California Supreme Court strikes down the state's ban on same-sex marriage as unconstitutional.

Then is it ok for a father to marry his daughter or brother and sister to marry. What about humans and animals?
Is that disgusting to you?

No, because incest can lead to deformaties in the children. In a gay relationship there are no children. And no again because who says that the animal agree with what is happening.

I am not gay but I how dare you say it is not natural, firstly it is not a persons choice, it is they way they are. It is not a deformity or disease that will hinder their, or anyone elses lives.

Also, there are animals that are homosexual aswell. The only unnatural thing here is the hate of something that doesn't even effect you.


Oh, and in your man and woman only theory, does that discount love then. Are we only supposed to marry the opposite sex and try and force ourselves to love them, should it not be the PERSON you fall in love with, whether it is a man OR a woman.

[edit on 15-5-2008 by umbr45]

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Originally posted by caballero
well then we need to redefine marrage to say it is about two people in love.

Well isn't that convienent. Why don't we change the definition of 'dog' to also mean wolves and hyenas.

whether they are two men or two woman or a woman and a man shouldnt matter and its disgusting that for some people it does matter.

Then is it ok for a father to marry his daughter or brother and sister to marry. What about humans and animals?
Is that disgusting to you?

your making arguments that make no sense. most people would not fall in love with their daughters so the majority who would not fall in love with their children look at the minority who would and say no that isnt acceptable, that how it is now the majority wanted gay marrage you are the minority according to most of california youre wrong. the majority decides not the minority.

and any specific dog breed is defined by scientific names we could call wolves dogs but their scientific names couldnt be changed the scientific names organizes classifacations within the species like wolves are bigger than dogs, wolves have grey hair yellow eyes dogs dont (not really couldnt think of an example im not a wolf expert im sorry). scientific names formed from evidence. there is no evidence showing men and women love each other more than men and men so marrage is something that can be changed when the opinions of the era change right now the era wants gay marrage, if you dont go back to the 50's.

[edit on 15-5-2008 by caballero]

reply to post by WhatTheory



Comparing gay marriage to beastiality and incest is completely illogical. There are sound reasons why intercourse and marriage with your immediate family is not good, not the least of which are the medical reasons. I don't think I need to get into the issue of intercourse with an animal to prove my point to you. Gay sex is not interspecies sex so this comparison is flawed inherently let alone if I actually bothered to go deeper into the issue.

And yes, you did say some pretty hateful things. You may not see them as this, but you're not on the receiving end.

Originally posted by WhatTheory

Ok, then do you think it's ok for a dad to marry his daughter or for brother and sister to marry? What about people marrying animals?
If you so no to any of these then why are you taking their rights away?

Incest was a common practice to keep bloodlines pure until genetics was discovered. There is a scientific reason to not marry your own family. It has nothing to do with morality.

Did you know that Toulouse-Lautrec - - was not a dwarf but suffered from a genetic disorder attributed to his parents being 1st cousins?

I stand by "Adult Consent". I personally don't care if father and daughter marry - as long as they don't propagate - for scientific reasons of recessive genes.

As far as animals go - - they can't give their consent.

reply to post by WhatTheory

Like all species, we are born to multiply and two men cannot.

So with that logic, all those men and woman who are UNABLE to have children should not be allowed to be married?

Seriously, WHO CARES? It is not hurting anyone. Im straight as an arrow, but does me being straight and loving MEN affect anyone else??? No. So, how can a man loving a man and being married to him affect anyone else?

Try getting married in the eyes of God - without a government license.

YES! A government document is required. In other words marriage is and was designed to protect person and property in a legal union.

It has nothing to do with God. It is and always has been for legal protection.

reply to post by WhatTheory

Hate? I did not say anything hateful. I don't hate gay people, I only believe they should not get married.

How come you are not protesting all those straight people who get married that CLEARLY should not be married?

Your stance makes no sense. They can live together and love each other, but they cant sign a contract and have a spiritual ceremony? makes no sense.

And to compare gays marrying to a man having sex with children or animals is sick.

[edit on 15-5-2008 by greeneyedleo]

Ohhhh.... Let them get married and be miserable like the rest of us!! ... (just kidding baby)

In all honesty.. The only problem that I have with gay marriage is that could open the door for all kinds of people that want to marry something... Other than that let them do what they want.

Originally posted by Bunch
Ohhhh.... Let them get married and be miserable like the rest of us!!

... (just kidding baby)

In all honesty.. The only problem that I have with gay marriage is that could open the door for all kinds of people that want to marry something... Other than that let them do what they want.

NO - you have to have Adult Consent. That's human Adult Consent - from both or more parties.

Not Forced.

Personally, I am in favor of gay rights (which I regard merely as a late coming extension of human rights and citizens' rights,) and so I am gladdened by this news!

However, while I disagree with those who hold them, I do respect the views of those who oppose such measures, because they believe they are doing and believing what is right (and for all I know, perhaps they are.) Even if I disagree with them, provided they are going about it in a respectful and compassionate manner, then that's the best any of us can do. There's always the possibility that I'm wrong, after all.

That said, and with respect to those who disagree with me, I'd like to add my opinion that even if one were to accept the premise that homosexuality were an unnatural aberration within nature (which I do not believe personally,) marriage between two same-gendered persons isn't going to increase the number of homosexual people on the planet, and that a ban on homosexual marriage isn't going to decrease the number. If someone has been born gay, then even if you believe that homosexuality is a "defect" (which I do not,) why not allow them to be as happy as possible in accordance with their nature?

There have been some attempts at comparing homosexuality to incest and even beastiality. Here is my opinion on that:

Incest, especially multigenerational, sibling to sibling, or parent-child incest, is very different in my opinion, because of the existing evidence for genetic disease and damage that can result if offspring are born. Incest with children doesn't even need to be addressed in my opinion, because we're talking about sex with a child to start with. Beastiality, by contrast, is a fetish, and not a sexual orientation. Furthermore, as others have pointed out, an animal has no means of letting a human being know if what they're doing to (or with) it hurts or not, and cannot grant consent.

Comparing any of the above to homosexuality is a misnomer in my opinion, as homosexuality among healthy, rational human beings is consentual and is no more damaging to society or to anyone than consentual heterosexuality among healthy, rational human beings, and is not a fetish but rather a sexual orientation.

Gay people are human beings who just happen to be born into a very different romantic and sexual experience than I was. They grow up, hit puberty, and start discovering their sexuality (if they're lucky enough to be born somewhere that allows that to occur without interference) just like everyone else. They flirt, they go on dates, and they get butterflies in their stomach and cold feet just like everyone else. They go to school, work, live, fall in love, laugh, and cry just like everyone else. The only difference happens to be the gender of who they develop sexual or romantic feelings for.

Now, as I said, this is only my opinion, and I respect the views of those who disagree. I would ask though (ask, not demand or compel,) that they voice those views with compassion, respect, and without judgment, because any of us have the capacity to be wrong or incorrect in our assessment of reality.

Edited for clarification.

[edit on 5/15/2008 by AceWombat04]

gay marriage is legal over here in England, and I don't remember anyone asking to marry a sheep or some other animal around here recently.

I don't see why people seem to think that this would happen.

I just hope that the state doesn't start forcing different religious groups to hold gay wedding ceremonies. I could see some gay Muslims suing to be able to get married in a local mosque, that should stir up the hornet's nest.

Other than that I really could care less if gays are allowed to have a civil union that confers the same rights as a married couple.

Reply to both Annee and GreenEyedLeo...

Nice comments!

Ya know, bigotry is bigotry....often it is couched in some sort of quasi-religious 'justification'.

As you all say....what matter is it to anyone else? About half of all marriages end in divorce in the US...with all the hurt feelings and financial hardships that ensue...so much for the 'sanctity' part, eh?

I'm not making fun of marriage, not in any way...it's just that it works for some people, not everyone. Sometimes it's better the second time (my Mother's second marriage, for example). Sometimes it's perfect from the start....hooray for them!!

AND, most reasons for marriage are, admit it, contractual.

I think Annee pointed out that in ancient times, in Europe and England, it was continually practised within the Royal families...because they had no concept of genetics, and the damage that in-breeding can cause.

I know a couple in New York who have been together for over 20 years...they only just got married about four years ago, because as they aged, they realized they would need that 'contract' in case one got sick, or died before the other.

THAT is the reality of 'marriage' in modern US society.

If marriage didn't involve special priviledges, such as those regarding insurance, children, end of life issues, medical decisions, etc, then we wouldn't need gay mariage. But since being married does affect these issues in our society, then telling two people who live together and may have kids together (not biologically) that they can't have the same rights as the rest of us is wrong. Can't people realize that our future generations will look back on us as bigots, just as we look back on the bigots of ~50 years ago who thought it was so horrible for a black man/woman to marry a white woman/man?

Originally posted by umbr45
gay marriage is legal over here in England, and I don't remember anyone asking to marry a sheep or some other animal around here recently.

I don't see why people seem to think that this would happen.

cause they think gay marriage is immoral as is beastiality, but that is ridiculous gay marriage is not immoral in any way. it is just as moral as straight marriage.

[edit on 15-5-2008 by caballero]

Then perhaps my statement should read, I don't see why people think homosexuality is in any way similar to beastiality.




oh and as a side note: I am Christian; religion does not give you an excuse to say homosexuality is wrong.

Originally posted by weedwhacker
What, you yourself said that a marriage 'should be between a man and a woman'. Isn't the father a 'man' and his daughter a 'woman'? [edit to add] Of course incest is reprehensible...

Exactly, that is what I was saying. I believe there has to be restrictions on marriage.

And your rant about dogs and wolves and hyenas....that was incredibly laughable (no pun)....hyenas are not related to canines. Ah, ignorance is bliss....

Again, thanks for making my point. Of course they are not related. Thats why it makes no sense when someone mentioned to change the definition of marriage.
Unable to comprehend is bliss.....

Are you not 'disgusted' by that religious sect in texas that has been on the news of late? Women as young as 13 being forced to 'marry' men old enough to be their father?!?!? Do you not think they are vile and heinous?

Yes, it is vile and that is why polygamy is against the law. Thanks again for understanding my point.

Who defines Morality? I guarantee you - I will define my own morality - - not anyone else.

But what does moral belief have to do with a - government contract for protection of rights of person and property?

Absolutely nothing.

Originally posted by umbr45
No, because incest can lead to deformaties in the children. In a gay relationship there are no children.

Exactly, being gay is a form of a handicap since it will not allow one to breed.

how dare you say it is not natural

Ok, how dare you say it is natural.
It is not natural to be born not wanting to be with someone who you need to reproduce. This is why I believe something when wrong during birth and they are wired incorrect, hence a hanicap.

firstly it is not a persons choice, it is they way they are.

I never said anything to the contrary.

Also, there are animals that are homosexual aswell.

Like what? That still does not mean its right so the point is moot.

Why is polygamy against the law? It infringes on religious belief.

As far as the FLDS - - they are being investigated for FORCED marriage of Underaged girls.

Not polygamy.

-----------------

Remember Adult Consent. There is a HUGE - COLOSSAL - GIGANTUAN - difference between Consensual Adult Polygamy - - and Forced marriage of any kind - especially minors.

The FLDS - is committing Forced Rape and Pedophilia - - under the umbrella of God.