Posted by cabral on February 15, 2008 at 9:17 a.m. (Suggest removal)

SOMEDAY. SOON.

Posted by schlederdecopan on February 15, 2008 at 9:43 a.m.

(This comment was removed by the site staff.)

Posted by bombero42 on February 15, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bruce,
Marriage has over one thousand legal advantages over living together. Too many to mention here, do your own research.
schlederdecopan, you're the one with the disgusting deprived,intolerant mind.

Posted by bombero42 on February 15, 2008 at 12:57 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I don't have time to educate you but I will list two. Renting a car. If you rent a car your spouse can drive it legally and be covered. Not so with live ins. If your driving and get a headache, tough luck. Pull over and park because your partner is not covered.
Another is access to your room if you are hospitalized, Your partner is not family. If your blood family are a bunch of uptight religious nuts, they can block even a long time partner from visiting the person they love. This has happened in the past.

Posted by sdetatae on February 15, 2008 at 1:28 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Is marriage (by law) civil or religious?... If religious, then the government has every reason to deny any type of couple not to get married based on those views - but then should not base its laws around such a union. If civil, then no, there is no reason to deny a couple the right to get married.

I have yet to hear a reason against gay marriage that isn't based on religious beliefs.

Separation of church and state.

Can anyone tell me a reason (not based on religious beliefs) why any couple of reasonable age & competency should not be allowed to get married?

Posted by live_for_purpose on February 15, 2008 at 1:48 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here's a reason: Adam and Eve--natural law and human anatomy

Posted by live_for_purpose on February 15, 2008 at 1:50 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's sign the initiative papers....looks like Prop. 22 should have been an amendment, not just the law!

Posted by nannyfo1 on February 15, 2008 at 2:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

sdetatae, here is one non-religious reason to not legalize same sex marriage. It is actually the same reason that we don't allow a brother and sister to marry. Homosexuality is a health epidemic in the U.S. Even when discounting HIV statitistics, the average life expectancy of a gay man is 47, and a lesbian woman is 45. It is simply not a healthy lifestyle.

Posted by live_for_purpose on February 15, 2008 at 3:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If two homosexuals want to "marry," then we can't violate the rights of polygamists or of close relatives who want to marry, or of people into bestiality, or of anybody to do anything they want.

Posted by JamesNPhi on February 15, 2008 at 3:26 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Are you kidding me people!! Okay, you say for health reason gay people shouldn't get amrried and said an age of 45 as lesbians life expectancy. Did you read the damn article....!!!!! THESE WOMEN ARE IN THEIR 70's!!! Get a clue! The only reasons people state about their opposition to gay marriage are religious reasons! But here's my point - Stay the hell out of my bed room and I won't come into yours! Marriage offers many benefits: inheritance and transfer of property; hospital visitation; tax benefits; health benefits, etc!! I honestly don't care what your god says, but marriage is a civil contract, hence the reason you don't need to marry in a church and can simply go to a court house or justice of the peace! It is a contract between two consenting adults to share the responsibilities of life together!! Why should hetrosexuals be allowed to get married 4, 5 or even 8 times yest gays can't even get married once!! Stop casting stones and worry about you and your house and leave me to love and form a "contract" with who I want!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Posted by JamesNPhi on February 15, 2008 at 3:33 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And you can prevent pologamy and bestality! First off, marriage is between TWO consenting adutls so their goes the family dog!! And again, its between TWO humans, so their goes pologamy!!! I will say it one more time- STAY OUT OF MY BEDROOM AND ÍLL STAY OUT OF YOURS!!!!

Posted by Ventuckey on February 15, 2008 at 3:37 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bunch of right wing bigots and weirdos in Ventuckey.

Posted by AnnaWhaat on February 15, 2008 at 4:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bombero42 ,Yes they can drive legally if they are added to your insurance as a driver.........same thing. My kid can not drive my car because he isnt added on my insurance. Anyone living in the home that will be driving it has to be listed as a driver.
live_for_purpose ,Gotta agree ! And others do not slame me for my beliefs if you do not want to be slammed............Thankyou!
sdetatae , I pledge of allegiance to the flag one nation under GOD!!!!!!! There you go!
live_for_purpose ,Its called bigotry.....and a proven fact if you marry a relative your children can turn out retarded.......

Posted by justdboy on February 15, 2008 at 5:42 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Another episode of "Much Ado About Nothing". Let them marry; I have read no logical, rational reason in theses post as to why they shouldn’t.

Antiquated emotional/religious objections are neither logical nor rational.

Posted by live_for_purpose on February 15, 2008 at 6:21 p.m. (Suggest removal)

James, It is between ONE MAN and ONE WOMAN--this is according to law, nature, tradition, design, etc., etc., etc.

Posted by bombero42 on February 15, 2008 at 7:55 p.m. (Suggest removal)

No bruceizaweeknee, and your ignorance shows. The wife has first say on who gets to visit.

live_for_purpose, perhaps you can't read. He asked for non religious reasons. Adam and Eve are figments of the religious mind. They did not exist.
As for natural law, how do you explain homosexual acts among animals? And your beastiality arguement is more idiotic drivel from the religious right. You can't seem to tell the difference between consenting adults and animals.

nannyfo1, more ignorance parading as fact. Lesbians have the lowest rate of venereal disease of any group.
AnnaWhaat Yes they can drive the car if they pay extra for the insurance. Married people are both covered. So it is not equal treatment.

Posted by live_for_purpose on February 15, 2008 at 8:41 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Bombero, Adam and Eve are historical figures. And you can't leave out of forms of perversion such as the ones I mentioned. The U.S. should therefore apologize to Utah for the discriminatory conditions set down for statehood more than 100 years ago. And I therefore assume that the polygamist that they recently arrested and tried--Mr. Jenks(?) should be released and exonerated?

Posted by del on February 15, 2008 at 9:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Historical figures?
And if you believe that, I have a deal for you. Cash and in small bills.

Posted by Nomo_De_Velopment on February 15, 2008 at 10:59 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Wow! Interesting how Tony B. has affectively caused both sides of the conflict to not only read his article, but got many folks to actually respond to his work. Great job, the Star should give you a raise.
I have read with interest where bimbo42 believes Adam and Eve (a man and a woman) were "figments of the imagination. Sorry there bimby, they were real people; (Genesis 1:27) there's your proof. God also commissioned the first couple to go out "be fruitful and multiply (Gen 1:28) something that same sex couples can NOT do! So the man and woman listened to the serpent, fell from grace (grace is God's unwarranted favor) and into sin and yes - their son (a direct result of the union between man and woman) was indeed a murderer who killed his brother. Most folks get emotionally involved and say "God said this" and "I believe that" but they do a poor job of defending their position on marriage. I too believe marriage is solely between a man and a woman BUT I gave you a starting point to begin your research.
As for the guy who commented on "church and state" you should know that OUR founding fathers were the ones that created the seperation of church and state and non believers have done a wonderful job of twisting that little slice of heaven up and spinning the facts around to fit their wordly agendas.
Thomas Jefferson and the gang actually created the seperation of church and state to protect the church from government interference, not the other way around. Our founding fathers had the foresight to keep government goons out of controlling our religious beliefs, they could care less about protecting our country, from being "infiltrated" by God's word, the bible is the true inspiration for the writing of both the Constitution and Bill of Rights. Why do you think we are THE ONLY country that has had the same Decleration since 1776? How many civil wars or revolutions do we experience every year? Ever wonder why America is the most stable country in the world? Search the internet for David Barton. His web site, wallbuilders.com will clearly show you how our country's history has been defiled over the last 60 years and we have chosen to erase the facts and create a "victim based history". Every person or group who were victimized are pushed to the forefront and the facts have been covered up!
So clearly marriage is between a man and a woman. Jesus died for your sins and mine as the "sin bearing servant" (read Isaiah 53:12) and no matter what you say, I am NOT upset or mad if you speak poorly of me or my Father in Heaven (read Matthew 11:6) "blessed is he who is not offended because of me."
The Lord is the strength of my life (Psalm 25:1), have a great day.
PS - you may not agree with these two ladys in the story, they are the ones who will need to give an accounting of their lifestyle but please do not degrade and offend them. Love the sinner, hate the sin.
Your humble servant and brother in Christ,
Nomo DeVelopment

Posted by schlederdecopan on February 16, 2008 at 12:12 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Disgusting and deprived lost souls.

I am intolerant to watching the world go to Hell.

Posted by Metalhaid on February 16, 2008 at 12:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

No_mo: You forgot one more verse: Matthew 7:1-7:6: "Judge not, that ye be not judged...Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye."

And then again in 1 Cor. 7: "I say therefore to the unmarried and widows, It is good for them if they abide even as I. But if they cannot contain, let them marry: for it is better to marry than to burn."

If marriage is a Holy State, and these people want to enter it, who shall deny them? If they want to stand up before God and everyone else and declare a life-long commitment, I don't see why this ties everybody's panties into a knot (pun not intended.) Live and let live. Isn't that also in the Bible?

If marriage is a civil contract, according the spouses with insurance benefits, tax exemptions, and other forms of legal benefits to being married (which are few and far between, let me tell you) as long as the couple pays their taxes, again--who are they hurting? Doesn't that make them good citizens (of which Ventura County is SORELY lacking!) And for the record, I am a happily married(for 22 years)hetero. We are taxpaying, God fearing, law-abiding individuals. I simply cannot stand to see another form of insect authority abusing its power when THERE ARE SO MANY FREAKIN OTHER THINGS TO WORRY ABOUT IN THIS COUNTRY.

Posted by AnnaWhaat on February 16, 2008 at 6:33 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Nomo_De_Velopment ,Very well put.......loved your comment!
Metalhaid ,There are many more things in the country to worry about BUT people were commenting on THIS article........
I do not think Nomo was Judging anyone. As he or she stated hate the sin not the sinner. That sums it up!!!!!

Posted by bombero42 on February 16, 2008 at 4:05 p.m. (Suggest removal)

live_for_purpose, I'm beginning to see the difficulty of trying to have a rational discussion with someone who doesn't know the difference between "Historical" and "Mythical". Adam and Eve are no more historical than Santa Clause.
I see you avoided answering about how can you explain homosexuality in animals.
As for polygamy, that is easy. The polygamists in areas of Utah and Arizona have had problems with illegal use of welfare, child sexual abuse, and kicking young men out in the street in order to have less men in the colony. Obviously, if one man can have many wives, other men can have none.
These are proven demonstrable problems for society and thus society has an interest in outlawing polygamy.
There is no indication of societal problems caused by gays getting married.

Nomo_De_Velopmen, See what some of the founding fathers had to say about the separation of church and state.

http://www.theocracywatch.org/separat...

Posted by catlover on February 16, 2008 at 8:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Let's not forget the little boy that was murdered because he was gay. I don't agree with homosexuality but to hate them is not right either. I will stay out of their bedroom like on commenter stated. I just want to say that it's all about respect for eachother.
If I was gay, I wouldn't mind just living with my partner. Marriage is more than legalities. It's a commitment. Gay people can make those same types of commitments.

Posted by live_for_purpose on February 17, 2008 at 4:20 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Bomb--Animals are animals. There were not created with moral reasoning in the image of God. They don't choose between right and wrong with regard to universal moral absolutes. People do. That is a big difference. Some animals also eat their young, live in polygamy and many other things that most people, including yourself, have spoken out against. We ought not to look at animals to see how humans should behave.

Polygamy is a problem for society in some ways. But if those people want to live immorally in a commune like that, then let them be, as long as they are not LEGALLY married to more than one other person (and they are not breaking other laws). If they are just living together like that and not legally married, then so be it. They do it at their own peril. The state is not sanctioning it, they are just tolerating it. There is a big difference.

Homosexuality is also harmful to society-- HIV/AIDS, breakdown of the family, a bad moral example to children, etc. I think most Americans are pretty tolerant and are willing to let homosexuals go their own immoral way. However, I do not think that most Americans want to officially and legally sanction it and say, "it is ok" to our children or to anyone else. That is a big difference.

Do you think if the state all of a sudden tried to reverse 6000 years of human history and said that I could not stay LEGALLY married to my wife that my lifestyle would change? I can tell you that nothing in my life would change. I'm a stronger person than that. I am not crying out for state sanction of what I know to be right.

Posted by jill on February 17, 2008 at 9:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It's time to get EVERYONE have equal rights. I am not gay, but people who are gay have the right to be married just like everybody else, plain and simple. Religion is entering into this, and it has no business being there. These people are in love and want and should be entitled to a legal commitment. They didn't choose to be this way. Who would choose to have to put up with so much discrimination and crap from judgemental, self-righteous people?

Posted by AnnaWhaat on February 17, 2008 at 10:19 a.m. (Suggest removal)

bombero42 ,I feel sorry for you if you believe Adam and Eve were mythical.........
catlover ,Were on the same page here !
MayorOfTapoStreet , I will eat a hat too !!!!!!
live_for_purpose ,GREAT Comment!!!!!!!
Others who do NOT believe in gay marriage are condemed by those who claim they do not do that. They are attacked just like the young boy was! So whats the difference. Let people express themselves if they do not believe in that lifestyle!!!!

Posted by Observer on February 17, 2008 at 2:27 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Here's a reason: Adam and Eve -- natural law and human anatomy" (posted at 2/15/2008 at 1:48pm)

------

Well take a look at this short video:

What's Morally Wrong with Homosexuality?
http://www.gaymoralist.com/resources/...

Posted by Observer on February 17, 2008 at 2:32 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Opinions are evolving on gay marriage.

Watch San Diego Mayor Jerry Sanders explain why he is taking a stand on the behalf of equality and social justice, and signing a San Diego City Resolution to file a brief in support of gay marriage with the California Supreme Court.

The Courage of Mayor Jerry Sanders
http://youtube.com/watch?v=VAOkwjQdm6Q

Posted by Observer on February 17, 2008 at 2:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"If two homosexuals want to 'marry,' then we can't violate the rights of polygamists or of close relatives who want to marry." (posted on 2/15/2008 at 3:15pm)

------

You are raising a RED HERRING, and are mistaken.

Permitting same-sex couples to marry does NOT affect or undermine California's prohibition against polygamous or incestuous marriages.

Here's why -- those laws do not discriminate based on sexual orientation or one sex.

Posted by bombero42 on February 17, 2008 at 3:40 p.m. (Suggest removal)

live_for_purpose, There you go again, with your irrational thinking. I mentioned the animals to counter the argument that homosexuality is not natural. I would guess that it is as common as red hair, and just like red hair, not chosen by the people who have it. Just because something is less common and often picked on by the majority, does not make it unnatural.
And, of course you give another example of not being able to read. I said "caused by gays getting married." and you came back with gays in general.
Not only did you answer the wrong question but you were wrong in the one you did answer. HIV and AID are less prevalent in the lesbian community than in any other group. Are they not gay?
The breakdown of marriage is overwhelmingly a heterosexual problem. And, by the way, the highest incidence of divorce is in the bible belt states.
It is not up to you to judge their moral standing. You are basing that on the bible, which was written by men and edited by men in a male domintated society that needed lots of children to fight their wars.
By the way,Jesus never mentioned homosexuality.

Posted by bombero42 on February 17, 2008 at 3:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

MayorOfTap, Nobody can follow animals around for their whole lives to see how they act. But some have been observed for years and always seem to be gay. They are part of nature. The fact that they sometimes or even often act gay is also part of nature. Whether it's a tiny minority or 10% of people who are gay, they are also part of nature. I say leave them alone and give them equal treatment.
And your assumptions are as off as your reasoning. I am of retirement age and way past college.

Posted by live_for_purpose on February 18, 2008 at 3:43 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If you want to act like an animal, go ahead. But don't expect the state to legally sanction it.

What's the rate of HIV/AIDS in homosexual men? Extremely high, that's what.

Of course the breakdown of marriage is overwhelmingly a heterosexual problem--marriage is only for heterosexuals. And they should go back to fault divorce, not no-fault divorce.

Condemnation of sexual immorality is found in the Bible from the Old Testament to the gospels to the epistles to Revelation. Would you like specific references? Remember Sodom and Gomorrah?

Posted by bombero42 on February 18, 2008 at 7:57 a.m. (Suggest removal)

live_for_purpose, Yes the rate of HIV and AIDs is high in the male population. Perhaps if they could get married they would be more likely to form stable unions and thus have less partners.
Soddom and Gomorrah and just like the rest of the myths in the bible,myths made up by men. Myths reflecting the prejudices of the time. Written be narrow minded men, and believed today by narrow minded people.
You pick and choose which parts of the bible you wish, too support your own prejudices.
Why arern't you asking for the death penalty for children who disrepect their parents? Why aren't you condemning farmers who mix certain crops? What about weavers who blend differnt kinds of thread? The bible has all kinds of silly outdated restrictions, and you cannot claim to be following the word of God in your prejudices unless you follow all of the words in the bible.

Posted by jill on February 18, 2008 at 8:38 a.m. (Suggest removal)

live_for_purpose wrote, "What's the rate of HIV/AIDS in homosexual men? Extremely high, that's what."

Uh, what about warts, herpes and HIV and AIDS in heterosexuals?

Posted by AnnaWhaat on February 18, 2008 at 8:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Perhaps if they could get married they would be more likely to form stable unions and thus have less partners.
written by Bombero

omg so if they can not marry they cheat on thier loved one? That pretty much sums it up what you said. If you truely love someone you do NOT cheat......

Posted by justdboy on February 18, 2008 at 9:46 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Really Anna, tell that to my two ex-wives.

Running around speaking in generalities and perceived stereotypes does no one any good.

Posted by mal1910 on February 18, 2008 at 1:46 p.m. (Suggest removal)

All I know is that we are all wasting our time arguing about someone else's life. God is the only one who can judge, and if you really believe that marriage is between a man and a woman...go ahead, you have the right to believe what you want just as much as they have the right to love and be what they want.

Times are different now...remember when slavery was rationalized by religion? Stop using religion as a way of attacking other people and what they believe in.

If we took the time to look at OURSELVES and make changes instead of complaining about everyone else, this world might have a chance.

Posted by jill on February 18, 2008 at 3:51 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I must say, some of the most "religious" people are the scariest! They are over-the-top judgmental and seem to think their way of life is the only way and are very narrow-minded. There are many religions out there, and who's to say which one is "the one"? You would think that a true Christian or what have you would be compassionate and not full of hate, but many times it's quite the opposite.

Posted by AnnaWhaat on February 18, 2008 at 5:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

justdboy ,Sorry you had to experience that. It must be very painful I can not imagine it. Give me thier hook ups and I will let them know it! LOL
mal1910 , No attacks here just stating the law! Thanks!
jill ,Its not hate.Hate the sin not the sinner!

Posted by bombero42 on February 19, 2008 at 11:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Mayor, I don't have time to rectify your ignorance.
Type "Homosexual animals" in Google and you will see several pages. Read and learn just how wrong you are.

Posted by BeaHappi on February 19, 2008 at 11:52 a.m. (Suggest removal)

If gay couples want to be committed to each other through the contract of marriage, let them be. As long as they are not harming others, not harming me or my family, what concern is it of mine?

I have gay & lesbian friends in long-term committed relationships. They go to work, raise families, own homes, contribute to the economy, just like I do.

I know there are plenty of "straight" people who have far more outlandish and freakish sex lives.

What people choose to do behind the privacy of their own doors is their own business.

Posted by BeaHappi on February 19, 2008 at noon (Suggest removal)

I googled "homosexual animals" and there were several very interesting articles about same-sex relations in the animal kingdom.

I definitely learned something today...

Posted by RC on February 19, 2008 at 1:11 p.m. (Suggest removal)

My thoughts are different strokes for different folks...live and let live. Who are we to judge anyones lifestyle

Posted by meblondie138 on February 19, 2008 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Nomo_De_Velopment: question for you, if Adam and Eve were the only two people to begin multiplying, then I guess the first marriages of people to eachother were Brothers to their Sisters correct?

Posted by bluefairy on February 19, 2008 at 3:58 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Why does everyone always revert to the Bible? Who says that YOUR religion is correct and the only religion that shall be followed? Adam and Eve is not in every religion. Because I don't follow your religious beliefs, I must be damned to hell or wherever you think I'll be going.

ENOUGH already.

Does that mean only a white male can marry a white female and adopt a white child? Does that mean a couple must be of the same age? Seriously, when does all this nonsense end? We are in the 21st century, times are changing, deal with it.

Yes, we are all entitled to our own beliefs (STOP forcing yours on me), our own ideas (STOP forcing yours on me) even our own opinions, but that doesn't make YOU right or ME right.

Agree to disagree and let them do what they want. What harm does it cause YOU?

Posted by bluefairy on February 19, 2008 at 4:03 p.m. (Suggest removal)

quote from live_for_purpose: Homosexuality is also harmful to society-- HIV/AIDS, breakdown of the family, a bad moral example to children, etc.

It doesn't take a same-sex couple to breakdown a family and set a bad moral example to children. What about the man (or woman) who has more than one child with more than one woman (or man) - that's a GREAT moral example to children. What about the man (or woman) who decides one day to get up, leave the children and spouse for a "younger" model? ANOTHER great moral example.

In case you missed this lesson in Health Education, AIDS can be passed to a child from the mother during birth, AIDS can be transmitted through blood transfusions, AIDS can be transmitted from the use of dirty needles shared amongst druggies.

Just a thought ...

Posted by BeaHappi on February 19, 2008 at 4:10 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bluefairy...well done!

Posted by bombero42 on February 19, 2008 at 4:38 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Mayor, I'm not lumping all animal and human behavior, just pointing out that in nature some animals turn out gay. Thus, it must be natural even if unusual.
For those biblical "scholars" out there who say we must follow God's law and "natural law", what do you say about hermaphroditism? Who can they marry or have sex with? find that in you bible. Give me a rational black or white answer for that! Things in the real world are often not so simple.

Posted by bugmenot on February 19, 2008 at 9:49 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Another instance of the right wingers and/or evangelicals attempting to push their beliefs upon the whole population.

Funny how somebody asked for a reason besides religion and the very next response was Adam and Eve. ROFL.

Posted by bugmenot on February 19, 2008 at 10:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

bruceizaweeknee
live_for_purpose
AnnaWhaat
Nomo_De_Velopment

The separation of church and state is a legal and political principle derived from the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads, "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof . . ." The phrase "separation of church and state", which does not appear in the Constitution itself, is generally traced to an 1802 letter by Thomas Jefferson to the Danbury Baptists, where Jefferson spoke of the combined effect of the Establishment Clause and the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment. It has since been quoted in several opinions handed down by the United States Supreme Court.

The above paragraph is factual as opposed to based on faith.

Other than religion I saw health reasons that may or may not be a legitimate argument (I don't know the facts). However, if health reasons are a contributing factor, it would be ILLEGAL to discriminate against gays/lesbians as all marriages would be subjected to the same health requirements. It would be illegal to label a sexual preference as a health condition.

Posted by leahb78_1999 on February 20, 2008 at 4:39 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is one non-religious reason for the state supreme court to not allow gay marriage...

The people of California have voted on this issue, and we clearly do NOT want gay marriage in this state. There, clear enough?

As for the "Animals have gay sex" argument... There are a lot of things animals do, eat their own young, have multiple mates, fight to the death to mate, mate with dead carcasses, and other gruesome activities. Does the argument that something is "natural" for the animal world infer that it is okay for humans to do? Of course not. It is absurd to even imply such a thing.

There, a completely reasoned argument that has absolutely nothing to do with religion. Now will all of you pro-gay-marriage people stop saying that there are ABSOLUTELY NO arguments for disallowing gay marriage other than religious ones? It is dishonest of you to keep perpetuating that lie.

Posted by leahb78_1999 on February 20, 2008 at 5:01 p.m. (Suggest removal)

There is also a rational reason relating to religion why gay marriage should not be allowed, and it is something that SHOULD be part of the court’s decision.

While the current law is forcing all organizations and people to stop discrimination against gays, lesbians, transgendered persons, these very same anti-discrimination laws are being used to attack church-run organizations. Currently there is a lawsuit against a Catholic hospital that is refusing to offer a sex change operation or any other operations related to gender alteration. A transgendered person is now using this anti-discrimination law to sue the Catholic hospital.

Several Catholic adoption agencies in New York were forced to shut down after they refused to allow gay couples to adopt children. The state took away their license to adopt children because their policies followed Catholic teaching in placing children in traditional Father-Mother homes.

Currently churches issue marriage licenses. I imagine it would take about a week after a court forces gay marriage on California for some gay couple to sue a church for not allowing them to be married in their church.

Gays may not want anyone to force religion onto them, but what gives gays the right to force acceptance of their lifestyle on us. Churches have every right to condemn the behavior. Separation of church and state means that courts and legislation should not force themselves or the gay lifestyles onto religious organizations or people. Separation of church and state should go both ways.

Posted by bombero42 on February 20, 2008 at 9:45 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Leah,
You still don't get it. I'm not saying we should act like animals. The animal reference was to shut up those who say homosexuality is not natural. If it exists in the natural world then it is natural. It also exists and has always existed in all human societies. It has persisted througout time and persists even in societies where it is punished by death.
Your "people voted for it" argument is lame. The people of California also voted once to make it legal to refuse to sell your house to minorities. The people of the south voted repeatedly to keep slavery, and, when they lost that one, voted to keep pressure on black people to hold them in their place. The sickening prejudices of the public are no excuse nor reason to support laws that are unfair. Clear enough!

Posted by bugmenot on February 20, 2008 at 11:52 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Leah,
You say "The people of California have voted on this issue, and we clearly do NOT want gay marriage in this state. There, clear enough?"

Are you referencing prop 22 which in turn created Family Code Section 300? I just read this proposition and its history. When it came in front of the voters it had this provision in it defining marriage as:

"a personal relation arising out of a civil contract between a man and a woman, to which the consent of the parties capable of making that contract is necessary."

Then later in on the prop in section 308 it says this:

"A marriage contracted outside this state that would be valid by the laws of the jurisdiction in which the marriage was contracted is valid in this state."

So the voters passed the proposition with the text above in it. It was noticed that section 308 was a loophole because one could have a same sex marriage in another state then have it recognized later by california. IE, one could go to another state that did recognize same sex marriage, get married, come back to CA and CA would have to recognize the marriage. After the voters passed the proposition another provision, 308.5 was added:

"Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California."

So because of the change of text there is controversy over the proposition. The voters did vote for something, but the final product wasn't what they voted for. There have been multiple cases challenging this, with rulings going both ways.

In Armijo v. Miles, the Second Appellate District distinguished Prop 22 from the case at bar by noting, in part, that the initiative prevented the recognition of same-sex marriages conducted outside of California.

Less than a week later, the Third Appellate District ruled more explicitly, in Knight v. Superior Court, that Prop 22 also included within the initiative's ambit marriages licensed within the state.

The non religious reason you list is the one that this article is written about. The voters passed a prop that California Supreme Court invited the people to bring in front of them. The voters voted for a prop that when passed was changed. Now the CA Supreme Court may deem the whole thing a "civil right".

If health were really an issue, all marriages would be held to the same standards. The voters voted for something that changed that the Supreme Court may not deem civil.

continued below...

Posted by bugmenot on February 20, 2008 at 11:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Leah, you say "There is also a rational reason relating to religion why gay marriage should not be allowed, and it is something that SHOULD be part of the court’s decision."

The way you describe it, I assume this is ONGOING and a CIVIL suit.

"Currently there is a lawsuit against a Catholic hospital that is refusing to offer a sex change operation or any other operations related to gender alteration."

I will agree to disagree with you on that point that these are completely separate issues. Just like any hospital should be able to refuse an operation for a reasons such as lack of a specialist or even against a moral belief (ie, abortion, sex change, maybe transfusions from a dr where transfusions are against their religion so religious issues). Can you give me the case in question so i can research it further? From the way it has been described, I wish the Catholic Church the best of luck.

Regarding New York adoptions, this is a case where the people of New York VOTED to allow LGBT individual may petition to adopt, same sex couple may jointly petition and same sex partner may petition to adopt partners child. That's fairly hypocritical of you to bring up an issue that was voted for by the people of a state immediately after bringing up the vote i mentioned above regarding prop 22.

You state "Currently churches issue marriage licenses." This is false, the courts issue the licenses. This is why (i believe somebody else above said this) you can go to the courts and get married without going to a church. Please see my post above regarding the separation of church and state. Even the Muslim country of Turkey fully understand how important this concept is.

I believe the main problem with opponents of the same sex issue is they do not understand United States law, but prefer to follow their faith in their church.

After following politics of late, I've leaned a lot towards Libertarian ideals. It is these ideals that make me look toward the laws and not go with my feelings. Personally, (it's finally time to state my personal preference) I would love it if LGBT would just be happy with civil unions and all the legal/financial benefits that come along with it, without using the word marriage.

Posted by bugmenot on February 20, 2008 at 11:54 p.m. (Suggest removal)

OK, it's time for me to stop posting on this issue. My friends are going to totally think I'm gay.

Posted by AnnaWhaat on February 21, 2008 at 7 a.m. (Suggest removal)

leahb78_1999 ,Very good comment. I wonder how many will actually understand it?
Posted by Bombero
You still don't get it. I'm not saying we should act like animals. The animal reference was to shut up those who say homosexuality is not natural. If it exists in the natural world then it is natural.
Reponse, Some dogs eat thier own poop ! Is that natural??? I dont think so.......

Posted by TheBoldTruth on February 21, 2008 at 7:47 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Here is the bold truth.

The Bible is a book of fairy tails! And not even a good one. If you like the storys in the Bible, try Walt Disney, WAY BETTER!

In order to actually believe the non-sense written in that book (people being risen from the dead, talking on water, etc) you have to have a simple mind. The same kind of simple mind that would believe that homosexuals die younger than heterosexual people. The same kind of simple mind that would believe that heterosexual people are better than homosexual people, or deserve more or even superior rights.

I'll omitted citing archaic and fictitious texts, because the ones that are smart enough to understand this (religious or not) don't need to read such SIMPLE truths, and the ones that already bought into the religious-right political corporate scam, well you will always live a life of ignorance no matter how boldly I point it out.

The fact is... if you are still hanging on to these beliefs of bigotry... then thats what you are, a bigot. The same kind of people that hate people because they are black. The same people that think Obama should be a slave rather than a man running for President. Too slowly, but surely, this country is becoming to progressive for people like you. There is becoming no longer room for that kind of narrow minded thinking ... so please exit the world, so the ones of us that kind think for ourselves can live in peace...

... and that's the bold truth!

Posted by bombero42 on February 21, 2008 at 8:25 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Annawhat, It's natural for dogs or they wouldn't do it.

Posted by Ulster on February 21, 2008 at 9:32 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The headline is wrong. It should say "same-sex" marriage, not "gay" marriage. It would be discriminatory to require two people of the same sex to be gay in order to get married...besides how would they prove it? This law should throw the net out a bit further and allow siblings to marry. My brother's job doesn't have great benefits and I would marry him just so he could have proper health coverage and we're not gay...not that there's anything wrong with that.

Posted by leahb78_1999 on February 21, 2008 at 10:15 a.m. (Suggest removal)

It seems that there are really two arguments here - the first being the argument that we should change the intent of the law when passed by California voters, and the other is the argument that everyone should accept the gay/lesbian lifestyle.

The only rational argument I can find in regards to changing the law to allow gay marriage is that gay couples want to file joint tax returns and to be allowed to visit their loved ones in a hospital even if it makes the family of that loved one uncomfortable. It seems that the same arguments could be made about polygamy. After all, if the only thing that makes a marriage is a legal definition, then that is easy enough to change once again to suit the polygamist lifestyle. Multiples wives are not currently allowed to all file joint tax returns. Any income that an “illegitimate” wife earns will have to be filed at the higher, single earner rate. And suppose a man with many wives becomes hospitalized. It seems it would be easy if the legitimate wife and family would disallow an illegitimate wife to visit her partner and father of her children. I don’t see any differences legally as to why we should allow gay and lesbian marriages and polygamous households.

Posted by leahb78_1999 on February 21, 2008 at 10:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

continued...
The remaining arguments really have nothing to do with the laws regarding marriage and are more an attempt to convince everyone that the gay/lesbian lifestyles should be accepted by all. It is said that the evidence of gay sex in the animal world is proof that it is “natural” for humans to do. I don’t know if it is natural or not or if someone is born gay or not. I know that some babies are born addicted to crack, but I still think morally it is wrong for that individual to go on and live the crack lifestyle when he/she grows up.

If it makes me a bigot to say that the gay lifestyle is morally wrong, then I guess I am a bigot. That doesn’t mean that I hate gay people. I don’t advocate violence against gays. And it may surprise many of you that I have family and some close friends who are gay. It is intellectually dishonest to try to paint all people who feel the gay lifestyle is morally wrong as a bunch of raving lunatics who want to oppress gays and take away civil rights. To compare us to the racial bigotry of the deep south during the 50’s is beyond inflammatory. Blacks in the south faced the constant threat of violence, often feared for their lives, and were forced to accept demeaning and low-paying jobs which forced them into perpetual poverty. The denial of gays to file joint tax returns and on occasion being denied to visit a loved one in the hospital are FAR different and should not even be compared. It is an insult to the suffering that blacks faced during that time and in some places still do face.

The fact is that these anti-discrimination laws are indeed forcing churches to shut down their organizations. I find it ironic that people spouting the separation of church and state in favor of legalizing gay marriage are okay with the fact that these state laws are used in courts to force churches to accept the gay lifestyle in various ways. After all, gays and lesbians will not be happy just with the law stating they can get married, they will then use that to infiltrate every aspect of religious life in the state, from church-run charities, school education, and more. This is much bigger than a piece of paper stating a person is legally married. It permeates throughout all aspects of our lives, and that is why so many people are against this.

http://www.catholic.org/national/nati...

Posted by BeaHappi on February 21, 2008 at 11:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Not that it really matters but a church did not issue our marriage license; we got it at the county government center.

I guess in my mind there are bigger fish to fry in our crazy world. If two people love each other and want to make the commitment of marriage...and it's not hurting anyone else...then I just don't see the harm.

I'm not worried about this causing an avalanche in moral decline. I'm more worried about a war we cannot continue to fund, the young lives lost in the same war, the damage to our ozone & environment, gang-violence, and how in the hell we're going to grow food if we keep building houses everywhere.

We are all entitled to our beliefs and opinions and if you're opposed, that's your right. But I just don't get all the hoopla around this.

I'm married to a man and if gay couples are allowed to marry it won't make us feel like we are any less married.

Live and let live...in my humble opinion.

Posted by del on February 21, 2008 at 12:53 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Let them marry and join in with the rest of society. After awhile no one will notice. Well, except those who chose to enjoy the "us against them" syndrome.

"Copulation is spiritual in essence--or it is merely friendly exercise. On second thought, strike out “merely.” Copulation is not “merely”--even when it is just a happy pastime for two strangers. But copulation at its spiritual best is so much more than physical coupling that it is different in kind as well as in degree. The saddest feature of homosexuality is not that it is “wrong” or “sinful” or even that it can’t lead to progeny--but that it is more difficult to reach through this spiritual union. Not impossible--but the cards are stacked against it. But most sorrowfully--many people never achieve spiritual sharing even with the help of male-female advantage; they are condemned to wander through life alone." LL

Posted by leahb78_1999 on February 21, 2008 at 2:43 p.m. (Suggest removal)

If it werent for the fact that those pushing for this change want to use the law to force churches and other religious organizations to accept their lifestyle, then I would have no problem with it either. But the fact remains that if gay marriage becomes legal, Californians will be forced to accept this.

The state should not make a law respecting the establishment of religion, OR prohibit the free exercise of religion. If the law is changed, it will force Catholic institutions (and many other religious organizations) to change their policy on homosexual relationships. Otherwise, the church will be discrimanatory towards homosexuals, and that will now be criminalized. Is this not a law prohibiting the free exercise of religion? Do you really want to criminalize the churches for trying to do what they feel is the right thing? Will the orphan children be forced to suffer even more because charitable church organizations are working to place them into caring, traditional families?

Posted by BeaHappi on February 21, 2008 at 3:04 p.m. (Suggest removal)

leahb78_1999...I understand your point of view and you bring up an interesting point. I'm curious to know how many people - homosexual or not - would want to be married in a church that didn't support their beliefs/lifestyle.

The Catholic Church for example; I just don't see a gay couple seeking out the right to be married in that church. First of all there are so many other requirements in order to be married in that church, starting with baptism, including confirmation, etc.

Maybe I'm overly optimistic or just hopeful that if gay marriage was legal, those same-sex couples would obtain a marriage license through their county office and then take their marriage vows in a religious or non-religious setting that is supportive of their lifestyle.

After trying so hard for so long to have this union legally recognized, why would anyone make the process more difficult? Why would anyone make their wedding more difficult?

Posted by holdenon_2000 on February 21, 2008 at 3:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Marriage is a bond for a couple who intend to raise a family. Since Men or Women cant have children with the same sex, then they should not be allowed to be married to the same sex. Gay marriage will open the doors for all kinds of Fraud. For example. One working man has made 80K a year, his buddy has been unemployed for over a year. They come up with a brilliant idea to get a marriage certificate for $100, so that the working man can save thousands on income tax. Even though they are not lovers, this would happen over night. You would have soldiers getting marriage certificates so they could get the higher spouse pay.

There is no reason to be married unless you are raising a family. Bottom line. These two old ladies are full of it, wasting tax payer dollars going to the city clerk, knowing they will be denied.

I believe everyone has the right to love whomever , however everyone is not entitled to the benefits granted to couples who are raising children, or intend to raise children. Marriage is the foundation of a family, not a sexually driven desire. If you can not have a child with the same sex, then you should not be able to marry the same sex period. This kind of thing makes straight people like me think that all Gay people are stupid and selfish. These old ladies are most likely friends who may love each other, but really want the benefits of marriage, yet they are much too old to raise children. Quit crying ladies, you get Social Security that I will probably never see, even though I probably work twice as hard, and am raising children.

Religion has nothing to do with this issue. The issue is raising a family. Gay people cant have children the traditional way, so they shouldn't have a traditional marriage. They should come up with a new type of bond, so that these gay people will stop crying discrimination. I dont see them crying to god that god discriminated against them by not letting them have children together. Its Nature, not discrimination. Get over it, kiss your lover, and accept that fact that you are not equal to a child bearing family.

Posted by mantiger808 on February 21, 2008 at 4:02 p.m. (Suggest removal)

It is amazing, the ignorance that is portrayed in these posts..."marriage is only people raising children", "God, Religion, blah, blah, blah"
Wake up people! This is the age of tolerance! How quickly we forget that there was a time when people of color couldn,t marry whites. Really who cares if a man wants to marry a man, or a woman to a woman. You don't have to believe in God to get married. Atheists get married, "Witches" get married, "swingers" get married, ect, ect.
If you are a religous person then you get married following the practices of your religion. But a couple can get married in a court by a judge also...they both are just as married, by law.
Many couples get married but don't want children or worse yet, cannot conceive children. Does this make them lesser people? How pious! And if we are to enforce the "biblical" laws of marriage, then divorce should be illegal and we should stone to death any married person caught cheating on their spouse!
Come on America. Your children aren't going to turn gay just because marriage is legalized. Nor are they going to marry a gay person by accident.
As for the argument about HIV/AIDS...that desease is most rampant in Africa, where there are probably the fewest gay/lesbian people living. Really, if we spent more time just enjoying our lives with the people closest to us; our friends and families and stop trying to control the actions of others that doesn't affect us, collectively this would be a much better country. For those that believe in God...the day will come when we all will be judged...homosexuality, hate, intolerence, infidelity...be prepared to make your case.

Posted by BeaHappi on February 21, 2008 at 4:16 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Marriage is a bond for a couple who intend to raise a family."

What about men/women who marry but have no intention of ever having children? Should they be denied the right to be married because they are not going to raise a family?

Posted by BeaHappi on February 21, 2008 at 4:18 p.m. (Suggest removal)

"Come on America. Your children aren't going to turn gay just because marriage is legalized. Nor are they going to marry a gay person by accident."

mantiger808...love it!

Posted by TheBoldTruth on February 21, 2008 at 5:23 p.m. (Suggest removal)

To leahb78_1999:

Did you miss the headlines? Are you not aware that a 15 year old was shoot to death, execution style, for being gay? Are you aware that this happened in our county? Are you aware that this isn't an isolated incident? Are you aware that the reason why many people are fighting for equality is to erase the breded illogical belief (that you possess) that homosexuality is wrong? How is that different than how blacks were treated in the 50s "down south"? They lived in fear for their lives (as many homosexuals do today) only because they were different and discriminated against based on marriage... over coming that discrimination allowed them to be view "equally with whites".

Secondly, don't pretend racism only existed in the South and don't pretend it doesn't exist today, right here in Ventura County. The United States wants to pretend racism didn't happen, but it can't be hidden. They want to claim it no longer exist, but it's rampant.

And finally, you are correct, you are a bigot.

But you don't have to die that way...

...and thats the bold truth!

Posted by TheBoldTruth on February 21, 2008 at 5:34 p.m. (Suggest removal)

And finally, those against homosexual marriage can't produce one strong argument to deny homosexuals the right to marriage without denying millions of others:

Marriage is a religious institute: many homosexuals are religious and many heterosexual are not... no one has ever put forward an effort to limit marriage to "God fearing people". Also, if marriage is only a religious institution, then all of the governmental privileges should be stripped away from marriage.

Marriage is for raising families: Homosexuals adopt children and many studies show they make as good or better parents than heterosexuals. Furtherer, under this theory, people who are sterile, or had this reproductive organs removed (for medical reasons or just to stop having children) should be denied the right to marry.

Marriage is a traditional institution for Men and Women: no good, the traditional marriage made Women the property of the men, husbands couldn't even be charged for rape of their wife because wives didn't have the right to withhold consent to have sex with their husband. Historically, only Men could divorce their wives, and men owned all the property. At one time in this country, if someone killed your wife, the only remedy under the law was trespass to property, because ... wives were property.

None of these arguments pass muster ....

Posted by bombero42 on February 22, 2008 at 7:29 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Leahb, a few questions.
When did you decide to be straight?
You didn't, you just were. You were naturally born that way.
Now ask your friend and your family member when they decided to be gay, and you will get the same answer.
Or try answering the question below, which all the bible thumpers have run from.
For those biblical "scholars" out there who say we must follow God's law and "natural law", what do you say about hermaphroditism? Who can they marry or have sex with? find that in you bible. Give me a rational black or white answer for that! Things in the real world are often not so simple.

Posted by leahb78_1999 on February 22, 2008 at 8:16 a.m. (Suggest removal)

The Bold Truth,
Thank you for not addressing any of the issues that I brought up and instead just attack me on a personal level (sarcasm). It truly is sad that you cannot even have a mature discussion on this issue.

My point about racism was not that it occurred only in the Deep South or that it happened only in the 1950’s (Please see my previous comment stating such). I only mentioned it because many on this forum seem to think that the treatment blacks is comparable to denying a gay couple a piece of paper making their union a legal marriage. It is not the same. This discussion is on the legal issues pertaining to gay marriage. For now, I have decided to disregard the comments arguing that I am obligated to accept the gay lifestyle despite the fact that I truly feel it is immoral.

And on a side tangent, I think there are a lot of other things that are immoral such as infidelity, premarital sex, pornography, etc. I even have friends that have done these other things. But I guess I am a bigot against my friends and family who have done these things because I think their actions are immoral too. Maybe I don’t agree with the liberal use of the term “bigot” here. I don’t allow my own morals to affect my ability to get along with, and even have good relationships with others. I actually can accept a person who does things I don’t agree with, and still see the positive things about that person. I know that my gay friends have wonderful personalities, talents, and are good people. BUT I am not going to throw away my values, just so that I can be their friend. I have other friends with other problems and I still like them. In fact, I don’t have a single person in my life that I can honestly say is perfect, and yet I still have many friends and family.

In any case, I didn’t want to stray too far off topic. If you want to have another discussion about the level of hatred that gays face then I am more than happy to do so but I will only do it in a rational manner and not by inflating the problem with a bunch of emotionalism. My comments regarding the legalizing of gay marriage stand and I do not apologize for them. And instead of just attacking me personally, why don’t you address my concerns regarding various gay and lesbian groups using anti-discrimination laws to attack religious organizations. I even provided a link of just one example for you. Care to comment on that?

Posted by bombero42 on February 22, 2008 at 9:37 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Leahb why are you dodging my questions?

Posted by leahb78_1999 on February 22, 2008 at 10:30 a.m. (Suggest removal)

Well, maybe I shouldn't answer this until all of you gay-marriage fans have actually answer the issues I've raised (and BTW none of them related to any Biblical scriptures).

In any case, I have stated earlier that I wouldn't have an issue of two people of the same sex getting married if it weren't for the fact that the state and federal laws are being used to impose upon church organizations, thereby eliminating any idealistic dream that the state and church are separate. Although I would still think it was immoral for them to do so.

But in all fairness, when Hermaphrodites start trying to use the state and federal government institutions to tear down church institutions, believe you me I will be all over it.

Posted by bugmenot on February 22, 2008 at 10:50 a.m. (Suggest removal)

dodged mine too.

Leahb, I'm very interested to know about these cases where the church is held accountable for discriminatory.

Of course there are going to be people pushing their agendas and perhaps attempt to sue the church, but the courts and the people (religious or not) see right through it. I don't think these cases have merit and I think the courts agree (they will be on your side with this issue).

Can you give me examples of the situation you are describing? Please.

Posted by bugmenot on February 22, 2008 at 11:05 a.m. (Suggest removal)

issue at hand:
"state and federal laws are being used to impose upon church organizations"

To help out the discussion, can you provide a case or two?

Leahb, i think i see where you and I differ. I'm saying the laws may be used to file suit, but the suit will be without merit.

You may agree or may not agree with this point, but you are saying something like...it doesn't matter if the suits are dismissed or without merit, the simple fact that they can now be filed and drown a church in legal and court fees is unacceptable.

Fair assessment or am I way off?

Posted by leahb78_1999 on February 22, 2008 at 12:17 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.afa.net/websites/weeklysta...

This article is an excellent start. When I find some more time I will find some others.

Posted by meblondie138 on February 22, 2008 at 1:20 p.m. (Suggest removal)

mantiger808 - well said!

Posted by TheBoldTruth on February 22, 2008 at 3:29 p.m. (Suggest removal)

Leah,

You points are well taken, and most extremely valid. I have a lot of family and friends that are gay, and I think their love for each other is beautiful and I don't feel ANYTHING is immoral about it. When people commit adultery, or lie, or steal, i too believe in most cases that is immoral (there are never absolutes in this world). We know stealing and lying is wrong because we can feel it inside, and when two people love each other, no matter their sexuality, it doesn't give me that sick feeling inside.

Bottom line ... pushing everything else aside and dealing just with homosexuality ... would it be immoral is the Bible didn't say it was?

Just think about that, and after you do, think about how many mistranslations are suspected in the bible, how many known changes were made by kings and emperors along the way, those who have omitted and added passages to the Bible to suit their needs and reflect their bigotries. The Bible is human-made even if divined by a higher power, and therefore should not be completed trusted.

Lastly, I believe we were given a conscious to guide us and to tell us what is right or wrong. And if God created us, we gave us a conscious so that we would know what is right, so I don't need a book to tell me right from wrong. Homosexuality doesn't offend my conscious - and I listen to my conscious - and therefore it isn't wrong.

The people who are offended by homosexuality are so because of the Bible - and it's sad that a book that within it has so many good morals and beliefs within it has caused so much war, death, hatred, and division.

Posted by bugmenot on February 22, 2008 at 4:22 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://www.kmbc.com/news/15380571/det...

Posted by bugmenot on February 22, 2008 at 4:24 p.m. (Suggest removal)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_eas...

Posted by bluefairy on February 22, 2008 at 9:15 p.m. (Suggest removal)

I quote holdenon_2000: There is no reason to be married unless you are raising a family. Bottom line.

What a rude and offensive statement!!

So since "God" has decided that I am not able to bear children, I should get divorced since we won't be raising a family ...

You don't need to raise a family to be married. There are many married couples that have not raised families because they choose not to or because they can't do it naturally.