[MRRiley]

Do you even read before posting or are you just typing purely on emotion?

I never said gay marriage was wrong(what is wrong with you?).
I specifically stated that I could relate to "the why" people are reacting to gay marriage.

The rest was entirely made-up by yourself...

If the following statement, written by you, is not saying that gay marriage is wrong, I can't fathom what it means...

My own position is that gay marriage is unnatural and that it comes as an attack to human rationalization.

Do YOU even read what YOU wrote?

Mike

[deadwolfbones]

..
I didn't say it was a Bad idea, I said in response to your post, that just because people have children out of wedlock, doesn't Make it a Good idea. I'll give odds that most who end up in a family way didn't Plan on doing so. Some follow through, and as we all know, some terminate.

Being married doesn't make having children a good idea either. :P

[JohnBee]

If the following statement, written by you, is not saying that gay marriage is wrong, I can't fathom what it means...

Do YOU even read what YOU wrote?

So right and wrong are determined by naturalism? ... if so where does it end?

Homosexuality can be unnatural without ever judging or discriminating. Social contradictions can also be unnatural in the very same way. Though none of these conditions impact the reality of human reactions either. Whether it be religious intolerance or moral values, it most likely makes no difference, since people will react to such indifference regardless of the cover.

[JeffJS]

Being married doesn't make having children a good idea either. :P

We've strayed from the actual topic but I can't argue with you on that point. Some people should Not procreate.

[deadwolfbones]

Marriage originally had nothing to do with religion. Marriage's roots lie in property and alliances. Young females were considered valuable property by their parents and were often traded off for financial or strategic considerations. This is where the dowery and the 'bride price" comes from, as well as the custom of "wedding presents" And for all intents and purposes a marriage was essentially a treaty between the 2 involved familes. The religious aspects of marriage are relatively recent (in the span of human history) and it's hold on the institution is tenuous at best.

Mike

Good point, Mike. Always appreciate a history lesson.

---------- Post added 08-05-10 at 03:46 PM ----------

So right and wrong are determined by naturalism? ... if so where does it end?

Homosexuality can be unnatural without ever judging or discriminating. Social contradictions can also be unnatural in the very same way. Though none of these conditions impact the reality of human reactions either. Whether it be religious intolerance or moral values, it most likely makes no difference, since people will react to such indifference regardless of the cover.

Marriage is "unnatural," so the question of the naturalness or unnaturalness of gay marriage is neither here nor there.

[MRRiley]

So right and wrong are determined by naturalism? ... if so where does it end?

Homosexuality can be unnatural without ever judging or discriminating. Social contradictions can also be unnatural in the very same way. Though none of these conditions impact the reality of human reactions either. Whether it be religious intolerance or moral values, it most likely makes no difference, since people will react to such indifference regardless of the cover.

John, most people interpret the word "unnatural" to be on the same side of the fence as "wrong" "Natural," conversely is on the "right" side of the fence.

So when you say that homosexuality is unnatural it can be interpreted by the average person as saying it is wrong. My apologies if I misinterpreted, but your asserted statement of "they are sick" to your children about 2 men holding hands (presumed gay couple) further supports this assumption. Of course, I could be misinterpreting this as well. You could be making the "sick" statement with no more condemnation than "they have cancer" or "they are old." However, "sick" is another word that is generally accepted on the, shall we say, undesireable side of things.

Thus I hope you will forgive me for making the logical leap that you are calling homosexuality and gay marriage, wrong.

[JohnBee]

Marriage is "unnatural," so the question of the naturalness or unnaturalness of gay marriage is neither here nor there.

Exactly... it could have just as well been "odd" or "discrepant" or "illicit" all of which are justification for the reactions toward the issue.

I also think there was an unintentional crossover with definitions between homosexuality and gay marriage at the presentation level of things. Though it could just as well of been "holding hands" or any other of form of intimacy for what its worth.

The main issue was and remains that I think people react toward such issues as gay marriage as a result of inherent sensitivities. I also think(for some reason or another) that we don't like admitting to such tendencies as inherent reactions perhaps due to our need for self control and that we are driven to devise alternative means by which we justify them.

[deadwolfbones]

Anyway, let's get back to the main thrust of the thread, which is the ruling that Prop. 8 was unconstitutional:

Prop 8 is simply unconstitutional - CNN.com
Letters: Why Prop. 8 is unconstitutional | marriage, prop, state - Opinion - The Orange County Register
The Prop 8 Ruling: The Scrutiny Question, and What Will Happen Next? -- Daily Intel
Vaughn Walker’s Decision: The Takes

[MRRiley]

It is unconstitutional because it deprives a class of citizens of specific rights without a compelling governmental "need.". The main thrust of the appeal will likely be that gay citizens are not, or should not be, a "protected class."

[JohnBee]

So when you say that homosexuality is unnatural it can be interpreted by the average person as saying it is wrong.

This is a slippery position tbh. and here's the thing... I beleive homosexuality is both unnatural and unbeneficial. However, it is not my place to make declarations of right or wrong on issues that are out of our control. And so I guess the same could be said for gay marriage. Since gay marriage is consequential to homosexuality(we assume), then it is understandable that people remain sensitive to the issue for what it is.

ie. most people would not want harm or unhappiness brought onto others, therefore we inherently reject deficiencies or conditions that are otherwise considered negative even if they do not affect us directly.

they are sick" to your children about 2 men holding hands (presumed gay couple) further supports this assumption. Of course, I could be misinterpreting this as well. You could be making the "sick" statement with no more condemnation than "they have cancer" or "they are old." However, "sick" is another word that is generally accepted on the, shall we say, undesireable side of things.

Well here is a different position from that of gay marriage. The truth is, homosexuality comes as a detriment for those afflicted and therefore it is justifiably bad. However this does not imply that we judge people based on such conditions either. I guess we could rationalize that it is not necessarily their fault nor would they choose to live having compromised on what we could call the greatest gift attributed to human nature. No in fact.. it is a sad thing to consider that not all humans are born with the same capacity in life and therefore we are not entitled to judge anyone based on such things.

Thus I hope you will forgive me for making the logical leap that you are calling homosexuality and gay marriage, wrong.

All if forgiven :ugh:

[boriscleto]

But of course the 14th amendment provides equal protection.

"no state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws"

That's why "conservatives" hate it so much.

[deadwolfbones]

Well here is a different position from that of gay marriage. The truth is, homosexuality comes as a detriment for those afflicted and therefore it is justifiably bad. However this does not imply that we judge people based on such conditions either. I guess we could rationalize that it is not necessarily their fault nor would they choose to live having compromised on what we could call the greatest gift attributed to human nature. No in fact.. it is a sad thing to consider that not all humans are born with the same capacity in life and therefore we are not entitled to judge anyone based on such things.

Well, I agree with you in a sense... being homosexual in today's society is certainly detrimental to one's quality of life, but mostly for reasons of unequal treatment, discrimination, and persecution. For most gays, I'd say the inability to procreate with their partners is a secondary concern, if it's a concern at all.

That's why opening the doors to homosexual marriage and equal protection under the law is important--it makes it less detrimental to be gay (which most nowadays acknowledge is not a choice made by a homosexual person).

[JohnBee]

...if it's a concern at all.

It may and it may not... though it was one case personally that has shifted my position from "whatever.." to "this is a terrible thing for someone to go through"

Which has nothing to do with accepting and appreciating people for who they are really let alone making sure they are treated like everyone else. Those are Totally different conditions.

[KxBlaze]

Even if that man is upholding the Constitution of the United States?

Whether prop 8 is unconstitutional or not is another debate that I do not want to get into (for the record I voted against prop 8). But my original point is that if a judge "thinks" that some law is unconstitutional (and again this judge thinks that, it has not been ruled unconstitutional by our supreme courts yet) he should not have the power to over rule the citizens of a state. That's all I'm saying.

[deadwolfbones]

Whether prop 8 is unconstitutional or not is another debate that I do not want to get into (for the record I voted against prop 8). But my original point is that if a judge "thinks" that some law is unconstitutional (and again this judge thinks that, it has not been ruled unconstitutional by our supreme courts yet) he should not have the power to over rule the citizens of a state. That's all I'm saying.

This makes no sense. He's a judge. It's part of his job to "think" (aka weigh the constitutionality of a law). If the defendant wants to appeal, it gets sent up the chain.