http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/05/us/05prop.html
A turn for better civil rights equality.
state interference in religious and business matters somehow leads to “civil rights equality?”
The separation of church and state does.
What is “separation of church and state”? And why do you feel that that is justified?
The separation of church and state is a very difficult line to find in the first amendment.
Stealing the vote from the people is treason and should be dealt with accordingly.
You jumped the gun here dude. He never mentioned the 1A or Constitution.
Yes, and the only interfering that was going on was not allowing two consenting adults to marry because it doesn’t conform to the popular religion.
Last I checked marriage is not just a Christian thing, and I don’t want one religion’s ideas about what marriage is to apply to everyone. I can’t stand the religious side of “conservatism” because its just as tyrannical as liberalism is. Forcing people by way of law to conform to your religious views? One reason Id never live in the Bible Belt. I don’t want a bunch of religious people telling me how to live my life based on their views of religion they push through as “law”.
My marriage is defined by myself, my wife, and the vows we took. Just because there are other marriage customs out there such as polygamy, arranged marriages, child marriages, etc doesn’t mean to me my marriage is any less than what it is. The same would hold true for two dudes, and I don’t want the gov approving who can marry and who cannot.
Your title is wrong. The Supreme Court had nothing to do with this. It was a Federal Court.
I believe the California Supreme Court already upheld Prop 8 (?)
The campaign was donated 22 million dollars of which was given from the Mormon Church, who then lied about it. The LDS church did the same thing in Hawaii, forming a coalition with the Catholic church donating thousands of dollars to the gay marriage ban, and one of the heads of their push was the Head of the Department of Education. I am explaining it very poorly, but the research can be done.
Why do I feel it is justified? I don’t understand why sexuality makes your family invalid. I don’t feel that marriage has anything to do with God, but it does involve rights that a straight couple would get.
Marriage, power of attorney (I don’t remember the term used when a marital partner suffers a terminal illness), etc.
Actually not. While many of the people in favor of limiting marriage to one man and one woman are coming from a particular religious angle. There are lots of non religious reasons to restrict it.
If you look at societies throughout time, it has been defined as being between man and woman. Sometimes in multiples of one side or the other.
Children do best when raised with a mother and a father [this has been shown countless times]. Marriage was instituted by man as a way of providing for that if you go back in time and see the evolution of the concept of marriage.
Producing children is important for a people’s survival and protecting that production of children is of compelling societal interest for the survival of that society.
So same sex marriage fails historically and from a social standpoint of protecting the survival mechanism of the society.
–
Something along those lines is the argumentation that is totally independent of religion.
I’ll change the title. Sorry for the error.
ETA: I can’t. Sorry anyway.
Here is the way I understand it. Homosexuals are already afforded all of the protections of marriage through civil union. Marriage is a religious (or at least began as) covenant. I am not homophobic, but I think the state has already given homosexuals equality in civil and legal matters. Marriage should stay a churches decision.
if it seriously has to come down to siblings, pedophiles and cats and dogs, we need to do away with the religious union of marriage as a governmentally recognized and beneficial institution.
if you want to offer some benefit to two people making some kind of temporary, indefinite commitment to each other, do civil unions. 'cause marriage is just a fuckin joke to these cock suckers- one more way they can eat away at anything resembling decency.
as to the “separation of church and state,” you’re obviously not versed on the origins of that statement. do some reading, my friend.
You missed the point of the question.
However, please show me research that shows that the LDS Church (Mormons) organization donated any money to the cause. I can believe that individual members of the church donated to the cause and rallied together to fight for what they believe in, but I have no faith that your statement is in the least bit correct.
Why do I feel it is justified?
Again, you missed the question. The question was
What is “separation of church and state”? And why do you feel that that is justified?
So, why did you mention “separation of church and state” and why do you feel that that concept is justified legally?
I don’t understand why sexuality makes your family invalid. I don’t feel that marriage has anything to do with God, but it does involve rights that a straight couple would get.
Marriage, power of attorney (I don’t remember the term used when a marital partner suffers a terminal illness), etc.
if you click “go advanced” or something like that, it’ll let you change the title.
Why do you feel as though that would effect homosexual relationships happening at all? They would still be in consensual relationships, just not married.
I don’t want to seem rude: but banning homosexual union wont make them go away, or reproduce. (Many homosexual males are sperm doners, I don’t know your stance on artificial insemination, totally different argument.)
thats a pretty silly argument. letting gay people get married is a threat to the survival mechanism of society? so, if gay people can get married we’re all going to turn gay? 
strange thinking there.
Did I ever come out against homosexual unions? If two guys (or 5 guys) want to live together and pool their resources and get off with each other, that is their right. And if they want to make a contract with each other, they can do that. And the law should conceivably respect those contracts at a certain level (which I have no idea at)
I don’t want to seem rude: but banning homosexual union wont make them go away, or reproduce. (Many homosexual males are sperm doners, I don’t know your stance on artificial insemination, totally different argument.)
I did not say to ban homosexual unions. Some sort of civil unions is probably an appropriate response legally. I have not thought through all the ramifications which is why I use words like “probably” but in principle I have no issue with a civil union.
And I have no feelings on artificial insemination though I do think that a child should not be handicapped from birth by being born to a homosexual couple or a single woman. (Again, research shows that a child does better being raised by a mom and a dad).
Sorry, fail. I did not say that.
I said affording protection to the survival mechanism. Ie, favoritism to those mechanisms which promote the survival of the society.
What percent of man/woman marriages end up in divorce?
So you better outlaw single parents.
I think we have more than enough people in the world gays marrying isn’t going to have any significant impact. They already live together, and do everything else besides have a slip of paper that says they are married. You’re acting like gay people don’t already raise kids.