Steve Young's family up against Mormon church on Prop. 8

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

So someone should be thrown in jail because their moral beliefs differ from yours? And I've never been more convinced that a person is proven right based on the fact that there are more people who agree with him than me. If you stood for civil rights for black people in the state of Alabama in 1958 -- you'd be in the minority by far. But that doesn't mean you're wrong and the majority is right.

If you don't mind, I'd like to pick your brain a bit to find out why you think homosexuality is "inherently wrong" -- is it religous, or Biblically based? A violation of natural law?

Wow, where the hell did I say that? You see, this is somewhat amusing to me. It's always the far left leaning individuals among us that are the first to apply labels to those with opposing view points, yet the more conservative are branded the bigots. I have not once advocated any kind of "punishment" for anyone of any persuasion. Not only have I not said it, I don't feel it.

To answer your second question, my feelings are not based on any form of religion, as I personally am not a believer. To me, it is a violation of natural law.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

Wow, where the hell did I say that? You see, this is somewhat amusing to me. It's always the far left leaning individuals among us that are the first to apply labels to those with opposing view points, yet the more conservative are branded the bigots. I have not once advocated any kind of "punishment" for anyone of any persuasion. Not only have I not said it, I don't feel it.

To answer your second question, my feelings are not based on any form of religion, as I personally am not a believer. To me, it is a violation of natural law.

It's really quite simple: If you think gay marriage should be illegal, i.e. against the law -- than anyone who engages in that activity would be in violation of the law and could theoretically be sent to jail.

Now, on to your violation of natural law -- if a behavior, or inherent attraction is found throughout nature, in the animal kingdom, (and yes, we humans are animals) then how could it possibly be a violation of natural law?

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

It's really quite simple: If you think gay marriage should be illegal, i.e. against the law -- than anyone who engages in that activity would be in violation of the law and could theoretically sent to jail.

Now, on to your violation of natural law -- if a behavior, or inherent attraction is found throughout nature, in the animal kingdom, (and yes, we humans are animals) then how could it possibly be a violation of natural law?

Lock up the monkeys!

LiveScience.com | LiveScience.com - Gay Animals: Alternate Lifestyles in the Wild

List of animals displaying homosexual behavior - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

It's really quite simple: If you think gay marriage should be illegal, i.e. against the law -- than anyone who engages in that activity would be in violation of the law and could theoretically be sent to jail.

Now, on to your violation of natural law -- if a behavior, or inherent attraction is found throughout nature, in the animal kingdom, (and yes, we humans are animals) then how could it possibly be a violation of natural law?

I do not believe the union of a man/man or woman/woman should be held in the same esteem as that of a traditional man/woman relationship. That's where my defense of Prop 8 comes in. No one is talking about locking anyone up here, except you.

I don't know what behaviors or "inherent attractions" take place in your bedroom/local zoo, nor do I want to, but to deny that the natural purpose of having two distinct sexes and the attraction that they possess is for anything other than procreation, well I have to disagree. Plenty of good things get perverted, sexuality is not immune.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

I do not believe the union of a man/man or woman/woman should be held in the same esteem as that of a traditional man/woman relationship. That's where my defense of Prop 8 comes in. No one is talking about locking anyone up here, except you.

Look, if gay marriage is illegal based on a proposition passed by the people of California, then it is against the law, and anyone who tries to ignore the law and act in clear violation of it would be sent to jail. Otherwise, there's no point in passing laws.

I don't know what behaviors or "inherent attractions" take place in your bedroom/local zoo, nor do I want to, but to deny that the natural purpose of having two distinct sexes and the attraction that they possess is for anything other than procreation, well I have to disagree. Plenty of good things get perverted, sexuality is not immune.

So in your mind, sexual acts serve no other purpose than procreation?

Think of how many times you've had sex, and then count how many children you have. Isn't there some other reason human beings engage in sexual activity?

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Look, if gay marriage is illegal based on a proposition passed by the people of California, then it is against the law, and anyone who tries to ignore the law and act in clear violation of it would be sent to jail. Otherwise, there's no point in passing laws.

I'm not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination, but my understanding is that Proposition 8's purpose was to define marriage in an unambiguous way so as to prevent the liberal interpretation of the law. No one made anything "illegal." It's entirely possible that my understanding is less than perfect. SSG could no doubt explain it in clear terms.

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

So in your mind, sexual acts serve no other purpose than procreation?

Think of how many times you've had sex, and then count how many children you have. Isn't there some other reason human beings engage in sexual activity?

You are twisting my words, I guess for the purpose of conversation I'll believe it is an accident. I said the reason for there being two distinct sexes and their associated attraction to one another is procreation. There is no biological necessity associated with homosexuality that I know of, other than population reduction. (Maybe this could be the next green initiative, "Save the planet, Get Gay!)

[saden1]

Originally Posted by BleedBurgundy

I'm not a lawyer by any stretch of the imagination, but my understanding is that Proposition 8's purpose was to define marriage in an unambiguous way so as to prevent the liberal interpretation of the law. No one made anything "illegal." It's entirely possible that my understanding is less than perfect. SSG could no doubt explain it in clear terms.



You are twisting my words, I guess for the purpose of conversation I'll believe it is an accident. I said the reason for there being two distinct sexes and their associated attraction to one another is procreation. There is no biological necessity associated with homosexuality that I know of, other than population reduction. (Maybe this could be the next green initiative, "Save the planet, Get Gay!)

What prop 8 did was make it illegal for the state government to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. It essentially denies them the legal benefits of marriage.

[BleedBurgundy]

Originally Posted by saden1

What prop 8 did was make it illegal for the state government to issue marriage licenses to gay couples. It essentially denies them the legal benefits of marriage.

So no one gets thrown in jail? Hmmmmm, could've sworn I said something to that effect.

[DynamiteRave]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

Look, if gay marriage is illegal based on a proposition passed by the people of California, then it is against the law, and anyone who tries to ignore the law and act in clear violation of it would be sent to jail. Otherwise, there's no point in passing laws.




So in your mind, sexual acts serve no other purpose than procreation?

Think of how many times you've had sex, and then count how many children you have. Isn't there some other reason human beings engage in sexual activity?

Beemn, I can't figure out where you stand on this. You seem to be against it, but seem to enjoy picking at other people's views? I dunno.

Was just curious.

[Beemnseven]

Originally Posted by DynamiteRave

Beemn, I can't figure out where you stand on this. You seem to be against it, but seem to enjoy picking at other people's views? I dunno.

Was just curious.

I'm for personal freedom and individual rights. If someone finds love or pleasure in the arms of another person who happens to be of the same sex, it should be absolutely, perfectly legal. Same for gay marriage.

And yes, I do enjoy unravelling the logic of those with whom I disagree.

[MTK]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I'm for personal freedom and individual rights. If someone finds love or pleasure in the arms of another person who happens to be of the same sex, it should be absolutely, perfectly legal. Same for gay marriage.

And yes, I do enjoy unravelling the logic of those with whom I disagree.

amen, live and let live

[firstdown]

Originally Posted by Beemnseven

I'm for personal freedom and individual rights. If someone finds love or pleasure in the arms of another person who happens to be of the same sex, it should be absolutely, perfectly legal. Same for gay marriage.

And yes, I do enjoy unravelling the logic of those with whom I disagree.

I think people are getting this mixed up some. Its not illegal for gays to get married by a church and have the church regonize them as married. Its that the state will not recognize them as legally married. Myself I really do not understand the issues enough to have a strong opinion either way. I have a gay family member and several gay friend and I have never heard them talk about this issue. Maybe I'll ask next time I have a chance to talk to one of them.