Maybe I Should Move to California

[Xavier_Onassis]

Without the Judeo Christian tradition what will justice and right be like?
Will there be no standard of decency at all?
What sort of Frankenstien's monster will be considered wrong to cobble together ?

=================================================================
Justice has NEVER been defined as Biblical in the US. The Constitution is not in any part of the Bible, nor is any aspect of criminal or civil law.

Allowing gay people to marry will not change this in the slightest. People do not have abortions because gay marriage is permitted.
---------------------
If fifteen guys wanted to marry and build their children in the manner of Doctor Frankenstein or Doctor Moreau , then raise them in the laboratory where every novel and new experimental method of child rearing would be tried in sequence , how would they be criticized?

Who the Hell is arguing that they want it to be made egal that a marriage can consist of "15 guys"?
No one is asking for a law to permit that children be raised them in the laboratory where every novel and new experimental method of child rearing would be tried in sequence.

There are laws against child abuse. Child abuse is totally unrelated to gay marriage.

You might be a "homophobe", but you are not a "homophone".

You may "phone home" if you wish.

[Amianthus]

You might be a "homophobe", but you are not a "homophone".

Why do you insist on pointing out spelling errors? Would you like me to start correcting your posts again?

[Xavier_Onassis]

Okay, this is not a spelling error.
A homophone is not the same thing as a homophobe.

I think all can agree that Plane is not a homophone.

[Amianthus]

Okay, this is not a spelling error.
A homophone is not the same thing as a homophobe.

I think all can agree that Plane is not a homophone.

It is in this case. You'll notice that the 'b' and 'n' keys are adjacent. Just because the misspelling happens to be another word does not mean it is not a spelling error.

So, call it a grammatical error. Would you like me to start correcting your posts again?

[Rich]

>>Who the Hell is arguing that they want it to be made egal that a marriage can consist of "15 guys"?<<

Who the hell are you to take away such a right? If I want 15 wive's, and we're all agreeable, who the hell are you to stop me?

[Rich]

>>One hopes this is a sign of things to come.<<

I believe it's a sign of judicial rule over the people. A small group of unelected kings and queens overrule the people with a wave of their hands.

Dangerous. For us, and them.

[Universe Prince]

If I want 15 wive's, and we're all agreeable, who the hell are you to stop me?

Good question, though perhaps not in the manner you intended.

I believe it's a sign of judicial rule over the people. A small group of unelected kings and queens overrule the people with a wave of their hands.

Dangerous. For us, and them.

I don't agree. Judicial activism is not inherently bad. There is a reason we have a means of bringing these sorts of cases to court. In any case, judges have been making these kinds of decisions for quite a long time now. If we were going to have a dictatorial rule by elitist judges, seems to me, we'd be there already, but we aren't.

Anyway, when I said "One hopes this is a sign of things to come" I meant that I hope the notion of same-sex marriage as similar to interracial marriage will be a sign of things to come.

[Rich]

Well you're wrong. Just because they've been doing for "quite some time" certainly doesn't make it right. Linking this abomination to interracial marriage is ridiculous.

What would Bob Barr say?

[Universe Prince]

Well you're wrong. Just because they've been doing for "quite some time" certainly doesn't make it right.

True enough, that in itself does not make it right. But I happen to agree with decisions by judges that struck down laws banning interracial marriage, and Jim Crow laws and the like. So I'm not going to argue that judicial activism of this sort is inherently wrong.

Linking this abomination to interracial marriage is ridiculous.

Obviously, I disagree.

What would Bob Barr say?

He'd say:

Regardless of whether one supports or opposes same sex marriage, the decision to recognize such unions or not ought to be a power each state exercises on its own, rather than imposition of a one-size-fits-all mandate by the federal government (as would be required by a Federal Marriage Amendment which has been previously proposed and considered by the Congress). The decision today by the Supreme Court of California properly reflects this fundamental principle of federalism on which our nation was founded. Indeed, the primary reason for which I authored the Defense of Marriage Act in 1996 was to ensure that each state remained free to determine for its citizens the basis on which marriage would be recognized within its borders, and not be forced to adopt a definition of marriage contrary to its views by another state. The decision in California is an illustration of how this principle of states' powers should work.

from the Atlanta Journal-Constitution website

[Xavier_Onassis]

How is it not silly to say that gay marriage is immoral and illegal in one state, but moral and legal in another?

If a moral and legally married CA or MA couple venture to the state of SC, do they become immoral and illegal?

[Plane]

http://cosmos.bcst.yahoo.com/up/player/popup/?rn=3906861&cl=7885201&ch=4226714&src=news


A deaf couple want to make their child deaf , using invitro tecniques to ensure it.

Why not , what right does this child have ?

Does a prospective child have a right to the best body it might naturally get, or the right to parents that are sensible?

[Rich]

I agree with Bob.

Has McCain had anything to say about this?

[Rich]

>>Does a prospective child have a right to the best body it might naturally get, or the right to parents that are sensible?<<

If a woman has the right to murder her child, I can't think of a reason she couldn't simply mutilate it.

[Universe Prince]

A deaf couple want to make their child deaf , using invitro tecniques to ensure it.

Why not , what right does this child have ?

Does a prospective child have a right to the best body it might naturally get, or the right to parents that are sensible?

Is being deaf inherently a bad thing? Obviously the parents do not believe so. Are they wrong? If they are, why are the wrong?

[Rich]

I guess it's kind of like having your son circumcised because you are. It makes the kid feel normal.