Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I can't believe people think gay marriage will be banned FOREVER. We have become steadily more and more tolerant of Gays over this past century, or half century. Its inevitable. You have to know that.

We've become no more tolerant of Incest or beastiality over the years though. Cultural evolution does not point to more acceptance of these acts. In fact, as a society we've become LESS tolerant of pedophilia and incest over the past several hundred years. It was long ago that Royalty regularly married their kin. Not so today.

Excellent points.

Yep. Just as I said in my first response. The backwards crowd will fight it as they always have. And they will lose as they always have.

[dalegg 143]

I can't believe people think gay marriage will be banned FOREVER. We have become steadily more and more tolerant of Gays over this past century, or half century. Its inevitable. You have to know that.

We've become no more tolerant of Incest or beastiality over the years though. Cultural evolution does not point to more acceptance of these acts. In fact, as a society we've become LESS tolerant of pedophilia and incest over the past several hundred years. It was long ago that Royalty regularly married their kin. Not so today.

As I said all along...this is a societal and cultural issue, not a constitutional or civil rights issue some make it out to be. Homosexuality is not illegal and they are free to be homosexual. However, the issue is that they want the state seal of approval and societal acceptance that marriage conveys. The courts should not be legislating from the bench or imposing societal norms on society at large. That's the way I see it.

I don't buy into the "we need to evolve as a society" logic. Why change an arrangement that has worked well in the past just for the sake of change for change's sake.

Not saying we need to evolve this way. I'm saying we will evolve this way, and I'm not making a statement as to whether this is positive or negative evolution. Its just reality. Resistance is futile. We have Gay congressman, Mayors, and Governors. Obviously we accept them.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

I can't believe people think gay marriage will be banned FOREVER. We have become steadily more and more tolerant of Gays over this past century, or half century. Its inevitable. You have to know that.

We've become no more tolerant of Incest or beastiality over the years though. Cultural evolution does not point to more acceptance of these acts. In fact, as a society we've become LESS tolerant of pedophilia and incest over the past several hundred years. It was long ago that Royalty regularly married their kin. Not so today.

As I said all along...this is a societal and cultural issue, not a constitutional or civil rights issue some make it out to be. Homosexuality is not illegal and they are free to be homosexual. However, the issue is that they want the state seal of approval and societal acceptance that marriage conveys. The courts should not be legislating from the bench or imposing societal norms on society at large. That's the way I see it.

I don't buy into the "we need to evolve as a society" logic. Why change an arrangement that has worked well in the past just for the sake of change for change's sake.

Why not?

What do you think the downside of this will be?

And how would you explain this to gays who want their official recognition of their relationships enshrined in law?

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I don't buy into the "we need to evolve as a society" logic. Why change an arrangement that has worked well in the past just for the sake of change for change's sake.

Yeah. Who ever thought it would be a good idea to let women leave that kitchen? And *gasp* even let them vote?

[dalegg 143]

I think I'd be more likely to support the notion that we need to preserve the "sanctity of marriage" and that a marriage between a man and a woman was a very special relationship if we actually treated marriage that way. If you follow the biblical guidelines for maintaining a marriage between a man and a woman then cheating would be illegal- or at least it wouldn't happen as often, having children would be mandatory, and Divorce would be illegal. I think we've already brought marriage down off the pedestal.

[Jack and Barbara 0]

I think I'd be more likely to support the notion that we need to preserve the "sanctity of marriage" and that a marriage between a man and a woman was a very special relationship if we actually treated marriage that way. If you follow the biblical guidelines for maintaining a marriage between a man and a woman then cheating would be illegal- or at least it wouldn't happen as often, having children would be mandatory, and Divorce would be illegal. I think we've already brought marriage down off the pedestal.

I think you are referring to a religious marriage then, which is not the basis of this topic -civil marriage. Unless I read the stroy wrong, I don't think the CA SC judge mandated that religious groups now marry homosexuals.

[Mr. Big Dog 10,747]

I think we've already brought marriage down off the pedestal.

Undeniably true. If marriage was what it once was, there wouldn't be any need for prenups.

[dalegg 143]

I think I'd be more likely to support the notion that we need to preserve the "sanctity of marriage" and that a marriage between a man and a woman was a very special relationship if we actually treated marriage that way. If you follow the biblical guidelines for maintaining a marriage between a man and a woman then cheating would be illegal- or at least it wouldn't happen as often, having children would be mandatory, and Divorce would be illegal. I think we've already brought marriage down off the pedestal.

I think you are referring to a religious marriage then, which is not the basis of this topic -civil marriage. Unless I read the stroy wrong, I don't think the CA SC judge mandated that religious groups now marry homosexuals.

Well sure. The objection to gay marriage is mostly rooted in religion, isn't it? But even if it isn't, I would make the same arguements.

Edited May 16, 2008 by dalegg

[Jack and Barbara 0]

I think I'd be more likely to support the notion that we need to preserve the "sanctity of marriage" and that a marriage between a man and a woman was a very special relationship if we actually treated marriage that way. If you follow the biblical guidelines for maintaining a marriage between a man and a woman then cheating would be illegal- or at least it wouldn't happen as often, having children would be mandatory, and Divorce would be illegal. I think we've already brought marriage down off the pedestal.

I think you are referring to a religious marriage then, which is not the basis of this topic -civil marriage. Unless I read the stroy wrong, I don't think the CA SC judge mandated that religious groups now marry homosexuals.

Well sure. The objection to gay marriage is mostly rooted in religion, isn't it?

But seeing as how the article had to do with law (church separated from state) and not religion, it is unimportant how the major religious leaders of the world view the concept of homosexuality. There are many Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc that approve (or at least don't disapprove) of homosexuality, but again that has to do with religion, not law.

[dalegg 143]

I think I'd be more likely to support the notion that we need to preserve the "sanctity of marriage" and that a marriage between a man and a woman was a very special relationship if we actually treated marriage that way. If you follow the biblical guidelines for maintaining a marriage between a man and a woman then cheating would be illegal- or at least it wouldn't happen as often, having children would be mandatory, and Divorce would be illegal. I think we've already brought marriage down off the pedestal.

I think you are referring to a religious marriage then, which is not the basis of this topic -civil marriage. Unless I read the stroy wrong, I don't think the CA SC judge mandated that religious groups now marry homosexuals.

Well sure. The objection to gay marriage is mostly rooted in religion, isn't it?

But seeing as how the article had to do with law (church separated from state) and not religion, it is unimportant how the major religious leaders of the world view the concept of homosexuality. There are many Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc that approve (or at least don't disapprove) of homosexuality, but again that has to do with religion, not law.

It may be unimportant how the major religious leaders of the world view the concept of homosexuality, but it is totally relevant how the religious leaders of the United States view it. Take the religious element out and there is hardly a side arguing about it. Religious leaders do affect politicians, who affect policy.

[Jack and Barbara 0]

Another way of putting it would be to ask the main question of this debate - should civil marriages between homosexuals be legal?

The other question, should religious marriages between same-sex couples be allowed is different, and IMO, I believe that is up to the religon. So long as it does not persecute individuals and act illegally, it is a religious issue and should be changed through the members of the organization as opposed to law (assuming the members want to change it).

For instance, it is not the government's place to say whether there should be altar girls in Catholic masses. Instead, if enough Catholics want this change to happen, they should go through other non-federal routes to make it happen.

[dalegg 143]

I think I'd be more likely to support the notion that we need to preserve the "sanctity of marriage" and that a marriage between a man and a woman was a very special relationship if we actually treated marriage that way. If you follow the biblical guidelines for maintaining a marriage between a man and a woman then cheating would be illegal- or at least it wouldn't happen as often, having children would be mandatory, and Divorce would be illegal. I think we've already brought marriage down off the pedestal.

I think you are referring to a religious marriage then, which is not the basis of this topic -civil marriage. Unless I read the stroy wrong, I don't think the CA SC judge mandated that religious groups now marry homosexuals.

Well sure. The objection to gay marriage is mostly rooted in religion, isn't it?

But seeing as how the article had to do with law (church separated from state) and not religion, it is unimportant how the major religious leaders of the world view the concept of homosexuality. There are many Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc that approve (or at least don't disapprove) of homosexuality, but again that has to do with religion, not law.

It may be unimportant how the major religious leaders of the world view the concept of homosexuality, but it is totally relevant how the religious leaders of the United States view it. Take the religious element out and there is hardly a side arguing about it. Religious leaders do affect politicians, who affect policy.

By the way, I'm not really sure I'm commenting on the article anyway. I haven't really read it. Just about the issue of banning gay marriage in the first place.

Edited May 16, 2008 by dalegg

[Jack and Barbara 0]

[quote

But seeing as how the article had to do with law (church separated from state) and not religion, it is unimportant how the major religious leaders of the world view the concept of homosexuality. There are many Christians, Muslims, Jews, etc that approve (or at least don't disapprove) of homosexuality, but again that has to do with religion, not law.

It may be unimportant how the major religious leaders of the world view the concept of homosexuality, but it is totally relevant how the religious leaders of the United States view it. Take the religious element out and there is hardly a side arguing about it. Religious leaders do affect politicians, who affect policy.

Again, there is religious marriage and civil marriage. You could make the arguement of taking the religious element out and there is hardly a side arguing about it just as one could make the arguement of taking out those who are Democrats and Republicans and there is a hardly a side arguing about it. It is not just a religious issue IMO.

BTW, there are atheists to the religious debate just as there are independents to the Democrat/Republican similar arguement I proposed.

[dalegg 143]

It is not just a religious issue IMO.

It mostly is though. But for the sake of arguemant, I can take the religious elemant out, and the point is the same.

"If you follow the intentions for marriage between a man and a woman then cheating would be illegal- or at least it wouldn't happen as often and divorce would be illegal." People don't treat marriage between a man and a woman the way it was intended.

[Marc and Olga 0]

As I said all along...this is a societal and cultural issue, not a constitutional or civil rights issue some make it out to be. Homosexuality is not illegal and they are free to be homosexual. However, the issue is that they want the state seal of approval and societal acceptance that marriage conveys. The courts should not be legislating from the bench or imposing societal norms on society at large. That's the way I see it.

No it's not...it's equal protection under the law. Either the state of California discontinues recognizing marriage between two people or it allows any two adults to marry...simple as that.

They could change it to reflect the original intention of marriage, a union between an unmarried man and an unmarried woman.

You can try to take the religion out of marriage but then don't you actually loose the spirit of marriage and it merely becomes a legal contract?

I mean weren't marriages first religious then civil?