California Prop 8 outlawing gay marriage ruled unconstitutional

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by humbleseeker
If gays just stop being gay, it would be much easier. Maybe I am old fashion I just think homosexuality is sick and perverted.

Maybe you should get out in the world a bit more.

I got a job at a publishing company where I was the minority being straight. This was not the typical "gay" working in an office with a bunch of straights. This was a company of mostly gays & even couples.

This was my introduction to gays.

If you think they choose to be gay - - - you are so out of touch with reality.

Old fashion is no excuse for ignorance. God made them as they are - period.

oh im sorry i was under the impression that there is no scientific proof WHAT SO EVER. that people are born gay. NONE. PERIOD.

But since im so obviously wrong...when did they discover the gay gene? oh happy days....now gay people can actually compare there 'plight' to civil rights and the jim crow laws with out being facticious.

Please provide a source...im so excited i can hardly breath! finally its taken us 50 years but its finally been proven that gays are BORN gay.......

reply to post by Annee


Can you answer the simple question of who should establish societal norms?

You've already stated you agree with denying "equal protection", as related to marriage licenses, to couples with close blood ties. What gives you the right to establish that boundary? What about a same-sex couple who are first cousins or even brothers? The same familial ties exist, which you have determined to be "wrong", in the case of an opposite-sex couple?

Originally posted by WTFover
reply to post by Annee

 

Can you answer the simple question of who should establish societal norms?

You've already stated you agree with denying "equal protection", as related to marriage licenses, to couples with close blood ties.

NO - I didn't. You are interpreting again.

Basically I said - - I support Science in Fact - - that Mother/Father/Brother/Sister - - should not reproduce.

IF - they could be sterilized so as not to reproduce - - - I have no problem with them marrying.

Originally posted by Annee
God made them as they are - period.

Ummm, haven't you said before that you do not believe in God? Just curious about how you reconcile conflicting beliefs?

reply to post by Annee


Obfuscate much?

You still refuse to answer the simple question.

Originally posted by rogerstigers
reply to post by Nofoolishness

 

Ah, so you are one of those people who thinks that marriage has nothing to do with love?

*sigh* this tired "special rights" fallacy is getting boring.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by rogerstigers]

What....we are arguing about love now? i thought that it was generally accepted among gay marriage supporters that love was not really required for marriage? or maybe i got it all wrong.

This is how the typical debate goes.

Traditional marriage supporter: Marriage is sacred

Gay marriage supporter: Look at heterosexual marriages and divorce rate! Love is OBVIOUSLY not needed.

Traditional marriage supporter: marriage is made to encourage procreation.

Gay marriage supporter: So we should deny sterile heterosexuals now?(completely ignoring that heterosexuals are the only ones even CAPABLE of having children)

Thats the two average counter arguments.

Im just using what you say against you. No love is not required to be married.....i mean OBVIOUSLY look at us heteros (sarcasm end).

I mean after all its just a legal contract.Its just a contract if you take away religious meaning. sucks to have your own arguments used against you right?

[edit on 5-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]

[edit on 5-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by Annee
God made them as they are - period.

Ummm, haven't you said before that you do not believe in God? Just curious about how you reconcile conflicting beliefs?

You are right. I do not believe in a God. But I don't know any Atheists who would deny Equal Rights.

Its called "Addressing the Audience".

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Nofoolishness


For the last time they do have equal rights. No one is denied the right to marry. There is a requirment for marriage and that is marrying the opposite sex. They have every right to marry the opposite sex...just like me. They cant marry the same sex...just like me.

I am not even going to address this prejudice ignorance anymore.

Consenting adults will legally marry the partner of their choice. That is a fact.

Why? because you know you cant win against me with this argument? run along little anne...run along. Oh and how am i prejudice and ignorant? because i dont agree with the ruling? give me a break. everything i stated was the truth.

Am i lying when i said ANY man can go down to local courthouse and marry any woman he wants? was i lying when i said ANY woman can go marry any man she wants? NO.

Was i lying when i said NO MAN can marry another man? was i lying when i said no woman can marry another woman?

everything i said was the truth and you know it.

We are all equal. We can ALL marry the opposite sex. Not my problem if people who are attracted to the same sex DONT WANT TO.

reply to post by Nofoolishness


You are correct, gay people who want to marry would have to do such with the opposite gender, but is that a door that you want to open? The very suggestion of such, takes away a fundamental right to choice, and the right to choose who a person spends the rest of their life with. After all it was not until 1967 that a person could marry outside of their race. Before that time it was against the law for a person who was white to marry someone who was black, and such unions were looked apon with the same disdain as to people who are of the same sex getting married. This was to the point where people who were wed, where it was legal, would end up getting sentenced to jail.
The door that you would open, takes away the right to choose on the individual level, to the point where it means the government could make the choices for you, after all who says you can marry the person of your choice, but the 1967 Loving V. Virginia Lawsuit. If you remove the choice, then the Loving lawsuit becomes invalidated and some 20 states would have to put back on the books, laws that prohibit marriages between certain individuals.
As the courts will look at the previous rulings made by prior courts, then the gay marriage issue may very well be decided by the Loving case, in favor of.

Originally posted by Nofoolishness

Originally posted by Annee

Originally posted by Nofoolishness


For the last time they do have equal rights. No one is denied the right to marry. There is a requirment for marriage and that is marrying the opposite sex. They have every right to marry the opposite sex...just like me. They cant marry the same sex...just like me.

I am not even going to address this prejudice ignorance anymore.

Consenting adults will legally marry the partner of their choice. That is a fact.

Why? because you know you cant win against me with this argument? run along little anne...run along. Oh and how am i prejudice and ignorant? because i dont agree with the ruling? give me a break. everything i stated was the truth.

Am i lying when i said ANY man can go down to local courthouse and marry any woman he wants? was i lying when i said ANY woman can go marry any man she wants? NO.

Was i lying when i said NO MAN can marry another man? was i lying when i said no woman can marry another woman?

everything i said was the truth and you know it.

We are all equal. We can ALL marry the opposite sex. Not my problem if people who are attracted to the same sex DONT WANT TO.

Because Ignorance is Ignorance

The court extended Equal Rights to include ALL consenting adults without bias to gender.

There was no change in law - - only extension of inclusion.

Originally posted by Nofoolishness

What....we are arguing about love now? i thought that it was generally accepted among gay marriage supporters that love was not really required for marriage? or maybe i got it all wrong.

Actually, I cannot speak for others, but yeah, I do not believe that love has anything to do with marriage. It is a contract between induviduals to save money on taxes, etc. as well as have certain rights for the care and feeding of each other in medical and end of life situations.

This is how the typical debate goes.

Traditional marriage supporter: Marriage is sacred

Gay marriage supporter: Look at heterosexual marriages and divorce rate! Love is OBVIOUSLY not needed.

I actually don't care if you think marriage is sacred or not. That's a religious viewpoint and 100% related to the non-governmental aspects of marriage. If you want to view it as sacred, more power to you.

Traditional marriage supporter: marriage is made to encourage procreation.

Gay marriage supporter: So we should deny sterile heterosexuals now?(completely ignoring that heterosexuals are the only ones even CAPABLE of having children)

Actually, I am intrigued by this argument. If marriage is only about having kids, then why all of the fuss about end of life decisions and insurance, etc.? Seems more than is necessary to ensure that we continue sprouting out babies. I am married for financial and legal reasons unrelated to the love I have for my wife. I have no kids of my own and will never have kids of my own. Should I get divorced?

Im just using what you say against you. No love is not required to be married.....i mean OBVIOUSLY look at us heteros (sarcasm end).

I mean after all its just a legal contract.Its just a contract if you take away religious meaning. sucks to have your own arguments used against you right?

Well, to be frank, the comment was targetted at the "gays can marry whomever they want so long as they are the opposite sex" sort of comment. I guess I have a hard time understanding the argument. Don't see how gender has anything at all to do with marriage.

As I have mentioned, and posted on my profile, I am not a supported of *ANY* marriage. I think the religious tradition of bonding a woman to a man is a throwback to partriachial ownership traditions and has no place in a modern society.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by rogerstigers]

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by Nofoolishness

 

You are correct, gay people who want to marry would have to do such with the opposite gender, but is that a door that you want to open? The very suggestion of such, takes away a fundamental right to choice, and the right to choose who a person spends the rest of their life with. After all it was not until 1967 that a person could marry outside of their race. Before that time it was against the law for a person who was white to marry someone who was black, and such unions were looked apon with the same disdain as to people who are of the same sex getting married. This was to the point where people who were wed, where it was legal, would end up getting sentenced to jail.
The door that you would open, takes away the right to choose on the individual level, to the point where it means the government could make the choices for you, after all who says you can marry the person of your choice, but the 1967 Loving V. Virginia Lawsuit. If you remove the choice, then the Loving lawsuit becomes invalidated and some 20 states would have to put back on the books, laws that prohibit marriages between certain individuals.
As the courts will look at the previous rulings made by prior courts, then the gay marriage issue may very well be decided by the Loving case, in favor of.

Oh i knew you people were gonna pull loving vs virginia out your butthole. The problem with this is....sexuality is not a state of being. its not a race. Black and whites dont have a choice of being born the way they are. Being gay is not a state of being. There is NO proof ...NONE that people are born gay. thats the POPULAR thought. That people were born gay...but the simple truth is...there is no proof what so ever to support such a theory. There has been NUMEROUS studies done on this subject and no conclusive evidence has been shown that people are born gay.

because being gay is not a state of being it cant accurately or accurately be compared to virginia vs loving AT ALL. its a strawman argument and you KNOW IT.

Okay let me let you break it down for you.

1.)Marriage is never mentioned in the constitution so thus is under the tenth ammendment and states rights.STATES DECIDE.

2.)Its not discrimination because we can all marry the opposite sex and cant marry the same sex. No discrimination. You agreed. This is why this judges ruling is wrong under the equal protections clause. We all have the oppurtunity to marry the opposite sex.

3.)Gay marriage cant be compared to virginia vs loving because being homosexual is not a state of being. There is no 'gay gene' proven to exist in humanity. There is no proof what so ever....after NUMEROUS studied. NONE. no conclusive proof. and the fact that the judge plainly said "gay people are born gay"(while being gay himself) is highley suspicious.

comprende? Now you could argue to extend the definition of marriage outright. But it would still go up to states votes.

reply to post by Nofoolishness


I will take a crack at the arguments that you have made:
1) Marriage is Sacred. The counter that I believe is more appropirate counter is that the act of marriage started to move away from the sacred in the 14th century when it was required for a printed licence, along with feed, followed by the Hardwicke's Marriage Act 1753, when it was further moved away from the religious more into the goverment, to finally being fully in the perview of the government, with the Marriage act of 1836, which required the permission of the state to wed, and no longer that of the church. When you combine that with the first admendment of the United States of America, which is a double edge sword, the freedom of Religion, also has a secondary nature, the Freedom from Religion, thus Marriage is no longer sacred and is a contract between 2 consenting adults who choose to be together, that is given rights and privledges of such.
2) Marriage is to Procreate: The counter could be stated as to who is considered a fit parent. Yes the argument of the steril parent is a valid one, cause if you use that as an excuse the question must be asked by allow someone who is sterile to wed at all. However the question must be asked about the following: What about people who willingly go through and sterilize themselves as they have no desire to have children, are their marriages any less invalid, or what about the parents as well? Would a convicted murder, or child molester, or rapist, or drug dealer be an acceptable parent, as there are no laws to restrict them from marrying and having children. Are those suitable role models for children?

reply to post by Nofoolishness


Interesting. I have been completely surrounded by gay gentlemen in a couple fo my past careers and have even been propositioned many times during some sexual "dry spells" to have sex with some men, many of which weren't all that bad looking. I never once found them attractive, though. I guess you are saying it is because I didn't "choose" to get a hard on?

Science has never proven that being gay is a choice.

[edit on 8-5-2010 by rogerstigers]

Originally posted by rogerstigers
reply to post by Nofoolishness

 

Interesting. I have been completely surrounded by gay gentlemen in a couple fo my past careers and have even been propositioned many times during some sexual "dry spells" to have sex with some men, many of which weren't all that bad looking. I never once found them attractive, though. I guess you are saying it is becaus eI didn't "choose" to get a hard on?

Science has never proven that being gay is a choice.

The Gay is a Choice - - - is pure ignorance.

I contribute it to the FEAR of losing. The FEAR of religion is wrong.

The last ditch effort - - of controlled fear.

As you say - - is being straight a CHOICE.

No more then being gay is a CHOICE.

I dont think marriage is sacred either. But i do think the marriage bed is sacred. No cheating or non-monogamy for me.

On the procreation argument. Well it may seem like a lot...but thats what it was intentionally created for. Believe it or not the religious nutjobs are right for once. The government got its greedy hands in marriage to encourage people to have more children. That was the sole reason for government intervention in marriage. Its really just that simple. Tax breaks and all the extra stuff was created to make incentives to have more children. Because people cant support 3-4 children on there own without government assistance or they can but it would be a drain on resources.The whole idea of marriage in the western world was to insure heirs and inheretance.

On my argument. Its simple really. marriage has a requirment. It must be one man and one woman. Its about gender. it has nothing to do with sexuality. a gay man can marry a woman. A lesbian can marry a man. No one is stopping them from marrying or discriminating against them. They could just as easily marry the opposite sex and get the benifits they are bitching about. Its not you or my falt that they choose not to. So the ruling that it was unconstitutional under equal protections is bullcrap. either this judge is legislating from the bench(he's gay) or the defendents were a bunch of retards quoting scripture....i think its both.

reply to post by Nofoolishness


But it is part of the justification that was used by the judge to put the law on hold, as reason for him making the very decision that we are discussing here. and bears to be brought up.
As far as gay being a personal choice, that has been highly debated, and there is evidence on both sides for that, but that is not the issue of the posting, rather it is on the rights of 2 people who are of the same sex to wed one another.
But if it is any consideration on the gay is a choice or not, I would suggest that you look at the studies done by Dr. Kinsey, as he did lay the ground work on human sexuality. Other researchers have postulated and actually were able to prove that the reason why a person ends up gay or not, comes from the mother and the hormones that are released into the body during the pregnancy, thus changing the genetic codes of the unborn child, and it is possible that a child, is born gay, attracted to their same sex. It is proven that hormones do dictate the development of child in the womb, to include if they are gay or not. As it was discovered, and has been shown, the chances that a child ends up gay is proportionate to the number of children that came before. So if a woman has 5 children, then there is a good chance that 5th child will either be bisexual or gay.

reply to post by sdcigarpig


Please explain how this judge addressed gay being a choice.

I need proof.

Originally posted by Nofoolishness

I dont think marriage is sacred either. But i do think the marriage bed is sacred. No cheating or non-monogamy for me.

On the procreation argument. Well it may seem like a lot...but thats what it was intentionally created for. Believe it or not the religious nutjobs are right for once. The government got its greedy hands in marriage to encourage people to have more children. That was the sole reason for government intervention in marriage. Its really just that simple. Tax breaks and all the extra stuff was created to make incentives to have more children. Because people cant support 3-4 children on there own without government assistance or they can but it would be a drain on resources.The whole idea of marriage in the western world was to insure heirs and inheretance.

On my argument. Its simple really. marriage has a requirment. It must be one man and one woman. Its about gender. it has nothing to do with sexuality. a gay man can marry a woman. A lesbian can marry a man. No one is stopping them from marrying or discriminating against them. They could just as easily marry the opposite sex and get the benifits they are bitching about. Its not you or my falt that they choose not to. So the ruling that it was unconstitutional under equal protections is bullcrap. either this judge is legislating from the bench(he's gay) or the defendents were a bunch of retards quoting scripture....i think its both.

First off, you might want to edit your post and remove the really long quote of my post. Mods don't like that sort of thing.

I may not agree with your opinion, but I can respect it. I do understand now your point of view and from that point of view, of course gay marriage makes no sense. That is actually, in a sideways sort of approach, why I realized that government has no right to be in the marriage business at all and that *all* marriages should be annulled.

Let's leave marriages with the churches and come up with a better solution for civic life.

reply to post by Nofoolishness


Ah, but here is the rub. It is not a legal marriage, unless the marriage is consumated. That means the newly wedded couple has to actually have sex. That makes it very hard if a gay man, can not get sexually arroused with a woman, thus the marriage is invalid, and the same can be said about the opposite, a lesibian is not going to willing marry a man, as she will not be arroused by a man. So that does not work either.