California Voters Approve Gay-Marriage Ban

Why not nullify all hetero marriages unless they can prove they are planning to breed kids... Sound fair and equal? We will call them civil unions and we will allow some states to argue if civil unions or marriage is too strong a word for heteros without babies...

...And, if heteros have 10 or so kids we can call it "happily" married even if they are divorced...

spendi, You don't even know what you are arguing for:

By heck ci. You are one lamebrain. You simply can't see that your use of "convincing" is entirely subjective. If you don't think the arguments I have put from must be consistent with our Constitution there are always opposing views; right is right, wrong is wrong and from who ever said hets must associate with homosexual activities? through being grouped under the same label, Valid arguments must be a) consistent with our Constitution, b) the majority cannot impose unequal treatment under our laws, and c) it must be logical based on humanity. Taking away the rights of others based on bigotry and discrimination doesn't make any sense.

I could agree with that if they were planning not to have kids. If it turned out they couldn't it's a different case than if they didn't intend to. It's a very grey area theologically and I'm tempted to plead "the silence of Cordelia". I think a Catholic priest faced with a het couple who had publicly declared that they had no intention of having kids might consult his Bishop. But I don't know. There are fees and emoluments to think about. And the free drinks at the reception.



You can call them whatever is agreed upon. The Church doesn't recognise divorce without special dispensations. $2 million for example. Or a failure to produce a male heir. Assuming the original wedding/s were in Catholic churches. Civil ceremonies are not regognised as marriage.

Why is the Catholic Church not declared unconstitutional? And proscibed.

As I explained in my last response to you I have not the faintest idea how to discuss any subject under the sun with someone who thinks that declaring the arguments of others "unconvincing" and asserting that any considerations he doesn't agree with are bigotry and discrimination.



It having been brought down from the mountain and set in stone.



I did. Do you wish me to use the words I feel like using. I said, somewhat poetically, it is an attack on the Goddess. That's as far as I'm prepared to go.

Rights were dealt with in President Kennedy's famous speech.

You're wandering around from cliche to cliche. Rex is more interesting.

All your assumptions are wrong. Show me evidence that are not?

Can you show me where these priests are getting all of these directives from the bible when they are not even written in the entire book? Solomon had a fricking harem! Abraham took a slave woman and his sister and SUPPOSEDLY fathered two entire races of children... David murdered the husband of a woman to sleep with her... And your priests call these people patriarchs and kings? But you believe in these fantastical biblical directive when they don't exist over basic commons sense human rights and equality... Two single consenting adults in love... Gays are to be stoned to death according to your priests "holy" book of love and brotherhood.. And there are "chosen people'' while others are dogs and infidels. Well that pretty much makes the book a bunch of total hogwash! Worse than hogwash it is criminal... CRIMINAL! And you dare invoke the bible when it comes to my own right to happiness and love? I am not asking for a harem and to be remembered as a great pillar of wisdom for it.

A marriage ceremony is not even once written about in the bible. No brides in white, no exchanging of rings, no dads giving away the bride, no strippers at the bachelor parties, no rice to be thrown, and no tin cans tied to the bumper... But there were parents selling their daughters off to old men with the highest dowry... Is this you definition of marriage today, and you call marriage of today TRADITIONAL? Your ideas are simply disjunct from all sensible logic and reason. You seem to forget, I am ordained clergy, I can legally marry people and you can't fool a fool.

love and consent have not always been a part of marriage. The only constants have been a lifetime commitment to union between and man and a woman. The lifetime part is gone, and now we are about to end the man/woman part. What remains of marriage? I think it remains only as a token of commitment between two people who are afforded special financial and legal goodies from the collective for the individuals who sign up. Then the question becomes why are we shoveling resources towards people who choose to get married, what is the collective getting out of the deal now that traditional marriage is gone? Not much I think. If the collective stops handing out the goodies forget about it, few people will bother to get married, because at the point it will be clear how worthless marriage has become.

hawk, Whether you know it or not, married couples pay more in taxes. If they're not serious about marriage, why would so many make the commitment?

Fewer people get married because the bible has clouded simple love and commitment up with female subservience to men... If there were less people trying to force these barbaric male egotistical biblical ides on women more people would marry out of the goodness and freedom of the heart. Constants? From whose perspective? You want to use the bible to justify that marriage is between a man and a woman but what of Solomon? Was that a lifetime commitment between a man and 50 or so women? And you call that a constant? I call that male chauvinism... nothing God inspired about that. At least not my god...

We have some Mormons today using that same, err, constant and tradition you speak of to justify them lording over women with polygamy and making babies like mosquitoes. Is this the "traditional" marriage you speak of? If you are going to use one passage in the bible to justify your brand of marriage why is it not fair game to use them all? Oh I see male kings can have many wives because they are kings... again this is pure crap! If marriage is used to procure children ask Henry the eights wives if they approve... Henry had to kill them all off to stay right with YOUR version of god...

And supposedly Paul the apostle used it in Ephesians to justify even more male chauvinism that a woman is to be a servant to her husband as a man is a servant to Jesus... Is that not a bit gay? And women are forbidden to speak in the church... Mary Magdalene was not forbidden to speak to Jesus... I guess the God of the bible does not care what women have to say as long as they obey men, huh? And you want to use this same book of hypocrisy and sexual tyranny to deny gays the right to marry? Doesn't the bible have enough blood on its hands? Islam uses these same passages to treat women like ****. I am a homosexual and still my conscience says this is terribly wrong. What of your conscience?

You talk of traditional marriage and how it is tied into the bible but traditional marriage is part of the freedom movement and age of reason and was long divorced from the bible's male chauvinist messages of hate, murder and subservience. And a woman cannot divorce even if her husband is being a pig, sleeping around and beating on her and the kids? A man cannot divorce his wife even if she is dressing like a whore and sleeping with every man on their street and bringing home diseases? So you are saying less men will want not marry if they are not promised a thousand virgins? What kind of woman wants to marry that kind of man? We have men in the church as we speak trying to take a woman's choice away with how she perceives her own body and procreation. Face it the bible treats woman like dogs...

The only truth about marriage I see in the bible is that it is mostly false. Marriage is about two consenting adults who love each other and view each other as equals and want to enjoy their lives together in love and the bonds matrimony. It is about trust, equality and love. It is not about their sexuality, or filling the earth with babies.. it is first about mutual love between two people. If it was based upon sex the harems might come into the equation. It is about two people of either sex who love each other and want to commit to a lifetime of monogamy. This lifetime may or may not involve kids. That is ultimately up to them to decide. After the children are grown and on their own the couple will still be together if love endures.

If one decides to go out and destroy and exploit the marriage with constant affairs the other should be free to simply divorce and in time find another who treats the marriage with respect and trust.

Just because one person become unfaithful does not mean both have. Is a family better off with one spouse always out dogging or cruising while the other remains monogamous? Or is the family unit better if the monogamous one finds another to be monogamous and faithful with? In other word a loving household rather than a household with constant bickering and hatred. In those cases children are often better off with a single parent and a protection order... Also, if two people split up and find other spouses then the children have two possible households to choose from rather than one dysfunctional one.

Again this, divorce is evil crap, is just unreasonable where not all people can live together under the same roof and it takes time to figure this out. Does better or for worse mean staying with a daddy who is a constant drunk or mommy who shoots up heroin? Some people have no intention of changing their terrible ways and there needs to be an out, both for the spouses sake and for any children involved. Let people marry let them divorce and let the children make a case on who they want to be with or let them fight it out in court and let a judge and laws based upon equality decide who of either spouse is the most responsible parent...

****, you are a regular Norman Rockwell aren't you.....I am sure that somewhere there are such marriages, but it is certainly not a requirement. The only part you have right is that marriage is no longer about sex, because now marriage status has nothing to do with being able to do it, or with who is available. At one time it did, this is yet another area where marriage used to mean something but no longer does

Rex--I've never mentioned the Bible on this thread.

I have not said one thing that restricts, or tries to restrict, your right to happiness and love. I don't even know what it means. It can embrace a wide range of things. It isn't a principle. And I don't see how well fed and well-heeled people can get to happiness and love on the stroke of a govenor's pen. The idea you can get happiness and love simply by a word usage and a government official reading some words over you is laughable.

The whole subject is shrouded in hypocrisy and sweet euphemisms. That is an aspect of the human search for dignity. It is obviously an illusion. Cynics see it as a sordid transaction. "Here comes the ****." Nice tune. "Saddle me up a big white goose, tie me on her, turn her loose. Oh me Oh my, love that country pie." The blushing bride. Eh -what? Dream on. The whole thing has been traduced. I don't what you want it for. It's gone. It's a joke. An affectation. An excuse for a spending spree and a piss up. The pre-nup has been signed by both parties. It's a gush.



William Shakespeare. Venus and Adonis.

And when it comes to agitators and demonstraters in funded and organised pressure groups my suspicions are aroused that somebody is milking the gullible using emotive and selective ideas of a gross simplicity.

You don't have to mention the bible to know your philosophy is derived from it.

And was biblical marriage about sex or love when parents sold their daughters to the one with the highest dowry? Is that even sex or prostitution? Sex is usually consensual... If the girl didn't want to marry who the parents chose if she was lucky she was sent to a convent for the rest of her life as punishment.

The Apocrypha says Mary the mother of Jesus was about 14 and Joseph was in his forties... Maybe now we know why god stepped in...

No you don't know because you have not lived first hand with the discrimination. Governors created state marriage for heteros and gave them privileges and these privileges leave out the rights of same sex couples who need the same protections under the law...

What protections are those?

Equal protections under our laws.

In theory or practice?

When homs meet, either in bars or elsewhere, I gather first eye contact confirms they are up for it. When hets make eye contact there is a long road of trial and tribulation for the man to contend with before such a conclusion is reached, apart from the doggers I mean. Even the prostitutes demand a sacrifice. As is the case with the higher animals in evolution.

That's not fair.

In theory and practice. That's what the Constitution strives for - even with all the background noises from bigots and people who doesn't understand the Constitution.

THe single source of power for the Constitution is the collectives willingness to up hold it and to abide by the rulings of SCOTUS, because we are not a nation that would pull a Tiananmen Square. The Constitution can not be used often against the collective, a bit of truth that those who currently sit on SCOTUS would be wise to ponder. Allowing minorities and self described victims to make the rules is not going to fly. I am well aware the this BS works for victims in Canada and Europe, but America is special, we are more practical and have more common sense.

hawk wrote:

It shouldn't fly if it's not consistent with the Constitution.