Court: California gay marriage ban is unconstitutional

[Jazz Spazz]

Once again, how is some one being gay having an affect on me? I haven't seen it yet. Gay people have been around before I was born. I'm sure racists back in the 60's had the same argument that blacks were some how affecting society.

Maybe you are not part of society? Do you watch more and more TV shows that joke about homosexuality, that have homosexual characters? Are there products out there that target the homosexual audience? Do doctors and hospitals have to devote more time to homosexual specific treatments or issues? Was Aids a huge deal years ago when it was thought there was nothing anyone could do to help with it? There are more ways... but just because you don't have first person interaction or contact with homosexual individual doesn't mean you don't get 2nd, or third, or fourth level "contact".

As to the blacks affecting society argument, blacks do affect society just as any other person does. You decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing for yourself. Personally I think it is a good thing depending on the individual, and in general a good thing. Lame argument though.

 

[kwb]

Maybe you are not part of society? Do you watch more and more TV shows that joke about homosexuality, that have homosexual characters? Are there products out there that target the homosexual audience? Do doctors and hospitals have to devote more time to homosexual specific treatments or issues? Was Aids a huge deal years ago when it was thought there was nothing anyone could do to help with it? There are more ways... but just because you don't have first person interaction or contact with homosexual individual doesn't mean you don't get 2nd, or third, or fourth level "contact".

As to the blacks affecting society argument, blacks do affect society just as any other person does. You decide if that's a good thing or a bad thing for yourself. Personally I think it is a good thing depending on the individual, and in general a good thing. Lame argument though.

You are seriously not blaming the whole AIDS things on the gays are you? Wow! Keep up the great work!

 

[Jazz Spazz]

Yes we both agree that there is an effect. KWB is arguing no effect. I am saying no negative effect. I do not see gay marriage as negative. I see individual marriages as good or bad depending on the peoples personalities that are in them. There will be positive and negative effecting marriages amoung straights and gays. Gay marriage itself is no more negative or positive then marriage as it stands now.

Maybe we can agree to disagree on this then. I know there are plenty of negative things going on with marriage, and as I stated in prior posts I think it all stems from the selfishness that is so prevalent in today's world. For the most part I'm not disagreeing with you on this, other than that I still see homosexual marriage as a whole as a negative for society. I see many issues with heterosexual marriage as a negative for society as well, but that's not the topic of this thread.

 

[kwb]

Also, doctors have to devote a lot of their time for many things other than some one being a homosexual. They always have and always will. I guess I should clarify my statement. I don't see how having gay marriage in a society has a negative effect. Like you said, we all have our opinions and I can respect yours.

 

[Stoked]

You are seriously not blaming the whole AIDS things on the gays are you? Wow! Keep up the great work!

Stop. That is not what he said.

 

[kwb]

Stop. That is not what he said.

My bad. I just reread it and I retract my post. Was in a hurry when I read it. I apologize.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

There's a big difference between holding an opinion and advocating that point of view and using the force of law to deny people the ability to exercise their own free will.

I'm sure you see pitfalls in the use and abuse of alcohol. Yet it is legal. The experiment in prohibition was a disaster. Letting people do as they please, even though it is bad for the rest of us, actually has better results than trying to force everyone to "live right."

Changing laws will not deny people the ability to exercise their own free will. They can still make whatever choices they want, it just will not be recognized by the government as marriage.

God makes laws and people are free to obey them or not obey them. If you disobey the law you are not able to receive the blessing and you are also open to any consequence that is attached to that law. You are still free to choose.
The law is a line drawn in the sand. People are still free to cross that line.
There is no forcing everyone to live right, it is just a standard that should be set.
Make the choice, but don't cry about the results.

People just want God to change where that line is drawn.
God will not change that, but people sure can attempt to get their government to change where they draw that line, and that is what is happening.

 

[Stoked]

Maybe we can agree to disagree on this then. I know there are plenty of negative things going on with marriage, and as I stated in prior posts I think it all stems from the selfishness that is so prevalent in today's world. For the most part I'm not disagreeing with you on this, other than that I still see homosexual marriage as a whole as a negative for society. I see many issues with heterosexual marriage as a negative for society as well, but that's not the topic of this thread.

I am ok with that.

On a side note I think defending marriage is a very noble goal. I just think requiring marriage classes and gettign rid of drunken strip weddings as a better way of doing that.

 

[Jazz Spazz]

I am ok with that.

On a side note I think defending marriage is a very noble goal. I just think requiring marriage classes and gettign rid of drunken strip weddings as a better way of doing that.

Those ideas could help as well. Of course anyone that doesn't want to get anything out of a marriage class will not. I'm with you wholeheartedly on the drunken strip weddings.

I had better get some work done today.

 

[Stoked]

Those ideas could help as well. Of course anyone that doesn't want to get anything out of a marriage class will not. I'm with you wholeheartedly on the drunken strip weddings.

I had better get some work done today.

We have made it this far so why start working now?

 

[Stoked]

Those ideas could help as well. Of course anyone that doesn't want to get anything out of a marriage class will not. I'm with you wholeheartedly on the drunken strip weddings.

I had better get some work done today.

True but I am hoping that it would weed out a few more of the people that really should not be getting married.

 

[Gameface]

...to force governments to recognize their relationship as a marriage.

You want government out of the drug busting business and government involved in the homosexual relationship business. That doesn't make sense to me.

Government shouldn't be in the marriage business. They should be in the contract enforcement business. Marriage is nothing more than a contract as far as the government is concerned. The government doesn't give sanction to marriage as a spiritual bond.

Government is currently in the homosexual relationship regulation business. I want them out!

 

[PearlWatson]

Government shouldn't be in the marriage business. They should be in the contract enforcement business. Marriage is nothing more than a contract as far as the government is concerned. The government doesn't give sanction to marriage as a spiritual bond.

Government is currently in the homosexual relationship regulation business. I want them out!

That hasn't been your position to this point in the thread.

The pursuit of this overturning of prop 8 will just lead to replacing the state government with the federal government as the relationship regulators for all. It will lead to the exact opposite of what you just stated you wanted. Currently homosexuals can pursue a "spiritual bond" marriage all they wish. That doesn't seem to be enough for them. They still insist that a state that doesn't want to be involved in their relationship must be involved, and now the feds will take over state rights to regulate marriage and push President Santorum to pursue a constitutional amendment.

Government gives sanction (<--TAXES) to marriage as an environment for raising new citizens that will pay your social security.

 

[Gameface]

That hasn't been your position to this point in the thread.

The pursuit of this overturning of prop 8 will just lead to replacing the state government with the federal government as the relationship regulators for all. It will lead to the exact opposite of what you just stated you wanted. Currently homosexuals can pursue a "spiritual bond" marriage all they wish. That doesn't seem to be enough for them. They still insist that a state that doesn't want to be involved in their relationship must be involved, and now the feds will take over state rights to regulate marriage and push President Santorum to pursue a constitutional amendment.

Government gives sanction (<--TAXES) to marriage as an environment for raising new citizens that will pay your social security.

I don't value state government getting involved in social matters any more than I value the federal government getting involved. The federal government SHOULD override state governments when the states attempt to violate individual rights. That's what a ban on gay marriage is, a violation of individual rights. I think individuals should be able to associate with one another in any consensual way they choose, provided all parties are legally able to consent.

I don't think there should be tax breaks for marriage, or any other behavior. Taxes shouldn't be used to promote favorable behavior, or to discourage unfavorable behavior. That's not what I want my government doing. As it stands, however, married people do get preferential treatment in several ways. That only makes it even more unacceptable that all people aren't able to gain those benefits.

 

[Scat]

Taxes shouldn't be used to promote favorable behavior, or to discourage unfavorable behavior.

You mean like smoking, gambling, drinking, eating junkfood, etc.

 

[Stoked]

You mean like smoking, gambling, drinking, eating junkfood, etc.

lol

 

[Jazz Spazz]

You mean like smoking, gambling, drinking, eating junkfood, etc.

You forgot driving.

 

[PearlWatson]

I don't value state government getting involved in social matters any more than I value the federal government getting involved. The federal government SHOULD override state governments when the states attempt to violate individual rights. That's what a ban on gay marriage is, a violation of individual rights. I think individuals should be able to associate with one another in any consensual way they choose, provided all parties are legally able to consent.

I don't think there should be tax breaks for marriage, or any other behavior. Taxes shouldn't be used to promote favorable behavior, or to discourage unfavorable behavior. That's not what I want my government doing. As it stands, however, married people do get preferential treatment in several ways. That only makes it even more unacceptable that all people aren't able to gain those benefits.

Now you want government involved in "homosexual relationship regulation" again.

There is no such "individual" right to get any relationship recognized as marriage by government.

Marriage has always been restricted to one man and one woman. How has this suddenly become "unconstitutional?"

So homosexuals want the "preferential tax treatment" of being stay at home mommies? Makes sense.

 

[NUMBERICA]

Water got on my circuits again.

asdfkasljkdf;lkjasfd

So can someone tell me what the ill-effects of two guys getting married are? To them or to anyone else? Let's throw out the idea that prayer and electro-shock can 'fix' someone's gayness too, please.

 

[Stoked]

Water got on my circuits again.

asdfkasljkdf;lkjasfd

So can someone tell me what the ill-effects of two guys getting married are? To them or to anyone else? Let's throw out the idea that prayer and electro-shock can 'fix' someone's gayness too, please.

I heard a lot of talk about the demise of the family and by proxy our American civilization.