A judge ruled Monday that California's ban on gay marriage is unconstitutional, saying the state could no longer justify limiting marriage to a man and a woman.
To kick off the argument i'll ask our conservatives this:
In what way does "gay marriage" harm "straight marriage"?
"In what way does "gay marriage" harm "straight marriage"?"
Well I think this issue transcends labels like "conservative". It depends a lot on your religious background and what you value you ascribe to marriage. Personally I feel it is between a man and a woman. I have no issue with any two people devoting themselves to each other be that a man and a woman, two men or two women. I have no issue with all three groups getting all of the associated benefits from the governemt ascribed to the notion of being "married", but I do not feel the union between two men or two women should be called a marriage.
Kulaf wrote:"In what way does "gay marriage" harm "straight marriage"?"
Well I think this issue transcends labels like "conservative". It depends a lot on your religious background and what you value you ascribe to marriage. Personally I feel it is between a man and a woman. I have no issue with any two people devoting themselves to each other be that a man and a woman, two men or two women. I have no issue with all three groups getting all of the associated benefits from the governemt ascribed to the notion of being "married", but I do not feel the union between two men or two women should be called a marriage.
Way to not answer the question! care to try again?
"A few months ago, I told the American people I did not trade arms for hostages. My heart and best intentions still tell me that's true, but the facts and evidence tell me it is not." - Ronald Reagan 1987
"No, bestiality is a public health issue, amongst other things."
Yeah I am sure the motivating factor in anti-bestiality laws were public health concerns. Face it you stand at the top of the slippery slope of Mount Morality here. One false step and every single morality based law comes into question whether you like it or not. Some lawyer out there is going to go for it.
Kulaf wrote:"In what way does "gay marriage" harm "straight marriage"?"
Well I think this issue transcends labels like "conservative". It depends a lot on your religious background and what you value you ascribe to marriage. Personally I feel it is between a man and a woman. I have no issue with any two people devoting themselves to each other be that a man and a woman, two men or two women. I have no issue with all three groups getting all of the associated benefits from the governemt ascribed to the notion of being "married", but I do not feel the union between two men or two women should be called a marriage.
Way to not answer the question! care to try again?
Ok sorry I thought I was being fairly straight foreward....but let me give you a two word answer:
It doesn't.
However imo the term marriage carries value of a traditional/religious nature and I would prefer not to see it used in the union of gay couples. But that is just my opinion.
Again, I don't buy the religious argument since we legally allow atheist heterosexual couples to get married in civil ceremonies, yet we don't legally let religious gay couples get married by a church officiant who approves.
Bangzoom
94 Ranger of Karana
Veteran Crew, through and through
_______________________________________________________________________________
Face it you stand at the top of the slippery slope of Mount Morality here.
Yea, and from up here I can see you standing atop Mount Hubris.
[/quote]One false step and every single morality based law comes into question whether you like it or not. Some lawyer out there is going to go for it.[/quote]
Get real, Kulaf. As you know, the legality of sexual relations are based on the premise of "consent." It is illegal to have sexual relations with those that cannot consent - children, or invalids, or the unconscious. Animals also fall into that category.
You can bleat about morality all you want. And I'm sure that for many people the bestiality thing is a morality issue. But the fact remains that removing morality from the equation, there is still a basis for the laws.
Relbeek Einre wrote:No, bestiality is a public health issue, amongst other things.
Interestingly enough, that's the big argument I'm always being given from people wanting to outlaw sodomy. Not sure how public health gets to be the big problem with legalizing beastiality, but not the big one for outlawing sodomy. (Mind you, I wouldn't be happy to see sodomy become illegal again.)
Vaulos Grandmaster of Brell / Shadowblade of Kay Minister of Propaganda for the Ethereal Knighthood
Relbeek Einre wrote:Anal sex is the surest method of transmitting AIDS, it's true. However, in a monogamous relationship, it's not a health issue at all.
Horses don't carry the HIV virus... nor any other human STD that I'm aware. So how is bestiality a health issue?
Correction Mr. President, I DID build this, and please give Lurker a hug, we wouldn't want to damage his self-esteem.
