Allow gay cousins (and gay brothers, and gay sisters, and a mom and daughter, and a dad and son, etc. etc.) to marry, because there can be no articulated reason not to. Unlike with minors or animals (the other two prohibitions mentioned by louis66) the persons involved in the above pairings are all consenting adults. As this seems to be the standard applied by the pro-gay marriage side of the debate (they love each other, they are consenting adults, they are not harming others), this must be allowed. So why the inconsistency?

to - zimme71 - judge not lest ye be judged...and hopefully you don't eat shrimp, cuz that's an abomination...and don't touch a woman who is on her period, cuz that is forbidden. You must only wear cotton, not a mixed thread...and I could go on and on. GodHatesShrimp.com is a perfect webiste to show how the christian right has cherry picked the parts of the bible that they want to enforce, while they sit at home and eat shirmp, covet they neighbors wife, and bring judgement across the world around them. I have been with my partner for 10 years...can't get married but Brittney Spears can, several times over- WHO is ruining the sanctity of marriage here?????

Someone at some point said not to argue with idiots because they would just bring you down to their level. On that note, I'm outta here. I'm going to go work on showing someone that lesbians aren't bad people... Before I go I want all the gays and gay supporters to know that you are fighting the good fight. You are blessed and lets keep working until the world gets it right. We can lead by example, we can weaken hatred.

....

The family is ordained of God. Marriage between man and woman is essential to His eternal plan. Children are entitled to birth within the bonds of matrimony, and to be reared by a father and a mother who honor marital vows with complete fidelity. Happiness in family life is most likely to be achieved when founded upon the teachings of the Lord Jesus Christ. Successful marriages and families are established and maintained on principles of faith, prayer, repentance, forgiveness, respect, love, compassion, work, and wholesome recreational activities. By divine design, fathers are to preside over their families in love and righteousness and are responsible to provide the necessities of life and protection for their families. Mothers are primarily responsible for the nurture of their children. In these sacred responsibilities, fathers and mothers are obligated to help one another as equal partners. Disability, death, or other circumstances may necessitate individual adaptation. Extended families should lend support when needed.

We warn that individuals who violate covenants of chastity, who abuse spouse or offspring, or who fail to fulfill family responsibilities will one day stand accountable before God. Further, we warn that the disintegration of the family will bring upon individuals, communities, and nations the calamities foretold by ancient and modern prophets.

We call upon responsible citizens and officers of government everywhere to promote those measures designed to maintain and strengthen the family as the fundamental unit of society.

This proclamation was read by President Gordon B. Hinckley as part of his message at the General Relief Society Meeting held September 23, 1995, in Salt Lake City, Utah.

Hallelujah! Some one who sees eye-to-eye with me! When it bolis right down to it, the issue is LOVE, not the attack on traditional, heterosexual marriage. Do not tell me who I can love.

Here is what actually matters. We live in the United States of America. A Democratic Republic (look that up if you need to). Separation of Church and State is one of our most important doctrines. Also, even if we didn't have it, which Religion would we choose? The one with the most people that are here (probably because their ancestors moved here earlier), the one that gets the most votes as the best? Religion is not an argument against allowing homosexual marriage (although I much prefer civil unions). Thinking it's gross is not an argument against it either. You have every right to practice your religion and I have every right to practice mine and the government will protect us both. But when we use religion to tell other people what to do, the government can and should protect them. I am Christian, but I can't believe in every word of the bible because I know it was written by men. God did not take over their bodies and force them to write exactly as he spoke. The bible is probably littered with notions of the time. Anyway, in the context of legality, it is a secular and not a sacred issue and should extended to two people who love each other and want to share their lives with each other (please spare me the incest arguments, that's pathetic). In the sacred sense, your church need not recognize it. Gay people are not looking for God's approval, they are looking for the same recognition all the rest of you get. When they go up to be judged, then we will see what the truth is. How bad will you feel when there is a gay person sitting next to you in heaven?

It seems to me that homosexuals and lesbians want it both ways. They want to marry the same sex yet be in a relationship that is not same sex. Does each gay man refer to the other in the relationship as "my boyfriend"? Does each lesbian refer to the other in the relationship as "my wife"? However, clearly, whether homosexual or lesbian, one is certainly the "female/wife" in the partnership and the other is clearly the "male/husband". When I say "clearly" it is through observed mannerisms, dress, and speech.

One has to wonder if the author of this article considers that the Romans were vile and highly debauched individuals. Sexual perversion of the most obscene sort, murder and theft were ordinary and even expected acts, so much that Romans merely yawned upon the news. I don't think Americans should attempt to emulate Roman civilization. Recall also that the Romans extreme depravity also had a wee bit of a part in its final dissolution.

I also wonder if the author believes by merely declaring the debate 'dead', she makes it so. Isn't that just a bit pretentious, presumptuous and even quite arrogant? Who is she to rule the opinions of millions of Americans obsolete? Is this what democracy and debate mean to a social liberal? The elimination of the opposition by fiat? By venal decree, without hearing what some call a majority have to say? Is that what liberals mean when they talk of 'progress'? Isn't this an imposition of unconstitutional and untraditional values by a blue-state liberal minority on a more conservative majority? Where's my say? Where is my vote?
And the California Supreme Court doesn't make law for the rest of the nation. Where it might set a 'precedent' is obvious, but the I think the people should have more a say. The courts are for interpreting the law 'conservatively', and enforcing the laws thusly. This was very obvious to the founders. Instead, the courts now invent new 'rights' and 'laws'. Whereas there is room for women's equality and freedom of blacks within the framing founder's articles, there is no mention that a man might marry another man, or his dog, and no more a mention of support for abortion either. The courts have merely become liberal engines for social reconstruction, using the 'law' as a smokescreen to recreate America into some sort of utopia, while giving themselves a never ending litany of 'rights' to make themselves relevant. They need 'gay marriage' to retain power and influence. When they've succeeded with gay marriage, what's the next trendy social issue? The right for underage homosexual sex, so that any ten year old with a parental voucher can engage in sex with male adults? Bestiality, so long as the dog barks or the cat meows in agreement?

Finally, why should two men raise a child? Can't anyone see how bizarre, unnatural and concerning such a situation looks? Homosexual families thus become engines for homosexual indoctrination, and further erode the nuclear family, the cornerstone of civilization since first recorded history. And for those that say that lower animals engage in homosexuality, consider that these animals also eat their young, defecate wherever and generally live the lives of lower animals. What a prairie dog does under extreme conditions, or what a red-winged dragonfly does in Mongolia during the scarce mating season shouldn't apply to people, to civilization generally or to modern morality, ethics or society.

For all Christians struggling with the question of homosexuality, I highly recommend this article by Rev. Mel White.
http://www.soulforce.org/article/homosexuality-bible-gay-christian

Some have claimed that the Bible somehow endorses 'love' with respect to homosexuality. I can say it does not. The Bible is very emphatic on homosexuality. It says it is a sin. While you can love anything, from a barbacue grill to a pack of cigarettes, engaging in sex with either is generally considered a perversion. So love, either within the context of the Bible or not, is not equal to sex. Sex is a reproductive act, and marriage is intended to build families where the father impregnates the mother, thus bringing more people into the world. Homosexual marriage is thus ratinally impossible, unless you change and reduce what marriage means. I say all this as an atheist, and I can claim that there are many secular and logical arguments against homosexual marriage. A claim of support for 'love' is not one.

Recall also that while marriage is generally associated with 'religion', thus making attacks and changes on marriage easier within a more secular nation, marriage is a natural and logical extension of a man's desire to possess a woman he owns for the prospect of raing more children, just as nature declares. Homosexual relationships do not fit within the structure, and it is obvious that such marriages are merely cynical attempts to use a traditional institution to reap financial advancement, financial advancement reserved for those with the reproductive capacity to thus advance society in 'people capital'.

In short, homosexuals cannot breed, they can only indoctrinate. They can love all they want. but they certainly do not deserve the benefits of sexual marriage.

The reason infertile people are allowed to marry is because marriage is, generally, between a man and a woman. To change that state would be to discriminate, or to reduce the scope of marriage, whereas homosexual marriage wants to enlarge and change that scope. In other words, marriage is recognized, and has been recognized for millennia as between a man and a woman. Period. To change that with the advancement of science in the recent recognition of infertility is simply discrimination. That's why we have fertility programs...so men and woman, as it should be, can have children. Fertility programs correct a genuine wrong, whereas gay marriage correct a manufactured 'wrong'.

Uhhhh, no, it's not over. If a couple of thweeties, or a couple of bulls want to call themselves "married", whatever, but they're not. It's just a failure to face reality, like thweeties who've had their business chopped off, taken hormones, and talked the media into calling them women, and using the female pronouns. It's a simple refusal to face reality.

What you are talking about is legislating morality and that cannot be done. Granted the gay or lesbian person has certain inalienable rights like everyone else. Marriage, however, is not one of them. That institution is not man made but God ordained. Now, before you jump all over me regarding loving thy neighbor, etc. Just remember that Jesus said we are to love everyone, but we do not have to like their lifestyle. This human deranged legislation may continue on, but that doesn't make it right and there are millions of us who will not except that legislation. In fact, if you see us moving away from you at some point, i would duck, not that it will help.

The teaching of Jesus Christ is that we love, accept and not judge others, despite differences. Gay/Lesbian relationships are clearly outside the bounds of Christ-like behavior. I can love, accept and not judge a gay person, but to be in a same-sex relationship IS sinful. Just as I can accept a person who is an alcoholic, but it doesn't mean I condone the behavior. A church may not own the concept of marriage, but God does and it is clearly between a man and a woman - which is, btw, clearly following the teachings of Jesus Christ!

When two men can procreate naturally then they should be allowed to be married. I am so sick of gay people wanting to make society accept their DEVIANT behavior. What if a man wants to marry his sheep or dog? Shouldn't that be his right too? The human behind was created to excrete human waste, not for sexual pleasure. It is against everything decent. I should have the right to not be subjected to gay "marriage." By the way, it is NOT over and done with. I am a native Californian. I am embarassed and ashamed of the Supreme Court. If gay people want to be together then fine, but don't try to pretend that it is normal.

Let's focus on some different parts of the bible for once.

??? DEUTERONOMY 22:13-21
If it is discovered that a bride is not a virgin, the Bible demands that she be executed by stoning immediately.
??? DEUTERONOMY 22:22
If a married person has sex with someone else's husband or wife, the Bible commands that both adulterers be stoned to death.
??? MARK 10:1-12
Divorce is strictly forbidden in both Testaments, as is remarriage of anyone who has been divorced.
??? LEVITICUS 18:19
The Bible forbids a married couple from having sexual intercourse during a woman's period. If they disobey, both shall be executed.
??? MARK 12:18-27
If a man dies childless, his widow is ordered by biblical law to have intercourse with each of his brothers in turn until she bears her deceased husband a male heir.
??? DEUTERONOMY 25:11-12
If a man gets into a fight with another man and his wife seeks to rescue her husband by grabbing the enemy's genitals, her hand shall be cut off and no pity shall be shown her.

I'm split on this, although I tend to agree to ban same-sex marriage. Here's my (brief) rationale. Hope you agree.

First, marriage was mainy created in a religious context. Hence, that will summarize the Biblical references that others like to pontificate here. Part of most religious "contracts" state that you will accept children lovingly from God, which can be translated to mean a number of things, but NATURALLY, two females and/or two males cannot naturally create a child. Once a marriage takes place, they are now a family. Families traditionally were defiend in and by marriage; hence, same-sex advocates are really redefining what it means to be a family. This is where I lean towards being against same-sex marriage.

However, our country separates church and state. Unfortunately (depending on your point of view) the states (or country) believed that there was an inherent benefit to marriage (again, with origins in religion) and issued marriage licenses. Once that happened, the states gave benefits to this union (marriage) such as tax breaks, inheritances, etc. Once that happened, it created unequal rights since we (the state) were denying benefits to a group of people based on sexual orientation (and gender). Can 2 90-year olds marry? Yes. Can 2 3-year olds marry? Maybe not now, but we (the state) say that the age of reason for most contracts is 18 or 21. However, Catholics believe that you know right from wrong around ages 6-8. If that's true, couldn't we change the laws to say that a 9-year old who commits murder should get life (or the death penalty?)

I'm getting off point here, but I hope you get what I am saying. In the case of marriage, the state defined and licensed something it really shouldn't have done (there's nothing in the Constitution that says states should sanction marriage). However, states did that anyways and opened up these kinds of issues. That's why the only way to chage this is through amendments. Why? Because that's what our Constitution allows. If we do or don't like the way things are, we AMEND it (just like women's right to vote, blacks receiving equal treatment, etc.)

So, as convoluteted as that may sound, it boils down to the state defining what is beneficial to society and giving it (marriage) all kinds of benefits that exclude, discriminate and give unequal rights (as we define them) against a certain group of people.

If you are str8, ask yourself this one question...Do you choose to be attracted to the opposite sex? Or is it something that is innately a part of you? The answer is...you don't choose. It is who you are. Why would it be any different if you are gay? You don't make a choice about your sexuality, people. It is who you are. Educated people understand this concept. Sorry for those that aren't.