California Prop 8 outlawing gay marriage ruled unconstitutional

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 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]

Science has no idea why people are gay. None. its a huge mystery. But the burden of proof does not rest on my or marriage traditionalists shoulders. Gay people are the ones claiming to be born gay.

My personal theory is chemicals in the brain being screwy. which could possibly make homosexuality curable(once again not being a state of being). dont ever tell that to a gay person though....you have the be extra PC around them. For all we know being gay is a mental disorder....but they it studying that stuff because gays got all PC and had them quit by them saying "we are normal...nothing wrong with us blagh blagh".

[edit on 5-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
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.

Yes but there has been numerous studies showing the opposite as well. There was one that studied two genetic identical twins...one was gay and one was not. GENETICALLY IDENTICAL. One was gay and one was not. know what that means....no gay gene.

Its probably hormones or upbringing or a combination. Even if thats true that cant be compared to virginia vs loving.

The reason this needs to be brought up is because you guys wanted to bring up virginia vs loving. and i was telling you this was the reason the two cant be compared.

[edit on 5-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]

reply to post by Annee


The judge did not address that, but rather made both sides explain it to him, by providing witnesses and actual documentation and to prove their side. The actual written judgement is an interesting read, as it was very specific on the questions asked and the answers given. Those who were sueing to have the law removed from the books, came in with the evidence to back their arguments, to actual witnesses to provide testimony as to why this law should be removed from the books. What I found to be more interesting was the judges opinion that he wrote, putting everything on hold for right now to allow for both sides to prepare for the appeals, handing it up to the next higher court. In the written opinion by the Judge, he cites case, year and reason for his decision, and why he found the way he did, to include why the defense did not come out with a win in this case.

funny thing is marriage even man to a woman is actually illegal and forbidden in the USA... if not why would you need a licence to do so?? look, licences are issued to engage in an otherwise forbidden or illegal act.. wake up people... the gays should not be looking for approval from the state but challenging them on why all "marriages" are actually illegal..

Originally posted by 2012DragonSlayerl
funny thing is marriage even man to a woman is actually illegal and forbidden in the USA... if not why would you need a licence to do so?? look, licences are issued to engage in an otherwise forbidden or illegal act.. wake up people... the gays should not be looking for approval from the state but challenging them on why all "marriages" are actually illegal..

U

UGH! Can we get past this.

A marriage license is a Legal Contract. Not really a license telling you what you can do.,

reply to post by Nofoolishness


I would agree that it is hormones. But on the issue of Loving v. Virginia, the factors of the case holds weight here, as the issues that were brought up in that case, have direct bearing on the case at hand. It is the following statement by the chief justice that we should all think about:
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Chief Justice Warren, 1967

reply to post by Nofoolishness


Of course you have to be "PC" about saying that homosexuality could be curable. First off, noone like being told they are diseased. I am sure there is a really interesting anthropological aspect to why people don't like this, but that's a topic for another thread, I suppose. I have a congenital hearing loss making me neurologically almost deaf, but I don't like being reminded of it.

Also, there is the aspect of telling someone that their version of reality is wrong. I have a very close dear friend who is very mentally ill. She accepts this and understands that her view of reality is quite differant than other people's. However, when she was first diagnosed, she was very much offended at being told that she was "sick"

I, personally, cannot support an opinion that homosexuality is a mental illness. I have personally seen it in the wild with non-humans and have known many perfectly functional homosexual people (men and women) who were no differant than anyone else other than the fact that only people they were attracted to were of the same gender.

Still, at this point, it is a matter of opinion, and besides, there is a thread somewhere on here that I saw the other day that states the CDC or something thinks every single one of us can be considered mentally ill in some way, so it's almost meaningless now.

reply to post by rogerstigers


Ya know what.

If science eventually discovers that "gay" can be ?cured? by some kind of genetic/hormonal (or whatever) therapy. Shouldn't that be up to the person in question?

I don't think we have the right to tell a gay person "you can be cured" - - as they really are not ill.

Originally posted by Annee
reply to post by rogerstigers

 

Ya know what.

If science eventually discovers that "gay" can be ?cured? by some kind of genetic/hormonal (or whatever) therapy. Shouldn't that be up to the person in question?

I don't think we have the right to tell a gay person "you can be cured" - - as they really are not ill.

yup. Basic human right to decide whether or not to receive medical treatment for whatever aile's ya (can't spell tonight)

reply to post by Annee


why would the state need to be involved in a private contract between two people?

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by Nofoolishness

 

I would agree that it is hormones. But on the issue of Loving v. Virginia, the factors of the case holds weight here, as the issues that were brought up in that case, have direct bearing on the case at hand. It is the following statement by the chief justice that we should all think about:
The freedom to marry has long been recognized as one of the vital personal rights essential to the orderly pursuit of happiness by free men.
Marriage is one of the "basic civil rights of man," fundamental to our very existence and survival. Chief Justice Warren, 1967

But thats a problem. marriage is not a right and never has been. And the pursuit of happiness should never be used in court. It can be argued for anything as long as it makes them 'happy'.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]

Originally posted by sdcigarpig
reply to post by Annee

 

The judge did not address that, but rather made both sides explain it to him, by providing witnesses and actual documentation and to prove their side. The actual written judgement is an interesting read, as it was very specific on the questions asked and the answers given. Those who were sueing to have the law removed from the books, came in with the evidence to back their arguments, to actual witnesses to provide testimony as to why this law should be removed from the books. What I found to be more interesting was the judges opinion that he wrote, putting everything on hold for right now to allow for both sides to prepare for the appeals, handing it up to the next higher court. In the written opinion by the Judge, he cites case, year and reason for his decision, and why he found the way he did, to include why the defense did not come out with a win in this case.

Lord now i know for sure....that judge was a troll. His job is to interpret the consitutution on LEGAL matters. Not to hear reasons WHY somebody wants something done. But whether it can be done LEGALLY or not. we even here arguments? this makes no sense to me what so ever...AT ALL. The proponents of prop 8 should have told the judge "we dont have to give you a reason...its your job to rule on the legality of the matter not on its motives".

Thats all that matters. Not motivations....but on whether its legal or not.

This just proved to me his ruling was politicle grandstanding. He knew he was gonna rule for LBGT(he is gay himself). They got trolled. now he was them quoting scripture and making them look like bigots. But now he has ammo to make all counter arguments look stupid. there is a reason why he wanted a detailed list.

I looked at the 'evidence' the plaintiffs brought forward......LOL.

This just proves to me what i already knew. he was legislating from the bench. a good old fashioned activist judge.

[edit on 6-8-2010 by Nofoolishness]

reply to post by Nofoolishness


It was not political grandstanding. This was an issue that boiled down to three questions, that both sides would have to answer, for him to make his determination:
Whether any evidence supports California’s refusal to recognize marriage between two people because of their sex.
Whether any evidence shows California has an interest in differentiating between same-sex and opposite-sex unions.
Whether the evidence shows Proposition 8 enacted a private moral view without advancing a legitimate government interest.

But there is one other thing that many people fail to realize about this entire court case and perhaps you can answer it:
You have fought to get a issue on the books of the law, and it is challenged in court. You know a court case is being called, would you not at least show up with your witnesses. The witnesses for those who are for Prop 8, both the governmental and proffessional witnesses, did not show up. Why is that? If it was that important to get on the books, then it should have been that important to show up in court, to defend it. After all, all of the other court cases I have read about, and the opinions, even during the Civil Rights Trials of the 1960's, both sides had witnesses lined up, and they showed up.
The right to marry is a right that is based in legal decision, and to deny a person the right to make that choice, of person, no matter of sex or race, will lead to a form of legalized discrimination, where the group being denied is stated to having equal rights under the law, but treated like a second class citizen, deprived of a fundamental right to be happy.

Originally posted by Annee
If science eventually discovers that "gay" can be ?cured? by some kind of genetic/hormonal (or whatever) therapy. Shouldn't that be up to the person in question?

Yet, you would require sterilization of close blood relatives, before allowing them a marriage license?

reply to post by Annee


Well I think that I will stay away from the world, that you think I should get out and see. Homosexuality is a disease and a perverted way of life. It is a choice period. Now I realy dont care that people choose to live this way, I just dont think that they should be able to be married the same way of a man and woman. You dont believe in God and it shows, only the Godless generation of this earth will support homosexuality. Call me what you will I will speak the truth.

Originally posted by humbleseeker
Homosexuality is a disease and a perverted way of life. It is a choice period.

Really?

If you're so positive it's a choice, then you must be gay yourself, no? Otherwise, how could one be so sure?

If not, and I believe the not part, you are speaking on matters of which you know nothing about. My cousin is gay, and has known it since a younger age. It's not a choice, he cannot turn it off, so your rather incorrect assertion is ridiculous.

Originally posted by humbleseeker
reply to post by Annee

 

Well I think that I will stay away from the world, that you think I should get out and see. Homosexuality is a disease and a perverted way of life. It is a choice period. Now I realy dont care that people choose to live this way, I just dont think that they should be able to be married the same way of a man and woman. You dont believe in God and it shows, only the Godless generation of this earth will support homosexuality. Call me what you will I will speak the truth.

It is sad there are such ignorant judgmental people in the world.

People are People - - Equal Rights are Equal Rights - - for ALL.

God? God does not belong in government.



j

Originally posted by WTFover

Originally posted by Annee
If science eventually discovers that "gay" can be ?cured? by some kind of genetic/hormonal (or whatever) therapy. Shouldn't that be up to the person in question?

Yet, you would require sterilization of close blood relatives, before allowing them a marriage license?

How do these two subjects even relate?

Originally posted by Annee
God? God does not belong in government.

You got that right!

AMEN!

Originally posted by humbleseeker
Well I think that I will stay away from the world, that you think I should get out and see. Homosexuality is a disease and a perverted way of life. It is a choice period. Now I realy dont care that people choose to live this way, I just dont think that they should be able to be married the same way of a man and woman. You dont believe in God and it shows, only the Godless generation of this earth will support homosexuality. Call me what you will I will speak the truth.

I have a question, how many gay people do you personally know, that you can name and sit down to have a discussion with, where you actually listened to the experiences in their lives? I don't know about you, but those that I know all had the same sort of fears, and experiences right on down to the point where they had to eventually tell their family, and it was split down the middle, half had families that were accepting, and the other half, the lack of compassion and love from their own family was devistating. Many of the gay people that I have met and known, sat down and talked to, all have the same general frame of refernece, and that is that they knew at an early age that they were attracted to the members of the same sex, long before they could put a word to it. And then the fear of being rejected by their own parents often led them to very destructive behaviors. Now most of the families tended to in time, accept the fact of who they were and that they were as they were, giving up all prejudices.
It is those kinds of thoughts and words, that has and will always lead to persecution and discrimination. After all if 2 people of the same sex were to get married, what harm would there really be? If you use the religious excuse, then under that logic and reasoning, 2 people of differening religions should not be allowed to be married, as the theological differences would be harmful.
Now, no matter if a person likes it or not, there has always been those who have been different since the dawn of time. Different looking, different belief, and even different sexual preference, and there always will be. That is the the mark of being human. To persecute a person based on those qualities, opens the door to bigotry and discrimination. Many people, in todays society are still afraid and the question of is what are the afraid of, and why is it so wrong to ensure that everyone has that freedom of choice, to choose and be happy? Is a persons happiness so abhorrent of a thought, that to deny them a basic right to persue and wed who they desire and choose, so terrible? Would society suffer from it, or what will future generations think of the arguments that are put forth today? Would they say one side is right and the other side wrong, or would they shake their head and state, that it is surprising that we actually survived as a species through that time?
We are human, no less no more, we are not gods, or demigods, and history will only mark us as human. But it is how we treat each other that will determine how the future will view the people of today, and it is how we treat each other that will shape that view. Gay people desire to be equal with the rest of society, to be given the full rights and choices that every citizen of this country has been granted. Gay people work, they pay taxes, and have homes. They expect, within reason, to have a certain amount of privacy. And the fundamental persuit of happiness and to marry the person of choice has to be equal across the board. It means that a gay person has to be allowed the right to marry the person who they choose, to include that of the same sex, without bias or persecution, or else it sets up where one group is treated as a second class citizen, leading to discrimination on all levels of society.