Calif. Marriage Ruling Shows Need for Federal Amendment

[MicroBalrog]

..but that is not a reason to do away with the federal structure but rather a reason to return to the federal structure

So tell me. If you think that the law of marriage should uniformly prohibit gay marriage everywhere, why not amend the constitution to ban gay sex? After all, if you think you in Virginia can ban Sammy and Joe from having sex, wouldn't California allowing it be a threat to your 'lifestyle' in Virgnia?

Nor was the Bible intended to say such a thing.

If the author of the Bible (whoever he is) opposed women in combat, he wouldn't have had Deborah lead the Jewish armies to glorious victory, would he?

I reckon Virginia has the same right to pass sodomy laws as Iraq or France or any other sovereignty.

So you think it's okay for a state to pass a law to prosecute a person because he performs an act of anal sex? What about oral sex? Is it okay to pass a law to prosecute me if I perform oral sex on a woman?

[Manedwolf]

So now you are asserting that Christian values tell us that we should treat women just like men and put them into combat? Again, I think this is a false construction and that neither the Declaration nor the Bible say that it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of natural distinction.

There is a difference between "putting" and "allowing if they are qualified". I've met women who are stronger than some men, I've met some who are excellent shots with large caliber weaponry. Are you saying that if they meet or exceed all qualifications and volunteer for combat, they shouldn't be allowed, even if they have higher qualifications than a man next to them?

I don't understand that, myself.

I've got a picture somewhere of recent Indian village defense forces practice. There was a grandmotherly type holding a 303 Lee-Enfield like she damn well knew how to use it, and probably had her entire life. I think any jihadist sneaking out of Pakistan would have an unpleasant surprise if he tried to bother her home.

[MicroBalrog]

I've got a picture somewhere of recent Indian village defense forces practice. There was a grandmotherly type holding a 303 Lee-Enfield like she damn well knew how to use it, and probably had her entire life. I think any jihadist sneaking out of Pakistan would have an unpleasant surprise if he tried to bother her home.

I served in the Army under several female officers. I see no reason to say they were worse than the men.

[BridgeRunner]

My point was that the Declaration's "all men are created equal" was not intended to say that we should have women in combat and men marrying men. Nor was the Bible intended to say such a thing. You can believe that children should be in combat if you fancy, but don't tell me that the Declaration and the Bible support such a thing.

Wow, Hugh, you know exactly what the writer of the Bible intended?  Would you sign my copy please?  I'd love to have a copy signed by the author.

Like Micro pointed out, the OT clearly has no problem with women in combat.  But OT does prohibit men laying down with men.  It doesn't prohibit women laying down with women, nor does it prohibit anal sex.  It does prohibit mixing crops in your field or harnessing different animals together.  Come to think of it, it's pretty nonsensical.  That's why religions based on the Bible have long traditions of which laws they follow and how they follow them. 

Heck, the Jews have an "oral tradition" that's devoted so much time and energy to biblical interpretation for the past three thousand years or so that their body of law makes the US Code look like the McGuffey Reader.  The Catholic church has been determining to what extent the moral laws of the OT reflect Christian standards of behavior for only about two thousand years, and we've got a pretty impressive body of canon law.  I know less about various Protestant approaches to law, although it seems to me that an awful lot of groups like to convince themselves that they "follow scripture."  That, to me, is laughable, since scripture without interpretation is somewhere on the spectrum of truly bizarre to merely pointless. 

So, you want to talk about what the bible intends and why it should be the law of the land?  No freaking way.  I've lived according to the law of the bible my whole life.  Except for that my life changed in nearly every respect in the middle of that.  It's all in the interpretation.  And I don't intend to ever live by your interpretation.  So, I don't care what you think the Bible says about gay people and women in combat.  I care what I and my church think the Bible says about gay people and women in combat.  And I live accordingly. 

To put it even more simply: There is no such thing as judeo-christian values.  Anyone who says there is is utterly clueless about the diversity of Judaism and Christianity.  You'd think that in a nation that has spawned more Christian sects than congress has stupid laws, we'd realize that demanding a "Christian culture" is so illusory a goal as to be laughable.

[Nitrogen]

What possible interest of yours does it serve to prohibit John and Sammy in California from marrying each other when you live in Virginia?

Because, as you and I both know, that will not be the end of it. John and Sammy will come to Virginia and try to get the SCOTUS to make Virginia recognize their marriage. It will never end until all the States have similar institutions of marriage. In the end, either every State will have to allow/recognize homosexual marriage, or every State will have to disallow and not recognize homoexual marriage.

Good.  As it should be.  Disallowing blacks and whites from marrying was just as wrong.  Ending of segregation took similar action, and was morally and ethically correct, as would this.

Women had fought in virtually every conflict since the beginning of the world to some extent or another. It's very clear the Old Testament, at the very least, has no problem with it  I give you Deborah and Ya'el.

So now you are asserting that Christian values tell us that we should treat women just like men and put them into combat? Again, I think this is a false construction and that neither the Declaration nor the Bible say that it is wrong to discriminate on the basis of natural distinction.

Christian values have nothing to do with the bill of rights, or laws of this country.  This is not a christian country, nor should it be.  Should we just cross out the first amendment now, because buggery scares your sensibilities?

it does list that the purpose of the government is to keep me free. Not to make me a better person. Not to equalize my income with that of Joe Idiot. Not to make me comply with your religion. But to keep me free.

And now you're asserting that the purpose of government is to protect your right to buggery? This is starting to sound like Lawrence v Texas ... about how the 14th, when it says that a State cannot deprive a person of liberty without due process of law, really means that a State cannot deprive a person of liberty in any manner. 

Yes, precisely.  The government should protect anyone's right to buggery.  There's nothing wrong with it if it's between two consenting adults.

Banning things you don't like is wrong.  The Brady campain makes the SAME argument when it wants to repeal the 2nd amendment and ban guns.  It's just as wrong as anyone's arguments to repeal the first amendment "for our own good"

[Firethorn]

Banning things you don't like is wrong.  The Brady campain makes the SAME argument when it wants to repeal the 2nd amendment and ban guns.  It's just as wrong as anyone's arguments to repeal the first amendment "for our own good"

On that note, I'd like to point out the disaster that was the last time we passed a constitutional ammendment banning something...

On the same note, in a society with a ~40% divorce rate, how does gay marriage or civil unions harm the institution?

On adoption, child rearing and such, I'd rather a child be raised by a dedicated couple, whether that be a man and a woman or otherwise, than a single parent - even if that parent is straight.  Definitely better than a fighting or abusive set of parents.  Meth, dope, alcohol addicts.  The list goes on.

I'd hope, at least, that the adoptive parents would be as understanding of their child(adopted or otherwise)'s orientation as they'd hope their families were of theirs.

I say let them do what they want, as long as they're consenting adults.  Even adopt children, provided they can meet othe rest of the requirements of not having a screwed up home.

Honestly enough, the percentage of gays is low enough for it to be, ultimately a null issue.  I'd rather concentrate on balancing the budget, reducing waste, etc...

[Nitrogen]

Honestly enough, the percentage of gays is low enough for it to be, ultimately a null issue.  I'd rather concentrate on balancing the budget, reducing waste, etc...

This is the right answer for everyone, right here. Spending so much time and effort on less than 5% of the population is stupid.  Some think it's as much as 10%, that's still stupid.

numbers I found:
    Kinsey-NORC 1970  8.2% M, 4.3% F after age 15
    FRI-Dallas 1984  10.7% M, 7.4% F after age 12
    NCHS 1988-91  ² 3.5% M since 1977 (over 50,000 respondents)
    GSS 1989  < 6.3% M after age 17
    RTI-Dallas 1989  7.6% M, 2.7% F since 1978
    GSS 1990  4.8% M after age 17
    Billy/Guttmacher 1993  2.3% M in last 10 years

[Firethorn]

This is the right answer for everyone, right here. Spending so much time and effort on less than 5% of the population is stupid.  Some think it's as much as 10%, that's still stupid.

I wonder about those studies a bit; especially the higher percentage ones, do they include bi's as homosexuals?  Did they perform the study in a city like SanFran?  I ask because I figure the percentage of gays is much higher there due to the favorable conditions resulting in more moving there.