Federal judge overturns Utah's ban on gay marriage

[LisaA]

Not for lesbians it isn’t. Are you really so lacking in knowledge of what you are criticising?

So, you propose that all post-menopausal heterosexual women should refrain from sex with their husbands. I’m sure that will be very popular. You really need to think through these arguments a lot more before you post them here.

rossum

You keep throwing out Red Herrings and ignoring biology. There is no equivalence between same sex and opposite sex relationships. Both use some of the same body parts but same sex activity is completely lacking in the capacity to create life. That a particular act would not produce a child doesn’t change the inherent capacity and potential that absolutely does not exist in same sex relationships, ever. Further you blow past the myriad of health issues related to same sex relationships. While they are far more serious with respect to males, please don’t tell me you can’t imagine how a woman could contract an STD in the mouth or throat. Were you aware of the immune response to sperm when it enters areas other than intended by nature? Imagine of course you know about STDs and AIDS right?

Society generally supports those actions that enhance society’s future and healthy behaviors. Yet you think that society should support unhealthy behavior that has no potential to create future citizens? Surely you don’t think that’s much of a case do you?

In reality the whole same sex “marriage” meme is based on sympathetic portrayal of the nice gay couple or those sweet Lesbians who’ve been together for thirty years. It focuses on being “fair” and being “nice” while ignoring the cost to society, to children, to those who do not support this idea.

Lisa

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Society generally supports those actions that enhance society’s future and healthy behaviors. Yet you think that society should support unhealthy behavior that has no potential to create future citizens? Surely you don’t think that’s much of a case do you?

I don’t envision the Supreme Court overturning Lawrence vs Texas so I don’t see the point of continuing your argument about sex. You’re still making arguments which have been rejected by the courts numerous times already. Why? And Rossum isn’t throwing out red herrings; she’s trying to remind you that the State cannot create rules which only apply to one class of people. Heterosexuals are not required to demonstrate either intent or capability to procreate in order to obtain a marriage license so homosexuals cannot constitutionally be held to that standard either.

 

[LisaA]

I don’t envision the Supreme Court overturning Lawrence vs Texas so I don’t see the point of continuing your argument about sex. You’re still making arguments which have been rejected by the courts numerous times already. Why?

I’m not trying a case EN, just refuting the homosexualists claims that same sex activity is equivalent to opposite sex relationships. The laws of biology would tend to discount that particular theory. Too many people toss out some outrageous statement or completely erroneous statement and then hide behind the courts’ decisions in unrelated cases. No one is suggesting we prosecute homosexuals for private behavior between consenting adults. But wasn’t Lawrence about private behavior, not public affirmation of homosexual relationships? Who cares what you do in private. If you don’t mind the consequences in this country you’re free to do all kinds of unhealthy things. It’s when you demand that society invest in this behavior that I think it’s worth arguing the point.

But you as someone who consistently supports homosexual activism don’t have an argument as to why society should support unhealthy and unnatural behavior that has ZERO capacity to create new citizens, just because you want what you want. A two year old can make that kind of argument but it’s not very compelling.

Lisa

 

[Slavonic]

Basic biology would discount your claim that same sex activity is equivalent to male female sexual activity…

I’ll stop you right there. We’re not talking about sexual activity. We’re talking about marriage. Marriage and sexual activity are not interchangeable.

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

It’s when you demand that society invest in this behavior that I think it’s worth arguing the point.

As I said before; you’re arguing for a double standard. Any heterosexual couple can currently be granted a marriage license whether they can or intend to have children or not, whether they are polygamous in practice or adulterous or not, whether they abuse children or not, whether they pimp themselves out or not, whether they have STDs or not…the list goes on. You cannot put homosexuals under the microscope for legal exclusion on the grounds that they do not conceive children within the confines of their relationship while anything goes for heterosexuals.

But you as someone who consistently supports homosexual activism don’t have an argument as to why society should support unhealthy and unnatural behavior that has ZERO capacity to create new citizens, just because you want what you want. A two year old can make that kind of argument but it’s not very compelling.

That’s just it Lisa; we don’t have to demonstrate why the State should not restrict the application of a civil right. The State hast to provide a compelling interest for why it should. But lets talk more about basic biology. STDs don’t just magically materialize within a monogamous relationship. If your assertion is that gay people should not be allowed to marry because of STDs then you are actually making the case for same-sex marriage stronger because society would have an interest in encouraging the monogamy of marriage among a population with a higher rate of transmission of some, not all but some, STDs.

 

[LisaA]

I’ll stop you right there. We’re not talking about sexual activity. We’re talking about marriage. Marriage and sexual activity are not interchangeable.

Yes but YOU keep positing the theory that same sex relationships and male female relationships are equivalent. You claim that same sex relationships cannot be seen as “lesser.”

I beg to differ. Biology begs to differ. Please don’t change the subject when you don’t have cogent argument against the laws of nature.

Do you truly think that same sex and male/female sexual activity are equivalent? Do you think society has a compelling interest in supporting an unhealthy behavior that cannot possibly produce society’s future in the form of babies? Society doesn’t care if you “love” each other or want to be on each other’s benefits. That’s a selfish, individualistic approach and society looks at the big picture. Why do you think society discourages smoking or drinking to excess or plastic bags for that matter? It’s so ironic that the Left which champions such destructive behvaior as abortion and same sex marriage is obsessed with telling parents their lunches must contain certain elements or you mustn’t drink a 32 oz soda.

Lisa

 

[LisaA]

As I said before; you’re arguing for a double standard. Any heterosexual couple can currently be granted a marriage license whether they can or intend to have children or not, whether they are polygamous in practice or adulterous or not, whether they abuse children or not, whether they pimp themselves out or not, whether they have STDs or not…the list goes on. You cannot put homosexuals under the microscope for legal exclusion on the grounds that they do not conceive children within the confines of their relationship while anything goes for heterosexuals.

That’s just it Lisa; we don’t have to demonstrate why the State should not restrict the application of a civil right. The State hast to provide a compelling interest for why it should. But lets talk more about basic biology. STDs don’t just magically materialize within a monogamous relationship. If your assertion is that gay people should not be allowed to marry because of STDs then you are actually making the case for same-sex marriage stronger because society would have an interest in encouraging the monogamy of marriage among a population with a higher rate of transmission of some, not all but some, STDs.

Oh please…don’t go on the monogamy theory for gay males. Even in long term relationships and “marriages” monogamy is far less likely to be a feature of gay males’ partnerships than heterosexuals’ marriages. It was gay males who spread AIDS, not heterosexuals even if the latter also engage in promiscuity and adultery.

Gay sex is not a healthy activity. Why should society give its ‘blessing’ and promote it?

Also you couch your statement carefully but I can blow holes right through it. Even if the right to marry is a civil right, it has never been you right to marry anyone whom you wished to marry. Society has put parameters around these rights as they have all rights. We have a civil right to ‘bear arms’ but there are many restrictions on that right. Some states have opened marriage to lower ages for example and others have opened “marriage” to gays. I have little doubt that plural marriage is the next push.

And this is going to benefit society how?

Lisa

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Society doesn’t care if you “love” each other or want to be on each other’s benefits. That’s a selfish, individualistic approach and society looks at the big picture.

48% of births are out-of-wedlock, 5% of married men have had a vasectomy, 44% of married women have had sterilization surgery, and 77% of married women use contraception. You think society regards the purpose of marriage as procreating? I’d say you’re out-of-touch with society. People marry for love and tax benefits in this society.

 

[SMGS127]

Oh please…don’t go on the monogamy theory for gay males. Even in long term relationships and “marriages” monogamy is far less likely to be a feature of gay males’ partnerships than heterosexuals’ marriages. It was gay males who spread AIDS, not heterosexuals even if the latter also engage in promiscuity and adultery.

Gay sex is not a healthy activity. Why should society give its ‘blessing’ and promote it?

Also you couch your statement carefully but I can blow holes right through it. Even if the right to marry is a civil right, it has never been you right to marry anyone whom you wished to marry. Society has put parameters around these rights as they have all rights. We have a civil right to ‘bear arms’ but there are many restrictions on that right. Some states have opened marriage to lower ages for example and others have opened “marriage” to gays. I have little doubt that plural marriage is the next push.

And this is going to benefit society how?

Lisa

Lisa, while I agree with most of what you said (except for relatively high cheating among gay men as compared to straight men, as I have never known a single gay man who both entered into relationships and had a working partnership to stray from them, whereas I’ve met swingers and many men who try to push their girlfriends into allowing a second girl in the bedroom), please stop using STD transmission as an argument. When the argument is raised, the entire lesbian community rolls their eyes. For some reason, when people discuss gay “marriage,” people ONLY concentrate on gay men (“look at AIDS!,” “look at how promiscuous single gay men are!,” and the tagline almost always from men “look at how gross two men together looks!,” etc.). All you’re doing by having this laserlike focus on gay men is reinforcing the argument that your argument has nothing to do with your religion and everything to do with your views of gay men. After all, you make no arguments against lesbians and, in fact, several of your arguments support lesbianism (e.g. societal promotion of safer sex, when lesbian sex is the safest sex possible).

There is a widely viewed belief in the gay community that religion plays little part in most people’s opposition to same-sex relationships, and that most opposition is instead led by disgust at gay men. You are heavily contributing to that myth.

 

[Monkey1976]

48% of births are out-of-wedlock, 5% of married men have had a vasectomy, 44% of married women have had sterilization surgery, and 77% of married women use contraception. You think society regards the purpose of marriage as procreating? I’d say you’re out-of-touch with society.

Marriage was recognized as a civil right in Loving based on the precedent of Skinner v Oklahoma - a case involving forced sterilization. Marriage was not a question in that case, so why would the right to procreation be cited as precedent for declaring marriage a right?

 

[EmperorNapoleon]

Marriage was recognized as a civil right in Loving based on the precedent of Skinner v Oklahoma - a case involving forced sterilization. Marriage was not a question in that case, so why would the right to procreation be cited as precedent for declaring marriage a right?

Multiple cases were citied. In fact, one of which (Meyer v. Nebraska) listed the right to marry separate from the right to raise children and in the very same paragraph, as the Skinner v. Oklahoma citation, which clearly stated that the State’s right to regulate marriage is not unlimited and is superseded by the Fourteenth Amendment. BTW - Skinner was only cited to illustrate the point that the States cannot toss the Equal Protection Clause out the window.

 

[josh987654321]

Simplicity. There are a lot of laws that would need rewriting to change “mariage” to “marriage or civil union”. Good luck doing that with the current US Congress. It is simpler to retain the word “marriage” and all the other rights automatically follow.

lol, always good to have a government that opts for “easy” rather than “correct.”

To avoid death duties; that is why the Windsor case was brought. To allow your partner easier US residency. Because you’re Britney Spears and you want to be married for 55 hours. People get married for lots of reasons.

rossum

lol. Yup little billy is already on Heroin, we may aswell introduce him to Cocaine.

 

[josh987654321]

I’ll stop you right there. We’re not talking about sexual activity. We’re talking about marriage. Marriage and sexual activity are not interchangeable.

So, on what grounds would you refuse polygamy, incest, or simply roommates (a group of people simply wanting legal benefits)?

All of these things that will have to follow will make mariage pretty meaningless and pointless, the pro gay marriage side are so passionate about same sex marriage, yet they view marriage as practically nothing anyway. Whats the point?

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[InSearchofGrace]

You would be right if same-sex marriages actually necessitated the destruction of opposite sex couples. But it doesn’t and each can exist and in fact does exist at the same time. Also any perceived insult can only exist by seeing same sex coupling as lesser.

Laws need to respond to the current social situation. Gays are marrying and the law needs to catch up. You have the situation reversed. Laws do not make same sex couples marry, same-sex couples marry and the law responds.

As the value of same sex marriages, every single shred is valuable.

I did not state that same sex “marriage” necessitates the destruction of opposite sexed couples. Rather, I stated that in pushing for same sex “marriage” the homosexual activist disrespects the social common good of the natural family unit which is the basis of society.

By the way, it was you who talked of a lack of respect on my part for homosexuals being different. If same sex coupling is seen as lesser than the coupling of a husband and wife, it is because the latter has telos whereas the former has none, an objective fact. It is not meant as an insult to you or to anybody. For you to say such is an insult is like a one legged person is right in feeling insulted when he is referred to as a one legged person.

Same sex relations is, has been, an old vice, as held by by non-Christian and Christian cultures, including Byzantine Catholics. Some men and women are known to engage in it since biblical times. But same sex “marriage” is new law in certain jurisdictions (notwithstanding John Boswell’s revisionist and debunked history on ancient same sex union rites).

Laws need not respond to every current situation, e.g., homosexual clamor to “marry” each other. When the state bestows the status of marriage to same sex partnerships, it bestows rights to a few on the basis of a form of sexual liberty, with negative consequences for many in the form of restrictions on freedom of speech and religious liberty.

Your last sentence is unintelligible.

 

[LisaA]

Lisa, while I agree with most of what you said (except for relatively high cheating among gay men as compared to straight men, as I have never known a single gay man who both entered into relationships and had a working partnership to stray from them, whereas I’ve met swingers and many men who try to push their girlfriends into allowing a second girl in the bedroom), please stop using STD transmission as an argument. When the argument is raised, the entire lesbian community rolls their eyes. For some reason, when people discuss gay “marriage,” people ONLY concentrate on gay men (“look at AIDS!,” “look at how promiscuous single gay men are!,” and the tagline almost always from men “look at how gross two men together looks!,” etc.). All you’re doing by having this laserlike focus on gay men is reinforcing the argument that your argument has nothing to do with your religion and everything to do with your views of gay men. After all, you make no arguments against lesbians and, in fact, several of your arguments support lesbianism (e.g. societal promotion of safer sex, when lesbian sex is the safest sex possible).

There is a widely viewed belief in the gay community that religion plays little part in most people’s opposition to same-sex relationships, and that most opposition is instead led by disgust at gay men. You are heavily contributing to that myth.

Realize I focus on gay males because at least on this thread, it’s gay males who are promoting their “right” to “marry.” I respond to the specific posts, not to the whole gay/Lesbian continuum. I believe that same sex attraction between males and females is very different with a different dynamic, different structure and norms, and certainly different as to health consequences. I suspect that our male and female nature has a lot to do with it! Wouldn’t you agree that Lesbians are more likely to be monogamous marriage or no marriage? Just as women are more likely to be monogamous in a heterosexual relationship.

That being said, both types of same sex attraction are inherently different than male/female marriage. Whether or not they DO procreate, the complimentary and biological basis of male/female relationships are unique within traditional marriage. Further the inability to procreate within a same sex relationship prevents a child from being born in a relationship that ties him or her to biological parents. Every child within a gay/Lesbian relationship is denied a mommy or a daddy. Children become a commodity to be purchased or bred like livestock.

And society should PROMOTE this structure?

Actually religion is irrelevant to my argument. As to gay males, I am sure you are conversant with statistics regarding the number of partners of gay males. It’s not the EWWWW factor, it’s the view that society should support healthy behavior that tends to help society maintain prosperity and continuity. While I see individuals benefiting from gay “marriage” I don’t see the benefit to society for redefining marriage. At this point marriage is assaulted from all directions and yet it’s the most advantageous structure for a society to support and maintain. Marriage is the best anti-poverty program ever devised. It provides more financial, emotional and physical stability than any other structure for raising society’s future citizens. I wish society would SUPPORT marriage instead of demeaning it but ignoring the consequences of out of wedlock births, easy divorce, shacking up, etc.

Gay “marriage” is yet another assault.

I appreciate what you are saying but please understand that my response is to specific claims by homosexual “marriage” supporters which I believe should be addressed. There are far to many lies and falsehoods being used to promote redefining marriage with the apparent and potential consequences being ignored.

Lisa

 

[josh987654321]

48% of births are out-of-wedlock, 5% of married men have had a vasectomy, 44% of married women have had sterilization surgery, and 77% of married women use contraception. You think society regards the purpose of marriage as procreating? I’d say you’re out-of-touch with society. People marry for love and tax benefits in this society.

lol. Why people even bother with marriage when it’s viewed like that is beyond me, why would people need a certificate to prove their love for one another?

& Why the tax benefits? What are they doing that for?

 

[dshix]

lol. Why people even bother with marriage when it’s viewed like that is beyond me, why would people need a certificate to prove their love for one another?

There are many common reasons.

& Why the tax benefits? What are they doing that for?

For… the tax benefits.

 

[LisaA]

48% of births are out-of-wedlock, 5% of married men have had a vasectomy, 44% of married women have had sterilization surgery, and 77% of married women use contraception. You think society regards the purpose of marriage as procreating? I’d say you’re out-of-touch with society. People marry for love and tax benefits in this society.

Well that’s pretty cold but at least with respect to gay “marriage” it seems to be all about getting more benefits than about any really lofty goals for society.

And you are absolutely correct in that marriage is assaulted by many selfish desires of heterosexuals. In no way to I elevate this behavior either. But is gay marriage going to help? How?

The reality is that most married couples do have children, even if following the birth they start contracepting or have sterilization surgery. Again the benefit to society is not just conceiving and bearing children but in raising them in the most advantageous environment.

Again I see specific reasons for supporting traditional marriage from a societal point of view. Even the most radical homosexual cannot deny that a child is best raised within the confines of a stable home with a mommy and a daddy. The biological ties ARE important. Who wants to think their father was an anonymous sperm donor or found on Craig’s List? Or that their father paid a woman to carry them and thus they are being purchased like a puppy?

Why shouldn’t society support the optimum with the greatest set of rights and privileges?

Lisa

 

[josh987654321]

There are many common reasons.

Probably, but they all seem kind of senseless/pointless when it comes to the secular view of civil marriage.

For… the tax benefits.

I mean to ask, why is the government giving civil marriage tax benefits?

Note: I am not baggin out sacramental marriage, as I hold marriage in the highest regard, I’m just baggin out the secular view of civil marriage, how the pro-gay marriage side view it, because with their view of civil marriage with the passion behind wanting it doesn’t make any sense.

I think it comes down to “we want it because we can’t have it and when we have it we wont want it.” lol

Thank you for reading
Josh

 

[HandyAndy]

The “love” word often gets thrown out by the gay argument to support same sex marriage. So is there any physical expression of this “love” in a gay relationship? Are gay relationships purely an emotional attachment?
If said same sex relationships are open to a sexual act…as are heterosexual relationships…or a physical expression of this “love”…then I guess the sexual act does have a bearing on this debate.