Prop 8 found to be unconstitutional...struck down!

[Exalt]

Not so much “bad”, just an oxymoron.

Replace the word marriage with “committed relationship” and Catholicism believes it is bad.

Am I mistaken on that point?

 

[exoflare]

Replace the word marriage with “committed relationship” and Catholicism believes it is bad.

Am I mistaken on that point?

Pretty much.

edit: wait I just realized you’re probably seeing the term “committed relationship” as being inexorably related to “object of orgasm” so in that case yeah you’d be correct.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

“Majority rules and minority rights.”

What is the majority and what is the minority? Who is being put under a tyrannical thumb? Who is being forced to accept evil?

**"Keep in mind that in the scope of this decision, bans on same-sex marriage are only because the voters believe that marriage between a man and a woman is superior to marriage between two people of the same gender.

And that’s basically what the position of the Catholic Church is, right?"
**
Wrong.

Heterosexual marriage is not “superior”. Heterosexual marriage is. Same sex marriage is* not*.

Catholics do not accept that which is not.

The Constitution does not protect nothing. However, the Constitution does lawfully protect those who do and promote evil.

Atheists can be married because they (unwillingly) give the sacrament to each other, if done validly. However, the marriage may not be valid.

 

[Exalt]

Pretty much.

edit: wait I just realized you’re probably seeing the term “committed relationship” as being inexorably related to “object of orgasm” so in that case yeah you’d be correct.

Okay, then. So Catholics think that when a man or a woman believes that he or she is in a committed sexual relationship with another man or woman, that that’s always bad.

If you want to restrict the rights of a class because of religion, you can do that – but you’ll need an amendment to the U.S. Constitution.

 

[GodLovesTheSpek]

Ad Hominem FTL

You can’t answer my points so you just call me a troll. What a cop out.

The are no answers to your posts because you will not accept them as answers.

 

[Exalt]

“Majority rules and minority rights.”

What is the majority and what is the minority? Who is being put under a tyrannical thumb? Who is being forced to accept evil?

**"Keep in mind that in the scope of this decision, bans on same-sex marriage are only because the voters believe that marriage between a man and a woman is superior to marriage between two people of the same gender.

And that’s basically what the position of the Catholic Church is, right?"
**
Wrong.

Heterosexual marriage is not “superior”. Heterosexual marriage is. Same sex marriage is* not*.

Catholics do not accept that which is not.

The Constitution does not protect nothing. However, the Constitution does lawfully protect those who do and promote evil.

Atheists can be married because they (unwillingly) give the sacrament to each other, if done validly. However, the marriage may not be valid.

Two people of the same gender can get together, exchange vows, and get married in the eyes of the state in a handful of states in the union.

Of course, you understand that.

What you *really *mean is that, in the eyes of God, marriage between two men or two women isn’t possible. So, really, this goes right back to what I said about a lack of rational basis in the eyes of the law. The judge here can’t just say, "Oh, well, the Catholic Church doesn’t believe that gay marriage exists, so really I can’t rule in favor of something that doesn’t exist.

From there you get right back to the superiority issue, once again without a rational basis in the eyes of the law – and all the due process and equal protection issues wound up with it. And at that point, you need a constitutional amendment.

There are legislative processes to these sorts of things. If you want to restrict the rights of minorities, you’re free to do so, but only if you change the appropriate law first. In this case, you have to go right to the top.

 

[dnu]

There is no* objective *reason for gay marriage to exist.

 

[Exalt]

Nobody is restricting the rights of another because marriage is not a right.

There is no* objective *reason for gay marriage to exist.

The evidence demonstrates that marriage is a legal right in the United States, and has been since this nation’s inception.

 

[ThomasToo]

Nobody is restricting the rights of another because marriage is not a right.

There is no* objective *reason for gay marriage to exist.

Marriage is very clearly a right; ‘marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.’ (Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1).

The whole principle applied in this decision is that ‘gay marriage’ is a legal null entity, there’s just marriage in the same way that mixed race couples (for want of better terms) don’t seek any different sort of marriage than those of the same race despite previous legal impediments to their doing so. In such a case, then you’d have to argue that there’s no objective reason for civil marriage to exist at all…

 

[dnu]

The evidence demonstrates that marriage is a legal right in the United States, and has been since this nation’s inception.

Perhaps you have a citation from the nations inception stating that two males or two females have a right to be married then?

 

[dnu]

In such a case, then you’d have to argue that there’s no objective reason for civil marriage to exist at all…

I never said there was, did I? Be that as it may, let’s not obfuscate the issue with an irrelevant red-herring.

 

[Elizabeth502]

You do realize that studies clearly demonstrate that gay parents are just as effective as straight parents, right?

You do realize, don’t you (possibly not – I don’t appear to be responding to an intellectual peer, actually), that the “studies” were shallow. (I read them, too.) The questions posed, the “research” done, were incredibly limited in scope and selective in what questions were asked. They were overly general and not at all what anyone would ask who genuinely cared for the full scope of a child’s emotional and spiritual health over a long period and in deeper measurements than whether the children had a few friends on the playground.

More recent studies have in fact contradicted the earlier, amateurish studies that supposedly suggested “normalcy” in the most superficial of ways.

You do realize that these guys were *experts *in the field? They were the best of the best.

Do you enjoy talking down to others? (You’ve done it to other posters on this thread as well.) Do you think that your superiority is proven by your tone? Because it isn’t. No, actually, these were not “the best of the best” attorneys. All the attorneys I know (and I know many, having worked with many and having studied law myself) are superior to what was presented. I, unlike possibly you, actually read the “arguments.” They were not nearly as well crafted as some magazine, newspaper articles I read.

 

[Exalt]

Perhaps you have a citation from the nations inception stating that two males or two females have a right to be married then?

I didn’t say “gay marriage” has been a fundamental right. I just said “marriage” has been a fundamental right.

 

[Elizabeth502]

Marriage is very clearly a right; ‘marriage is one of the “basic civil rights of man,” fundamental to our very existence and survival.’ (Loving v. Virginia, 388 U.S. 1)

Ah yes, the favorite misunderstood and deliberately misapplied ruling. Loving affirmed heterosexual marriage as a civil right. Homosexual marriage was not on the table. The context of the ruling was a heterosexual interracial marriage between two adults free to marry. There was no other context beyond that. To have done so would have required the Court specifically to redefine marriage more inclusively as between any ole’ two genders, which they didn’t. The context was heterosexual marriage. Stop misrepresenting judicial decisions.

 

[choy]

I didn’t say “gay marriage” has been a fundamental right. I just said “marriage” has been a fundamental right.

i agree
every person has the right to marry any other person who is unmarried and of the opposite gender

now we’ve removed one restriction. what’s to say other restrictions would not be lifted in the future? i’m predicting, in order:

1. polygamy
2. pedophilia
3. bestiality

as the next ones to get legalized

hey, if 10 women are okay to get married to the same man, they have that right, right? who are we to say what 11 consenting adults cannot do?

 

[dnu]

I didn’t say “gay marriage” has been a fundamental right. I just said “marriage” has been a fundamental right.

Yes, and would the Founding Fathers have defined this “marriage” as between a man and woman or between two “partners?”

or

Put another way, is there any indication from any of the U.S. Founding Fathers that gays and lesbians had a right to participate in this “fundamental right” of marriage, or would their (that is, the guys who wrote the Constitution) definition have been one man and one women.

 

[logic_oriented]

1. polygamy
2. pedophilia
3. bestiality

1. Probably, and who cares as long as the logistics can be worked out equitably.
2. Very doubtful. We can’t even manage to lower the drinking age.
3. Absolutely not, animals cannot consent.

 

[dnar]

When will judges legislating from the bench ever stop?

Why do the millions of people that voted in favor of this just sit quietly by on the sidelines while this ONE man takes it away…do something about it…don’t just sit around whining. It is time the people stood up and took this country back…take it back the way it use to be when voting mattered and we didn’t have dictators sitting on wooden stools telling us what to do…

 

[Exalt]

You do realize, don’t you (possibly not – I don’t appear to be responding to an intellectual peer, actually), that the “studies” were shallow. (I read them, too.) The questions posed, the “research” done, were incredibly limited in scope and selective in what questions were asked. They were overly general and not at all what anyone would ask who genuinely cared for the full scope of a child’s emotional and spiritual health over a long period and in deeper measurements than whether the children had a few friends on the playground.

More recent studies have in fact contradicted the earlier, amateurish studies that supposedly suggested “normalcy” in the most superficial of ways.

Judge Walker disagrees with you, as does Judge Lederman of the Miami decision that declared bans on gay adoption unconstitutional.

The vast consensus of researchers in this field disagrees with you. The American Psychological Association and the American Academy of Pediatrics disagrees with you.

The losing side here was unable to bring forth evidence that proved their side – that gay and lesbians are somehow bad parents. And you can’t restrict someone’s rights because of a *lack *of evidence, after all.

Do you enjoy talking down to others? (You’ve done it to other posters on this thread as well.) Do you think that your superiority is proven by your tone? Because it isn’t. No, actually, these were not “the best of the best” attorneys. All the attorneys I know (and I know many, having worked with many and having studied law myself) are superior to what was presented. I, unlike possibly you, actually read the “arguments.” They were not nearly as well crafted as some magazine, newspaper articles I read.

I read the arguments too, actually, liveblogged straight from the courtroom. I’m not a lawyer, though. If you think you can argue better, I’d recommend giving NOM a call. They’ll be appealing the decision.

Personally, I’d love to have the very best arguments against this decision. That way we’ll get it all out in the open.

 

[choy]

1. Probably, and who cares as long as the logistics can be worked out equitably.

actually, i think the next step after this is an “orgy” family. 3 husbands and 4 wives in one household. yes, there’s no more limits to marriage. its coming

1. Very doubtful. We can’t even manage to lower the drinking age.

this will have more punch than lowering the drinking age. since minors cannot vote, they cannot change the law on drinking. but for marriages between an older person and a minor? 1/2 of that marriage is a voter. it can be done

1. Absolutely not, animals cannot consent.

animals have already been assigned human dignity and rights by the government. marriage is only the natural next step. since they have feelings as many claim, they they can get married like humans. i know this sounds ridiculous, but so does gay marriage 25 years ago. and its here today.