Judge Says Calif. Can't Ban Gay Marriage

[Scott_Lafrance]

Drew98:

It’s still discrimination when 100% of homosexuals are are barred from marrying who they want and heterosexuals are generally allowed to marry whoever they want.

Non sequitor arguement. Heterosexuals are NOT free to marry whomever they want. As a married man, I cannot legal enter into another marriage arragement until my present one is dissolved. If I were single, I should only be able to marry a consenting, available female. I am NOT free to marry my sister, regardless of how much I love her. This is not about licence to “Do as thou wilt”. This is about functioning with the socially constrained boundaries for the benefit of the society as a whole. What about America’s right to have cultural stability? Doesn’t that trump the individual right to do whatever it pleases? Laws exist for a reason, and shouldn’t be rewritten by a judiciary that is trying to make new rules for itself.

 

[Lisa_N]

Drew98:

It’s still discrimination when 100% of homosexuals are are barred from marrying who they want and heterosexuals are generally allowed to marry whoever they want…

Really a baseless argument. Heterosexuals may NOT marry anyone they want. There are age limits, relationships limits, limits on numbers you can marry and limits to marrying someone if they or you are already married.

Drew98:

By your reasoning the Protestants in this country could outlaw Catholicism and justify it by saying that since **everyone **is barred from attending a Catholic church and everyone is free to attend a Protestant church then no one’s rights are being violated anyone and no one is being discriminated against.

Another baseless argument and totally off point. Since freedom of religion is one of the very bases our country was founded upon, I hardly think that analogy has any basis in reality.

Realize that homosexuals are NOT BARRED from marriage. They are able to marry anyone from the same eligible group that heterosexuals are allowed to marry. You seem to think that the total definition is what you happen to be doing with your genitalia at that point in time. Realize that homosexuality is what you DO, not what you ARE.

Lisa N

 

[Richardols]

Lisa N:

Realize that homosexuality is what you DO, not what you ARE.

Not quite. There are homosexuals (same-sex attracted) people of both genders who remain chaste and do not engage in homosexual acts.

They are homosexuals, they do not commit the sins of homosexuality.

 

[fix]

Jeffrey:

Thats exactly it…its one heck of a slippery slope. Its too bad some ppl can’t see it.

The problem is so many do not know what an authentic right is, what authentic freedom is and what license is. Our culture has taught that “love” is a feeling, “tolerance” means embracing vice and goodness is acccepting sin as virtue. Up is down in our world.

 

[quijote]

Lisa N:

I still want to marry my l8 month old nephew…after all we LOVE each other and that’s all that matters right?

Lisa N

I have a better suggestion. My folks are older and don’t have health care insurance (they do in Mexico so they drive 25miles to go to the doctor). Anyway, if I were to marry my mother and father (polygamy, incest) we could have my folks in my wifes health insurance…hey, maybe that’s the way to solve the HEalth care crisis…only allow sick perversion and call it marriage…

cheers.

 

[Brad]

siamesecat:

I guess it’s a possibility that they wouldnt be able to but I still don’t see why 2 men or 2 women can’t fall in love? Why would they want to get married if they werent really in love? And what proof is there that they cant fall in love?

I read your previous arguments but basing marriage solely on love does not rule out beasiality, polygamy, or incest.

Age of consent? How can you force your arbitrary requirements on age on top of a 13 year old that really loves an adult?

Multiple partners? How can you know that a man doesn’t really love all these women. After all, he buys them all gifts, and tells them all he loves them frequently.

Incest? All kinds of family members love each other.

You can’t base marriage solely on a feeling of love. Look at current divorce rates. It doesn’t work.

 

[Brad]

siamesecat:

Maybe 2 women and 2 men cant fall in love…Im not gay so I wouldnt know. But I have no reason to believe that they cant.

I have no reason to believe that a hedge hog cannot play ping-pong, yet I still support the policy that excludes hedge hogs from college union gamerooms.

 

[Lisa_N]

Richardols:

Not quite. There are homosexuals (same-sex attracted) people of both genders who remain chaste and do not engage in homosexual acts.

They are homosexuals, they do not commit the sins of homosexuality.

I think you are engaged in hair splitting. There is a difference between an intrinsic quality and a behavior pattern. I am female. I was born female. I will always be female. Being female is something I am, not something I do. If I engage in what might be typically male behavior does it make me a male? No.

Yes there are people who have same sex attractions but if they never act on them can you brand them homosexual? Particularly when you understand that these desires and tendencies may be transitory and subject to change? There are people who may have SSA but marry, have children and never engage in homosexual behavior. I don’t consider them homosexuals any more than I consider myself an addict. Now if I started taking drugs I would become addicted, but by never engaging in the behavior, I do not have to label myself as an addict. Understand the difference?

Lisa N

 

[Richardols]

Lisa N:

I think you are engaged in hair splitting.

Not at all. A homosexual is defined as a person who has a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex.

Homosexual conduct includes any act that involves bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires.

One can be a homosexual and be chaste, just as one can be a heterosexual and remain chaste.

 

[Lisa_N]

Richardols:

Not at all. A homosexual is defined as a person who has a sexual attraction to persons of the same sex.

Homosexual conduct includes any act that involves bodily contact, actively undertaken or passively permitted, between members of the same sex for the purpose of satisfying sexual desires.

One can be a homosexual and be chaste, just as one can be a heterosexual and remain chaste.

So if you have an attraction to drink to excess but do not imbibe you are an alcoholic?

I just do not think you can define people by what are sometimes temporary desires. Apparently you think you can.

Lisa N

 

[Richardols]

Lisa N:

So if you have an attraction to drink to excess but do not imbibe you are an alcoholic?

I just do not think you can define people by what are sometimes temporary desires. Apparently you think you can.

Lisa N

I gave you standard legal and medical definitions. I’m sorry they don’t fit your subjective personal definitions of the terms.

 

[Lisa_N]

Richardols:

I gave you standard legal and medical definitions. I’m sorry they don’t fit your subjective personal definitions of the terms.

And I am sorry you do not see the absurdity of defining someone by a desire rather than an action.

Lisa N

 

[Richardols]

Lisa N:

And I am sorry you do not see the absurdity of defining someone by a desire rather than an action.

My subjective vision has nothing to do with how things are defined. Those definitions I gave you, or variants of them, are standard. Go fight with doctors the courts, or lexicographers if you don’t like the definitions.

 

[StJeanneDArc]

Richardols:

I gave you standard legal and medical definitions. I’m sorry they don’t fit your subjective personal definitions of the terms.

I don’t think the standard legal and medical definitions are helpful or truthful, and we should work to change this terminology.

I’ll give an example: I heard a woman on the radio yesterday hawking a book she wrote about how a woman can determine if a man is “gay” before she marries him. She gave examples of women who are married for years to men, have children by them, and later discover that they’ve been “gay” all along. Well what does that mean exactly? These men have obviously been living a heterosexual lifestyle, why would you say they were “gay”? I think that the culture does influence some people to give in to baser temptations and in another era these men may never have had a homosexual experience.

 

[Richardols]

StJeanneDArc:

I don’t think the standard legal and medical definitions are helpful or truthful, and we should work to change this terminology.

Not helpful or truthful??? How so? What definition would you prefer for homosexual acts?

 

[Brad]

Lisa N:

And I am sorry you do not see the absurdity of defining someone by a desire rather than an action.

Lisa N

Oh, but wouldn’t it be wonderful? I desire a million dollars. Therefore, I’m a millionaire. (The bank doesn’t agree with me but what do they know? They don’t know me and my feelings. They should take their judgemental and intolerant tone somewhere else).

 

[fix]

StJeanneDArc:

I don’t think the standard legal and medical definitions are helpful or truthful, and we should work to change this terminology.

I’ll give an example: I heard a woman on the radio yesterday hawking a book she wrote about how a woman can determine if a man is “gay” before she marries him. She gave examples of women who are married for years to men, have children by them, and later discover that they’ve been “gay” all along. Well what does that mean exactly? These men have obviously been living a heterosexual lifestyle, why would you say they were “gay”? I think that the culture does influence some people to give in to baser temptations and in another era these men may never have had a homosexual experience.

Good point. There may be many people who suffer from SSAD, or some degree of it. Is each person with some degree of SSA to be considered homosexual? What is the dividing line? Is it self proclamation?

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

My subjective vision has nothing to do with how things are defined. Those definitions I gave you, or variants of them, are standard. Go fight with doctors the courts, or lexicographers if you don’t like the definitions.

Definitions change as people change. People need to change.
If a book told you to jump off a bridge…

 

[Brad]

Richardols:

Not helpful or truthful??? How so? What definition would you prefer for homosexual acts?

The definition was regarding what a homosexual was not what homosexual acts are. We know what they are. It’s a shame that we have to be constantly reminded of something so vile.

 

[Richardols]

Brad:

Definitions change as people change.

Okay. How would you change those definitions?