California Supreme Court to decide on gay marriage ban

[SMCengineer]

Do the children have rights? How about a right to a mother? Every child has a right to a mother.

How does this pertain to my response or this thread in general? It's completely off topic yet you chose to focus on it instead of replying intelligently to my post. I'll indulge you, however. Of course children have rights, but that doesn't mean that an adopted child should always have a mother. It means the child should go to the couple that demonstrates the highest responsibilty and potential for giving that child a loving home. Forcing a child to always have a mother (if it were under federal control) would lead to the federal government giving the rights of a child over to a couple who's potentially less suitable to take care of the child than a gay couple might be.

When government pretends something's a marriage that isn't, children are hurt, society is weakened, and anyone who objects is attacked.

Which is exactly why the government should be left out of it. Let the churches decide what they want to recognize and what they don't want to recognize. That way, in your eyes, the sanctity of marriage is still "safe" yet no one is discriminated against with the publics dollar.

[kfrost06]

How does this pertain to my response or this thread in general? It's completely off topic yet you chose to focus on it instead of replying intelligently to my post. I'll indulge you, however. Of course children have rights, but that doesn't mean that an adopted child should always have a mother. It means the child should go to the couple that demonstrates the highest responsibilty and potential for giving that child a loving home. Forcing a child to always have a mother (if it were under federal control) would lead to the federal government giving the rights of a child over to a couple who's potentially less suitable to take care of the child than a gay couple might be.


Which is exactly why the government should be left out of it. Let the churches decide what they want to recognize and what they don't want to recognize. That way, in your eyes, the sanctity of marriage is still "safe" yet no one is discriminated against with the publics dollar.

You will be hard pressed to find gays that are not also for gay adoption, Carlos, Tock, et.el. feel free to chime in on that statement. Marriage is just one step to redefining "family".

In a Village Voice article, "The Radical Case for Gay Marriage," Richard Goldstein notes that adoption of "marriage" by homosexuals will change the institution itself. "Generations of radicals have imagined a world in which the norm-making rules of matrimony are suspended. ... Down the road, we might see groups of people sharing the custody of children. …"

Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile wrote that "gays" should seize marriage "not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution."

Second as to the government, the people decided twice, in 1977 and again in 2000, they voted over welmingly in CA to define marriage as between one woman and one man, 4 judges took it upon themselves to insert their own will on the people and in effect the entire country.

Business-owners would be forced to subsidize and celebrate homosexuality, despite their personally held beliefs. Some companies and at least one federal agency have advised employees not to use the terms "husband" or "wife" in the office, but to use the word "partner" instead. That is wrong.

Evidently your definition of intelligence and conservative are equally skewed. Now your left with one opition, name calling, bigot, hate mongerer, religous nut, right winger, or in your case you can call me a liberal

[kfrost06]

Id say that the main cause nobody cares about marriage here anymore is because nobody cares about religion. There isnt much reason to get married if your not religious. The only reason to get married if you take away the religion is for some economic benifits.



Unmarried doesnt mean single. Most are happy enough just living togheter. It doesnt matter to the child if his parents are married or not.



Thats a great thing imo.



If its even 7% of men I would be suprised. Through my life so far I have known very very few that attend church reguarly or even consider themself religious. If your a devoute christian in sweden people will think you a bit odd. Not even the christian democrats(political party) talks about religion during elections because they know that if they start to sound overly religious they will lose big time.

Well, you have made my arguement for me, thanks.

[Carlos_E]

Well, you have made my arguement for me, thanks.

His points do not relate to gay marriage at all. You're adding 2 + 2 and coming up with 5.

[Kärnfysikern]

Well, you have made my arguement for me, thanks.

In what way? You stated same sex marriage has made marriagee disapere, thats not true. By the way same sex marriage is NOT legal in sweden(looking at the laws right now) further proving it has had nothing to do with the decline in marriages in sweden.

I havent seen any study on it, but Im willing to bet its because of the decline in religion.

Further, in what way is marriage a prerequisite for a happy family and in what way is it detrimental if a lesser % of the population attend church? Your posts imply that is the case but there is no basis for those assumptions.

[SMCengineer]

You will be hard pressed to find gays that are not also for gay adoption, Carlos, Tock, et.el. feel free to chime in on that statement. Marriage is just one step to redefining "family".

I'll refine this for you. You'd be hard pressed to find anyone who stands for individual liberty that opposes gay adoption.

In a Village Voice article, "The Radical Case for Gay Marriage," Richard Goldstein notes that adoption of "marriage" by homosexuals will change the institution itself. "Generations of radicals have imagined a world in which the norm-making rules of matrimony are suspended. ... Down the road, we might see groups of people sharing the custody of children. …"

Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile wrote that "gays" should seize marriage "not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution."

Second as to the government, the people decided twice, in 1977 and again in 2000, they voted over welmingly in CA to define marriage as between one woman and one man, 4 judges took it upon themselves to insert their own will on the people and in effect the entire country.

Business-owners would be forced to subsidize and celebrate homosexuality, despite their personally held beliefs.

Are you missing this or just ignoring it:

Which is exactly why the government should be left out of it. Let the churches decide what they want to recognize and what they don't want to recognize. That way, in your eyes, the sanctity of marriage is still "safe" yet no one is discriminated against with the publics dollar.

This addresses every problem that you just posted and is also the conservative standpoint.

Some companies and at least one federal agency have advised employees not to use the terms "husband" or "wife" in the office, but to use the word "partner" instead. That is wrong.

I agree.

Evidently your definition of intelligence and conservative are equally skewed.

How so? You have yet to respond to the post and you definitely haven't made a case against mine.

Now your left with one opition, name calling, bigot, hate mongerer, religous nut, right winger, or in your case you can call me a liberal .

It's funny you think that because I said you're not a conservative, which you're not, you think I called you a liberal, which I didn't. I'll concede the point if you can show me where I said this or even implied it. I don't play the name calling game, sorry.

[Tock]

You will be hard pressed to find gays that are not also for gay adoption

I'm not against gay adoption. Speaking for myself, I wouldn't want to adopt a kid, so I wouldn't say that I'm for it. But I'm not against it, if the gay adoptive parents meet the same qualifications as anyone else.

In a Village Voice article, "The Radical Case for Gay Marriage," Richard Goldstein notes that adoption of "marriage" by homosexuals will change the institution itself. "Generations of radicals have imagined a world in which the norm-making rules of matrimony are suspended. ... Down the road, we might see groups of people sharing the custody of children. …"

This is just one guy's opinion. Since when have you put stock in one person's opinion, especially a gay liberal?

Homosexual activist Michelangelo Signorile wrote that "gays" should seize marriage "not as a way of adhering to society's moral codes but rather to debunk a myth and radically alter an archaic institution."

This is just one guy's opinion. Since when have you put stock in one person's opinion, especially a gay liberal?

Sheesh . . .

Second as to the government, the people decided twice, in 1977 and again in 2000, they voted over welmingly in CA to define marriage as between one woman and one man, 4 judges took it upon themselves to insert their own will on the people and in effect the entire country.

But those judges did so in a legal and constitutional manner that was prescribed and approved by a majority of the citizens of California.
And no, they did not "take it upon themselves" to do so. The matter was brought to them by legal and constitutional processes. Had the judges not acted as they did, they would not have fulfilled their constitutional obligations.

So what's your beef?

Business-owners would be forced to subsidize and celebrate homosexuality

Oh, hogwash.

Some companies and at least one federal agency have advised employees not to use the terms "husband" or "wife" in the office, but to use the word "partner" instead. That is wrong.

Why is it wrong?