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

Well see you're making this a moral argument, and thus stating marriage between a man and a woman is superior to gay and lesbian marriage. Now while that's your prerogative, and the church's for that matter, the government should not be coming to such conclusions regarding the institution of marriage. So it's nearly impossible for the government to "stay out of marriage" in order to protect the rights --the constitutional rights -- awarded to American citizens.

Just to reiterate, I don't think it's the government's role to determine what's morally acceptable and what isn't, particularly regarding marriage. If the Constitution doesn't protect that right, then who will enforce it? That's why we go to court, to determine the test of a rulings constitutionality. And in this case the judge determined that it was unconstitutional. This isn't a moral argument, it's a civil rights issue.

Bingo dingo. Leave the moral stuff to society...dump legal marriage since it is only a sanctification of a moral decision.

With all due respect, it might worthless to some here on a football forum, but it's definitely a worthy discussion and a lifelong battle for millions of gays and lesbians that want to enter marriage and be awarded the same basic rights as heterosexual couples; to live their lives free of discrimination, hate, and be treated equally.

I'm not on some liberal high horse, but the conversation is in keeping with the thread.

I probably didn't express myself very well there. I agree with you in the sense that if the gov't is going to sanction marriage then this is a very important discussion. I just don't think the gov't should so therefore I think the conversation is pointless. Just from my perspective though. I do realize that the government giving up on marriage sanctification is a pipe-dream though. It is too entrenched in our scoiety as a legal element to ever go away.

Bingo dingo. Leave the moral stuff to society...dump legal marriage since it is only a sanctification of a moral decision.


Easier said than done. And for the record, I agree with and like your definition of marriage. It's spot on.

But one way or another the government will be involved.

I probably didn't express myself very well there. I agree with you in the sense that if the gov't is going to sanction marriage then this is a very important discussion. I just don't think the gov't should so therefore I think the conversation is pointless. Just from my perspective though. I do realize that the government giving up on marriage sanctification is a pipe-dream though. It is too entrenched in our scoiety as a legal element to ever go away.

Funny because right after I posted this, I read your follow-up post.

Anyway, points well stated and noted.

Well see you're making this a moral argument, and thus stating marriage between a man and a woman is superior to gay and lesbian marriage. Now while that's your prerogative, and the church's for that matter, the government should not be coming to such conclusions regarding the institution of marriage. So it's nearly impossible for the government to "stay out of marriage" in order to protect the rights --the constitutional rights -- awarded to American citizens.

Just to reiterate, I don't think it's the government's role to determine what's morally acceptable and what isn't, particularly regarding marriage. If the Constitution doesn't protect that right, then who will enforce it? That's why we go to court, to test the rulings constitutionality. And in this case the judge determined that it was unconstitutional. This isn't a moral argument, it's a civil rights issue.

Just because we have sticklers for quotes lurking here, I want to clarify that I'm speaking about marriage between two consulting adults of a legal age; not between a man and pig, or a woman and horse, or her teenage daughter. But two adults considered of age by society's norms.

Here Here. This whole PC wave sweeping the nation is getting out of control. So, because two gay guys want cheaper auto insurance and tax breaks, we should legally recognize them as a married couple? Sorry, No way. Marriage is and should be between a man and a woman. Nature says it works that way, and almost every religion says it is blasphemy. So we should cater to them because they are different? Sorry, No way. Lead your life the way you want, but when it comes to the general public recognizing your homo love and okaying it essencially, that is where the buck should stop. Its almost as sick as letting gays in the military............

A few questions then, by "nature says it works that way" does that mean that you believe that the purpose of marriage is to produce children? What about heterosexual couples that can't conceive? Should their marriage be annulled? Or would you let it stand just because it doesn't seem threatening to you?

How about homosexuality in the animal world? Nature seems to say it's ok.

A few questions then, by "nature says it works that way" does that mean that you believe that the purpose of marriage is to produce children? What about heterosexual couples that can't conceive? Should their marriage be annulled? Or would you let it stand just because it doesn't seem threatening to you?

Now you are picking fly shit out of pepper. And no, Im not threatened by it. But I am also not going to sit by, paying my tax dollars and having the government say that Frank and Bill have the same rights as a heterosexual couple, because we don't want to step on their toes.

You know exactly what it means, and you also know that I am right, in the sense that we were made for it to work that way. And yes, producing children is one of the most important things couples do. Procreation is a very important part of human society and marriage. And quit with the liberal spin absurd bullshit, "if a man has a vasectomy or a woman has ovarian cancer, she shouldnt be afforded the same rights as other married couples because she cannot procreate."

How about homosexuality in the animal world? Nature seems to say it's ok.

How about cannibalism in the natural world? So you're saying we should emulate animals?

Actually I love this issue...it highlights the hypocrisy of both libs and conservatives.

Conservatives: the bastion of the limited gov't powers now wants the gov't to strictly define something. That's funny

Liberals: the bastion of a powerful central gov't with the will to exert power "for the benefit of all society" now wants the gov't to basically not regulate this. Funny.

I don't understand how it's hypocritical...is your expectation that we lend support to government sanctioned discrimination?