Proposition 8 case headed back to court

It's time to get back to morality, ethics and common sense! If we keep messing with nature we will destroy ourselves...

moral word wrote:

It's time to get back to morality, ethics and common sense! If we keep messing with nature we will destroy ourselves...

Are you suggesting that homosexual behavior and orientation is 'unnatural'? How then do you explain the list of mammals that display homosexual behaviors?
Here's JUST a partial list of the mammals, as reported on Wikipedia:
African Buffalo
African Elephant
Agile Wallaby
Amazon River Dolphin(Boto)
American Bison
Antelope[
Asian Elephant
Asiatic Lion
Asiatic Mouflon
Atlantic Spotted Dolphin
Australian Sea Lion
Barasingha
Barbary Sheep
Beluga
Bhara
Bighorn Sheep
Black Bear
Blackbuck
Black-footed Rock Wallaby
Black-tailed Deer
Bonnet Macaque
Bonobo
Bottlenose Dolphin
Bowhead Whale
Brazilian Guinea Pig
Bridled Dolphin
Brown Bear
Brown Capuchin
Brown Long-eared Bat
Brown Rat
Buffalo
Caribou
Cat (domestic)
Cattle (domestic)
Cheetah
Collared Peccary
Commerson's Dolphin
Common Brushtail Possum
Common Chimpanzee
Common Dolphin[31]
Common Marmoset
Common Pipistrelle
Common Raccoon
Common Tree Shrew
Cotton-top Tamarin
Crab-eating Macaque
Crested Black Macaque
Cui
Dall's Sheep
Daubenton's Bat
Dog (domestic)
Doria's Tree Kangaroo
Dugong
Dwarf Cavy
Dwarf Mongoose
Eastern Cottontail Rabbit
Eastern Grey Kangaroo
(I got tired of formatting, but the list goes on for HUNDREDS of mammals, birds, insects and other invertebrates)
To any reasonable person, it would seem that homosexual behavior is quite natural.
Now, you can trot out the old argument that men are more than just beasts, right? No, thanks. Keep your Old Testament. I'll put my faith in science. And science says, it's NATURAL.

moral word wrote:

It's time to get back to morality, ethics and common sense! If we keep messing with nature we will destroy ourselves...

There is nothing moral or sensical about bigotry. It is PERFECTLY natural and normal for some people to be gay.

moral word wrote:

It's time to get back to morality, ethics and common sense! If we keep messing with nature we will destroy ourselves...

Don't worry......but just because folks are Gay or Lesbian doesn't mean they don't have morals.

We have been raised with Traditional family values and hold these values true to our hearts.

I doubt that Chief Justice Walker is going to dismiss this case.

Remember that this issue will be coming to a ballot box close to you in 2010.

the bible is simply a collection of stories to make human behavior controllable before science and education existed. there's some good basic advice but most are manipulated tales to achieve the intent of the writer. it was important to populate the planet at that time so anything other than procreation was discouraged. so what if people want to love someone of the same sex--stop judging behavior by archaic, ignorant principles.

The primary reason that homosexuals desire to redefine the historic definition of marriage is to legitimize an alternative lifestyle, and put it on an equal moral plane as heterosexual marriage. Can someone give a good simple reason why a civil union is not sufficient, and why marriage must be redefined? Or, do we open the door to further redefine marriage to include additional alternative lifesyles, including polygamy, inter-family, inter-species,...? Seems unfair to take a traditional institution and redefine it to suit a relatively small number of homosexuals with a lot of political power.

my2cents wrote:

The primary reason that homosexuals desire to redefine the historic definition of marriage is to legitimize an alternative lifestyle, and put it on an equal moral plane as heterosexual marriage. Can someone give a good simple reason why a civil union is not sufficient, and why marriage must be redefined? Or, do we open the door to further redefine marriage to include additional alternative lifesyles, including polygamy, inter-family, inter-species,...? Seems unfair to take a traditional institution and redefine it to suit a relatively small number of homosexuals with a lot of political power.

It is a really simple......SEPARATE BUT EQUAL ISN'T EQUAL.

If you have two things similar, but called something different.....one is given more credence than the other.

My wife and I have a marriage license......that is exactly the same as any other marriage license here in California. It is equal to the marriage licenses in MA, VT, CT, NY, IA, DC, NH and hopefully in Maine.

Now we don't have federal recognition.....but we are working on that.

What would you rather have......a)A MARRIAGE or b)A CIVIL UNION? One doesn't have to be explained.

What rights are you being denied by the goverment not calling your legal contract marriage?

If the special interest groups don't get what they "demand" then go to one black robe, who will usurp the power of the citizens.

If straight people get to vote on gay marriages, gays should be allowed to vote on straights getting married. Especially since straight people's marriage failure rate is over 50%.

no more wrote:

If the special interest groups don't get what they "demand" then go to one black robe, who will usurp the power of the citizens.

Sorry, but citizens don't have the right to vote on the rights of others.

Naturally wrote:

<quoted text>
Are you suggesting that homosexual behavior and orientation is 'unnatural'? How then do you explain the list of mammals that display homosexual behaviors?
(I got tired of formatting, but the list goes on for HUNDREDS of mammals, birds, insects and other invertebrates)
To any reasonable person, it would seem that homosexual behavior is quite natural.
Now, you can trot out the old argument that men are more than just beasts, right? No, thanks. Keep your Old Testament. I'll put my faith in science. And science says, it's NATURAL.

The arguement that there is examples of homosexualty in the animal kingdom is a joke and countered easily by simply stating "Man is evolved into a higher form, has higher intelligence and reasoning then lower forms of animals". Animals do not have the power of reason and sex is simply a involuntary act. Simply put animals at best could be called bi-sexual. Back in the days of the caveman when the species was evolving, maybe it was natural, we will never know for sure. We used to eat raw meat, walk on all fours, and use stone tools. But man has evolved above our animal instincts, including making choices of who to mate with. Using your theory that its natural means you wish to compare your actions to lifeforms that are far below humans in the evoluationary chain. In that case your so called rights are not violated as animals have no civil rights. You can't have it both ways.

Wow wrote:

Instead of redefining marriage(one of the 7 sacraments, between a man and a woman to procreate). Why not fight for specific rights? What rights are homosexual unions missing? Let's focus on that rather than the sanctity of marriage. I am a heterosexual, Roman Catholic and believe that somehow DNA got screwed up (like with Down's syndrome or Hemophiliacs)and homosexuality was the end product. You can't help how you are, but you can accept that you are a small population and can't win this war. Give up and stop wasting tax payers money.

On the contrary, we are making a great deal of headway in "this war" as you call it. Are people with Down's or Hemophilia denied marriage equality? Only if they're gay!

how about just having "partnership licenses" instead of marriage licenses--for straights and gays-- issued by the gov't (if you must involve the gov't in your 2-person union)then if you want an acknowledged spiritual marriage, you can go to whatever church performs your type of union--straight or gay and let the fight be between churchs instead of gov't.

IndyStevie wrote:

<quoted text>
On the contrary, we are making a great deal of headway in "this war" as you call it. Are people with Down's or Hemophilia denied marriage equality? Only if they're gay!

In essence, someone with Down's doesn't have the mental capacity for marriage. And one would hope that a Hemophiliac is smarter than to procreate and pass on this unfortunate, debilitating gene. What is the point of homosexuals getting married? What is the benefit to the greater good of mankind? I can't think of one. Sorry.

Wow wrote:

<quoted text>
In essence, someone with Down's doesn't have the mental capacity for marriage. And one would hope that a Hemophiliac is smarter than to procreate and pass on this unfortunate, debilitating gene. What is the point of homosexuals getting married? What is the benefit to the greater good of mankind? I can't think of one. Sorry.

It doesn't matter whether you can think of one. That's why it's not up to you to decide.

daytimedrama wrote:

What rights are you being denied by the goverment not calling your legal contract marriage?

Really. Please answer. What rights are being violated? You get the same tax breaks, medical benifits, social security etc...

You just want the goverment to call it marriage and not a civil union.

Whats the difference?

Marriage is a religious institution not a goverment run program.

Traditional Values wrote:

<quoted text>Using your theory that its natural means you wish to compare your actions to lifeforms that are far below humans in the evoluationary chain.

So what makes you think those lifeforms are below humans in the evolutionary chain?

No offense, but yes, humans are intelligent and dominate as far as numbers and such, but at the end of the day we are just another life form. Their are bacteria that can survive in situations we can't. If anything, we are complext, but above all the lifeforms on this planet? No way.

Humans have too much ego.

IndyStevie wrote:

<quoted text>
It doesn't matter whether you can think of one. That's why it's not up to you to decide.

I did get a chance to decide. Californians voted on this and the majority won. Stop grasping at straws and wasting tax payers' dollars.

RnL_4EVR_MARRIED wrote:

<quoted text>
It is a really simple......SEPARATE BUT EQUAL ISN'T EQUAL.
If you have two things similar, but called something different.....one is given more credence than the other.

Exactly my point. It is not enough that the homosexual community is allowed equal treatment. If I summarize correctly, the same-sex marriage movement isn't really about discrimination, but about obtaining a legitimacy and equal moral footing for what has been historically considered an immoral relationship.

Of course, legalizing same-sex marriage will be a boon to the wedding industry and I can already see the divorce attorneys salivating....