California Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage

[Arlos]

Obviously, in the views of the justices, homosexuality is an inherent condition that an individual has no control over, any more than an individual has any choice in what race they were born as. Given that one of the founding principles is "The pursuit of happiness", they obviously decided that preventing one large minority group from entering into legally binding romantic partners of their choice would violate that principle.

-Arlos

[Gypsiyee]

I support civil unions, but I have a problem with comparisons of gay marriage to civil rights movements of the past. Homosexuals are not denied anything that heterosexuals are granted, the laws regarding marriage apply to everyone equally. Anyone is free to have a legally recognized union with someone of the opposite sex, and with relatively recent exception no one is allowed to have legally recognized unions with someone of the same sex. Of course this doesn't cater to homosexuals personal tastes, but that is hardly a civil rights issue as long as the same laws apply to everyone equally. Apply the same logic to tobacco and marijuana. If you can't stand the smell of tobacco, but love smoking pot, you are not suddenly joined in the ranks of people who by virtue of physical characteristics were denied equal treatment by the law. Personal taste does not a civil rights issue make as long as the law applies equally to everyone.

Two people want to get married, they should be able to as long as they're of legal age to make their own decisions, no matter what their sex. Marijuana is a whole other ball of wax and not even on the same grounds for comparison, it's a real grasp for straws. It's not given right to smoke marijuana - it's hardly a given right to smoke tobacco anymore aside from in your own home.. marriage, however, is.

I don't see how you can compare the two at all. It's not granting the same rights to everyone if they can't get married. Your logic is terribly flawed, because personal preference is why everyone ends up with the partner they're with. I'm sorry Lueyen, but you can't marry the person you're in love with because she has a different attitude than me and she's not of my taste - this is okay, though, because since it's based on personal preference, you don't have the right to marry her.

I'm not quite sure how you can take anything like the love between two people and justify how marriage applies to one group but not the other due to personal preference... it's all personal preference.

[Harrison]

It is a given right to smoke tobacco, or anything else for that matter.

Who is anyone to tell you what you can and cannot ingest in one form or another? You don't want to make the comparison because it goes against your argument.

Though, I still don't give a shit about gay marriage one way or the other either.

[Gypsiyee]

Who is anyone to tell you what you can and cannot ingest in one form or another? You don't want to make the comparison because it goes against your argument.

I think I worded my sentence wrong - I didn't mean it's not a right - when I said hardly, I meant more along the lines of places banning smoking in a big chunk of the US, so it's getting more and more rare for it to be a "right" when in so many places it's no longer allowed

hope I clarified that ><

still, though, my point still stands - when we're talking preference, it applies to every marriage, not just gay marriage.

[Zanchief]

I support civil unions, but I have a problem with comparisons of gay marriage to civil rights movements of the past. Homosexuals are not denied anything that heterosexuals are granted, the laws regarding marriage apply to everyone equally. Anyone is free to have a legally recognized union with someone of the opposite sex, and with relatively recent exception no one is allowed to have legally recognized unions with someone of the same sex. Of course this doesn't cater to homosexuals personal tastes, but that is hardly a civil rights issue as long as the same laws apply to everyone equally.

Why not apply the term civil unions to all "married" people? The government shouldn't care what people are doing in their church anyway. If a gay couple can find a church, whether it be Christian, Jewish, and Scientologist, that chooses to marry them, then they can attach what ever word they want to the union. The government shouldn't care at all in any case, but religious bullying is forcing the government to recognize an institution that it has no business documenting.

Imagine if the government kept track of bar mitzvahs and gave all Jewish boys a check when they performed one? It's just as silly.

[Lueyen]

I support civil unions, but I have a problem with comparisons of gay marriage to civil rights movements of the past. Homosexuals are not denied anything that heterosexuals are granted, the laws regarding marriage apply to everyone equally. Anyone is free to have a legally recognized union with someone of the opposite sex, and with relatively recent exception no one is allowed to have legally recognized unions with someone of the same sex. Of course this doesn't cater to homosexuals personal tastes, but that is hardly a civil rights issue as long as the same laws apply to everyone equally.

Why not apply the term civil unions to all "married" people? The government shouldn't care what people are doing in their church anyway. If a gay couple can find a church, whether it be Christian, Jewish, and Scientologist, that chooses to marry them, then they can attach what ever word they want to the union. The government shouldn't care at all in any case, but religious bullying is forcing the government to recognize an institution that it has no business documenting.

No argument there, that is pretty much what I'm in favor of, and pretty much for the reasons you've stated.

[Arlos]

Unfortunately, "Marriage" ceased to be a religious-specific event the instant judges or other State (ie, nonreligious) officials were empowered to perform weddings. No one is trying to make churches that are opposed to gay marriage actually perform them. That's not the point of the law. Your church can keep on discriminating just as much as it wants on this issue. This is only about CIVIL ceremonies, and giving people the same non-religious legal rights (hospital visitations, shared property, etc) and legal statuses (joint tax returns, social security, shared health insurance, etc) that are available to everyone else who wishes to marry the spouse of their choice.

Why a church would have any leg to stand on when protesting a civil ceremony marrying 2 people, regardless of sex or ethnicity, I have no idea. If you REALLY want to "protect the sanctity of marriage", why not start with all the sham heterosexual marriages, as there are FAR more of them than there are gay weddings? How about all the green-card marriages, done solely to get someone into the country semi-legally? You think all of the weddings performed on 2 drunk people in Vegas are worthy? How about 25 year old model marries 85 year old uber-rich guy? You want to enforce the sanctity of marriage, you have a shit-ton of work to do in the hetero side of the house before you should spare any time worrying about 2 people of the same sex who love each other and get married.

-Arlos

[Lueyen]

Arlos you seem to blame the opposition to gay marriage on churches, and while they no doubt have their influence, it is not churches protesting gay marriage, it is the people who voted against it. When put to a vote by the people, both California and Oregon voters voted no. This is also being challenged in Oregon courts, with no success thus far. The key thing here though is that in both of these very liberal states the people said no, not the churches. I also firmly believe that people don't vote no just because churches condemn homosexuality, I also don't believe they vote no because they are so ill informed to believe that this is an attempt to force churches to marry homosexual couples. Where I do believe the churches do influence the issue is if they take a stance that this is a stepping stone to force and or promote societal acceptance of homosexuality.

Basically I believe Eziekial in a perhaps not so tactful way hit it on the head, the resistance to gay marriage stems from peoples fear that this is a step toward societal acceptance, which while by it's self isn't a threat, when the so called gay adjenda starts being pushed and compared to the civil rights movements of women and blacks, people start to wonder if the future will bring similar results in the form of it being taboo to condemn the acts and lifestyle.

Often times the gay community hurts its self more in the public view then any church could. Association with NAMBLA being one of the most damaging things. While most homosexual groups condemn NAMBLA the organization still marches in gay pride parades under it's own banner. Along those same lines, you want society to be more accepting... stop going for shock value. Most homosexuals I know you wouldn't know were gay by looking at them or having a casual conversation. This is not to say they hide the fact, but they certainly don't run around with it on their sleeve either.

Lastly in the clean up your own back yard argument, you almost make marriage seem like an affliction we would be subjecting homosexuals too lol. I tend to look at it from a different standpoint, and that is the benefits it would have for society at large, due to the positive aspects of marriage. The biggest positive factor I can see is that it would promote more monogamous relationships hampering the spread of STD's and some of the more lude and dangerous aspects of the subculture. I believe early on there was a huge injustice done in the name of political correctness, and that is in an effort to keep from lending credibility to the idea that AIDS was a gay disease, the grave error was made in not being honest that homosexuals were statistically at a greater risk. This obviously does not go for just homosexuals alone, but in the context here anything promoting monogamy will have the positive aspect of reducing the spread of STDs, which no matter how you look at it will be a plus for society as a whole.

[Tikker]

I also firmly believe that people don't vote no just because churches condemn homosexuality, I also don't believe they vote no because they are so ill informed to believe that this is an attempt to force churches to marry homosexual couples.

why?

people are sheep

if they are church goers, they will do what the church tells them to do, believe what the church tells them to believe

how else would your invisible man have remained so popular

[10sun]

Helps them come to terms with not understanding the world.

[Harrison]

I also firmly believe that people don't vote no just because churches condemn homosexuality, I also don't believe they vote no because they are so ill informed to believe that this is an attempt to force churches to marry homosexual couples.

why?

people are sheep

if they are church goers, they will do what the church tells them to do, believe what the church tells them to believe

how else would your invisible man have remained so popular

Being an unbeliever myself I find it amusing that it's very much the same reason there are masses of retards out there who equate atheism with intelligence and wisdom.

[Evermore]

Zanchief hit the nail on the head. its pissing me off more that my tax dollars are being wasted on shit like this.

[Gypsiyee]

Basically I believe Eziekial in a perhaps not so tactful way hit it on the head, the resistance to gay marriage stems from peoples fear that this is a step toward societal acceptance, which while by it's self isn't a threat, when the so called gay adjenda starts being pushed and compared to the civil rights movements of women and blacks, people start to wonder if the future will bring similar results in the form of it being taboo to condemn the acts and lifestyle

And why shouldn't it be taboo? It is not a crime to be gay, people have no right to condemn anyone. It should be taboo - there's no threat here. The way you put it sounds like condemning gayness as a contagious wretched disease.

It should be compared to the civil rights movement. During those movements people said the same sorts of things of those two minorities, how is this any different aside from what you personally believe to be right and wrong? It's not.. it's exactly the same. People used to believe black rights were wrong, used to believe women's rights were wrong... the similarities are precise.

I do love that those who are using the defense that the people voted against it are the very same people who still support the war - the people don't want that, either, but that seems to be okay by you because it fits into your personal agendas. Let's not be hypocrites here.

Often times the gay community hurts its self more in the public view then any church could. Association with NAMBLA being one of the most damaging things. While most homosexual groups condemn NAMBLA the organization still marches in gay pride parades under it's own banner. Along those same lines, you want society to be more accepting... stop going for shock value. Most homosexuals I know you wouldn't know were gay by looking at them or having a casual conversation. This is not to say they hide the fact, but they certainly don't run around with it on their sleeve either.

You can't possibly believe that this is the gay community on the whole and that these types of people are the only homosexuals gunning for gay marriage. There are bad apples in every group of people; rather than focus on a minority of the group, open your eyes enough to realize that it is a minority. That's like saying the white community hurts itself with its association with the KKK.

Lastly in the clean up your own back yard argument, you almost make marriage seem like an affliction we would be subjecting homosexuals too lol. I tend to look at it from a different standpoint, and that is the benefits it would have for society at large, due to the positive aspects of marriage. The biggest positive factor I can see is that it would promote more monogamous relationships hampering the spread of STD's and some of the more lude and dangerous aspects of the subculture. I believe early on there was a huge injustice done in the name of political correctness, and that is in an effort to keep from lending credibility to the idea that AIDS was a gay disease, the grave error was made in not being honest that homosexuals were statistically at a greater risk. This obviously does not go for just homosexuals alone, but in the context here anything promoting monogamy will have the positive aspect of reducing the spread of STDs, which no matter how you look at it will be a plus for society as a whole.

The flaw in your argument here is that while the gay community on the whole is a promiscuous bunch, those that want to get married are doing so for a reason. It is no different than single heterosexuals dating around - promiscuity is nothing new for single people dating multiple people. Most gay men who sleep with multiple people don't bother representing themselves as monogamous, and it shouldn't even be looked at in a light that says homosexuals are incapable of being faithful. Not to mention that explicitly talking about the male homosexual community, you're doubling the number of males thereby increasing the likelihood of infidelity as men are around 15% more likely to sleep around than women - the promiscuity isn't just because they're gay, it's because they're men.

Those who don't want to be in a monogamous relationship aren't trying to get married, just like single heterosexuals. They're no different than regular people - some like to be single, some don't. Some want to be in a commited relationship, some don't. Some never grow up, some do. Again, this isn't because they're gay, it's because they're human.

You're looking at it in a sensationalist light, highlighting small parts that you want to believe are the norm and discounting pertinent facts that contribute. Different cultures and different groups of people live their lives differently, and that's true no matter what your sexual preference is.

[Eziekial]

The reason I wasn't tactful was to make a point. It's the same thing when some people get upset with those who parade around with their ass hanging out of a pair of cutoff jeans and a mesh tank top.

The thought of making something else Taboo coming from you Gyp is so twisted it's not even funny. Taboo is the conservative mantra. It's up there with sacred and forbidden. How someone trying to champion a gay right agenda can use that word in an argument baffles me. It is trying to have your cake and eat it too and that is what is fundamentally wrong with the gay rights "movement". You can't stand there and make an argument that you have the "right" to be a gay couple and at the same time deny me the "right" to say that your gayness is wrong. You can't go around blasting churches, organizations or even businesses for not catering to you. Gayness is not a protected class. You can't force people to accept it; a mule is not a horse no matter what law you pass saying it is.

[Gypsiyee]

The thought of making something else Taboo coming from you Gyp is so twisted it's not even funny. Taboo is the conservative mantra. It's up there with sacred and forbidden. How someone trying to champion a gay right agenda can use that word in an argument baffles me. It is trying to have your cake and eat it too and that is what is fundamentally wrong with the gay rights "movement". You can't stand there and make an argument that you have the "right" to be a gay couple and at the same time deny me the "right" to say that your gayness is wrong.

Condemnation is the word that was used in association with taboo, and imo, it should be taboo to condemn people based on who they are. You can disagree with who they are, fine, I will never deny you the right to say it's wrong. You can absolutely say you think it's wrong, but denying a right that should be given to all humans isn't just saying it's wrong, it's restricting liberties based on a personal moral belief. Taboo wasn't the conservative mantra when it was acceptable to toss around nigger and deny people basic human rights based on color. Again, this is no different.

As far as the tight shorts and mesh tank top, I highly doubt I would hear you protesting if it was a woman flopping her tits everywhere and wearing shorts in the same camel-toe inducing fashion, so long as she was aethetically pleasing. You can't use this moral stance only when it's convenient for you and when something is offensive to your personal senses.

You can't go around blasting churches, organizations or even businesses for not catering to you. Gayness is not a protected class. You can't force people to accept it; a mule is not a horse no matter what law you pass saying it is.

I agree that the people blasting churches for not accepting them should just back off and leave it be and let them practice how they choose to practice. I don't agree with the exclusion, but that's their right. I'm not sure what you mean for businesses and organizations as far as catering so my agreeance level might waver there if we're talking basic rights like being allowed to participate etc.

You're right - gay isn't a protected class, but I think that's been the whole point. Neither was black, neither was female, and in all the instances people have thought that since they're not protected it's completely okay to restrict rights supposedly granted to all citizens.

I don't necessarily believe there should be such thing as a 'protected class' - I think all people are created equal, and all people should have the same opportunities and rights. (that includes overzealous affirmative action. I don't believe people should be given a bunch special rights based on class, either.)

If there were never any restriction on that based on class, there would be no such thing as the ridiculousness known as 'protected class' now. When one says all men are created equal, it should be universally applied - that's the beauty of that special little word "all" - it's meant to be inclusive to everyone. If it's not, it should've been worded a little more like "all white heterosexual christian men are created equal, the rest can fuck off."

PS - I hate the phrase have your cake and eat it too. who the hell wants cake if they can't eat it?

[Arlos]

What the hell is "wrong" about being gay anyway, especially if you're not basing your arguments on a religious basis? You don't like seeing 2 guys make out in the street, fine, I can buy that, but most people don't like seeing a guy and a girl gnawing on each other's tonsils in public either. Yes, NAMBLA is a bunch of raving fuckwads. Yes, some people get in-your face about it, but so do people from other walks of life. Maybe it's just San Francisco being San Francisco, but I've several times seen a girl in dominance gear leading a guy around on a leash, or visa versa, and I doubt that would go over any better most places, yes?

But what about the vast majority who are NOT flamboyant, and just want to be just like everyone else, except for the fact that they're attracted to people with the same set of body parts that they have? Why shouldn't they be allowed to love who they want, live with who they want, MARRY who they want (in a civil ceremony, of course), and otherwise enjoy the same rights and privileges as any other taxpayer?

As for schools teaching that there's nothing wrong with homosexuality, I have no problem with that, because there IS nothing wrong with homosexuality. Sure, they're "different", but haven't we as humans gotten past automatically hating and fearing other people just because they are somehow different than us? I guess not, if your attitude is any indication. Yeah, it's not "normal", so the hell what? Playing an online video game for hours on end back when we played EQ wasn't "normal" either. (Now, given the success of WOW, it might be, but back then it wasn't)

-Arlos

[Jay]

Zanchief hit the nail on the head. its pissing me off more that my tax dollars are being wasted on shit like this.

Whoa, he said "Zanchief" in a post and didn't froth at the mouth and hurl tacky insults. GG Evers.

[Evermore]

Credit where credit is due sir.

[Drem]

What the hell is "wrong" about being gay anyway, especially if you're not basing your arguments on a religious basis? You don't like seeing 2 guys make out in the street, fine, I can buy that, but most people don't like seeing a guy and a girl gnawing on each other's tonsils in public either.

I think what's even worse than gay guys are certain lesbians. It's become like a great social booster if a girl says she's a lesbian because EVERY GUY AROUND wants a piece of that, right? But what's the deal with these younger lesbians that dress like boys and take sharpies and write "MUFF DIVER" on their fingers or graffiti "MUFF" on the walls around here. It's ridiculous. I don't think gay guys walk into a group of people and talk about all the dick they just got so why do these cocky lesbians feel the need to do it? When I was with my ex, half of her friends were like this. They'd make passes at her while we were partying. It's half the reason I broke up with her. I think it's disgusting and flamboyant and ridiculous. I don't run around writing PUSSY on my chest and telling everybody about all the crazy sex I had.

I equate being gay to being part of a trend at this point. And it's for people that can't find a normal mate of opposite sex. Like they gave up and stuck with what they knew. Sounds terrible, I know, but I've actually seen some people hit the turning point and it's always 100% because of some shitty heterosexual relationship they had or an alarming amount of failures with heterosexual relationships. It's textbook Seinfeld. I think I've only met 2 or 3 homosexuals that have been that way since they can remember and have never had a heterosexual relationship

I'm sure this post sounds pretty hate-filled but I have no problem with (and this goes for any type of human being) people that mind their business (any business, it's ok) and relate to others on matters of mutual interest. However, I can't stand it when anybody is loud and in charge with whatever they do. Especially if it's disgusting to me. It's just heat-seeking conflict. Nobody asked these girls to run around in jean shorts and converse and army glasses with bob cuts at parties screaming about all the pussy they ate. Just like nobody asks the stupid cracker kid to cock-eye his hat, say nigger a lot, and embarass himself with his freestyle. I weigh these types of things about the same...

[Gypsiyee]

I know the exact type of people you're talking about, Drem, and for them, it's certainly a trend. There are a lot of people out there who do the gay thing as shock value, but aren't actually homosexual, and I'd say that 9 times out of 10, those are the people who are the most flamboyant and give the community a bad name. It's the same as people who try to commit suicide for attention, etc - it's all for shock value, and it's all attention seeking... it's unfortunate, too, because it really takes away from the people who actually live in these situations and the real struggles that relate to them.

The fact is that there are legitimately homosexual people out there who just want to live normal lives and can't help who they are. They didn't ask to be that way and have dealt with severe ostracism for who they are. I had gay friends and family growing up, and I witnessed firsthand the turmoil they went through - my cousin ended up killing herself, and we took in a girlfriend of my sister's whose parents basically exiled her. She didn't know why she was the way she was; as a 16 year old girl she tried dating guys and it literally made her physically nauseous - she was constantly depressed and didn't want to tell people about it. I had a friend from the age I was 10 who I always knew was gay and even told him as much when we were teens - he came out privately to me when we were about 17, but didn't publicly come out until he was 22 because he didn't want to deal with the criticism. My biological sister, on the other hand, is certainly one of the ones who had her experiences just for shock value.

Generally, the people who bitch the loudest with the most irrational words and with the least substance are generally the ones who are the most full of shit. That's the way of life, I reckon.

[Arlos]

I don't like guys that run around bragging about how much sex they are having, so no, I don't care for it when girls do it either. That's not a hetero/homo issue, however. I've known LOTS of frat-boy guys in the past who did exactly that, spent all their time bragging about how many chicks they had done recently, etc. So, I find that no difference than anyone else doing exactly the same thing, regardless of whether or not they brag about doing people with different reproductive systems or the same as their own.

What you're objecting to is breaches of civility, not homosexuality. I think everyone can agree that people being in-your-face about much of anything is an instant ticket to wanting to bitchslap them silly. But I repeat, neither side of the line has a monopoly on it. Nor is that kind of attention-seeking limited to sexuality, as you noted, you see the same thing with white guys trying to look "thug lite", etc.

Most of the gay people I've known are hardly flamboyant. They are just average people trying to get through life, they just have a different view on who they find attractive than most people of their sex does. The gay marriage law change isn't intended to promote in-your-face bragging and random promiscuity, it's for people who want to make a serious commitment, now it just doesn't matter what the sexes of both sides are.

Ultimately, you need to realize what it is exactly you're objecting to. Yeah, I can see how the behavior of your ex'es would get on your nerves, it probably would get on anyone's nerve, same as the fratboys I knew years ago's bragging got on mine. But what do you have against 2 guys or 2 girls that look pretty much like average anyone else, who love each other and want to commit getting married to each other, even though they're the same sex as their partner? I fail to see how that threatens you at all, or why you would object to it.

-Arlos

[araby]

It's the same thing when some people get upset with those who parade around with their ass hanging out of a pair of cutoff jeans and a mesh tank top.

Have you been spying on me through the french doors?

[brinstar]

i'm gonna rain on your parade

[Eziekial]

OK. Now we are getting somewhere! So let me start with Gyp's point of denying rights of others. First, I need you to clarify what right(s) we are talking about. You can't say marriage is a right because it's not. We've already established it's just a ceremony. It's like saying I have the right to a Bar-mitzva (spelling?) even though I'm not Jewish. NOW, if you (or the gay -rights club) want to argue that a law grants privilege to couple H then it should be allowed to couple G or removed from law then I'm all for it. I prefer not to have laws that draw lines between people. Laws should be written without references to color, sex, religion, culture or any other distinguishing language. But you see, that means if we don't allow married couples to get special perks just because they are married and we are truly following the line of reasoning that we are all equal then we can't write laws that allow minorities to get special treatment or disabled people to have special provisions. Sorry, but once you eat the cake it's gone. No endless cakes in this world, Missy.

As for Arlos and his point about what is "wrong" with being gay. What's wrong about bestiality? Or necrophilia, or animal sacrifice? What is wrong with cannibalism? It goes against nature. It goes against the teaching of God. If you want to teach in schools how homosexuality is an abnormal behavior then fine. Teach that. Teach that it is not the norm. It represents a small percentage of the population and science is not sure what causes it. It could be a mutation or it could be a defective gene. Whatever, it's not natural and it's not normal. That doesn't mean we have to shun them from society, it doesn't mean that they need to be segregated or rocks thrown at them. It means that every individual should have the ability to determine how they interact with one another. I may have friends who are gay but their sexuality is not what defines them.

So in summary, we are in agreement that people should be seen equally under the law. Although I'm curious if you take it to the level I do or if you prefer to pick and choose who is equal. We don't agree on how sexuality should be presented in schools. And I'm not sure how we stand in terms of sociality acceptance of behavior and how it should be regulated or controlled, if at all. I look forward to your reply.

[Arlos]

I am all for equal protection under the law for everyone, regardless of race, creed, orientation, etc. One thing I absolutely disagree with you in your statement is provisions for disabled people. It's a matter of equal access to services and opportunity. Without disabled ramps, elevators, etc. they can't enter stores, go into buildings, and without the extra-wide disabled parking spots, they can't get out of the car and into a wheelchair, etc. And before you ask, yes, people in wheelchairs can drive. I once knew a guy who was paralyzed from the waist down, and he drove a specially modified van with all the brake, accelerator, etc. hooked up to stuff on the steering wheel, so he could drive just as well as anyone. The van was also modified to offload his wheelchair, the seat could drop really low down, and it had hand-bars so he could lower himself from out of the lowered driver's seat into it. Normal parking place, no way he can do that. So no, they're not getting special privileges, the disabled stuff merely puts them in the position to have the same rights of access and self-reliance that non-disabled people do.

Also I ask, WTF does God have to do with anything, as far as a lifestyle being right-wrong? Sure, in the theology you personally follow it may be discouraged, but what gives you the right to make that judgment for everyone else who doesn't follow the same sect you do? What about those of us who follow faiths which in no way condemn homosexuality whatsoever? I don't believe in the Christian God, nor do many others. So, why should we be forced to live by your theological hangups? Not to mention, you are extrapolating right and wrong on this from your own narrow theological viewpoint, which civil law cannot and MUST not take into account, given the requirement of separation of church and state. I remind you that public schools are SECULAR institutions, and thus have no place whatsoever relating a theologically-based interpretation of right and wrong on such an issue. Furthermore, note that no one is attempting to force any religious organization into performing marriages that it deems improper, we are purely discussing civil marriage.

The issue is that marriage has multiple separate meanings, both religious and secular. On a religious level, from the christian point of view, it is one of the sacraments, and has significant religious implications. On the other hand, however, marriage has some purely secular aspects under our legal system: spouses have certain rights with regards to joint property, inheritance, sharing of benefits from an employer, taxes, etc. etc. etc. The list is actually quite sweeping. Nothing the court decided has any impact on marriage as religious sacrament. What it did rule is that barring 2 people from getting the broad range of secular rights and benefits simply because they happened to be the same sex as each other was just as wrong as barring 2 people from them because they happened to be different races. In our society, marriage IS a right that nearly anyone and everyone has access to, if you are willing to jump through the legal hoops. The court ruling merely increased the inclusivity of the secular condition, nothing else. Just remember to keep in mind that marriage can mean 2 entirely separate things, which sometimes are bound up together if the marriage is performed in a church, but other times are not, if the marriage is, say, performed by a judge. The decision in no way touched upon the religious aspect of marriage, solely on the secular aspect.

Ultimately, what right do you have to condemn as wrong something that is the choice of 2 freely consenting adults? Your "counter-examples" are mere straw-men and have no actual relation to homosexuality in any way. Certain religious sects condemn dancing as evil. Should they be able to force all of society to give up dancing? Of course not. So why should your theological position be imposed as the law of the land, when it comes from a purely religious source? Also, homosexuality most certainly is natural. Look at just about any animal species, and you'll find same-sex pairings in rare instances. I myself happened to once see a duck menage-a-trois, male duck screwing a male duck who was screwing a female. Is it common? No, of course not. Does it do anything towards propagating the species? Likewise of course not. But, you know, I don't really think that humanity is so teetering on the precipice of extinction that we must demand that the pairing of all couples is such that they could produce offspring. Honestly, I think that we've got enough spare people running around that we can somehow manage to survive as a species with a small percentage of the population forming non-reproductary pair-bonds, don't you?

-Arlos