Federal Judge Upholds Same-Sex Marriage Ruling in California

page: 8
20
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 02:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
giving a 10% minority of the population equal rights


Actually you're only talking about 1.8% of the population.

Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction, and Sexual Identity in the United States: Data From the 2006–2008




posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 02:05 PM
link   
No legislation that calls for repressing equal rights should ever be signed into law.
The people behind this horrid bill,
and the people who voted for it,
should be absolutely ashamed ashamed of themselves.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 02:09 PM
link   
reply to post by dbates
 


So, if a fertile woman and a sterile man sleep together is this an unequal circumstance? Or vice versa? They would be unable to produce offspring, so...

What about someone that gets sick because they have a weakened immune system. Should we just let them die or try to help them through medicine? That darn Nature playing favorites again..smh.

You pointed out how it is unequal. It is not unequal. Just different. I'm sure someone can find plenty of ways to point out how you are different from others. What if they decided to use one of these differences to justify holding something from you?



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 02:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Point is - - you are finding articles to prove your point.

I can just as easily find articles that have an opposing view.


But we can't find laws of nature that have an opposing view can we? And that is the basis of my entire interest in this discussion.

A purely homosexual society would be dead in 100 years. A pure "straight" society does not have this problem. Which scenario is in the best interest of the state to promote? Talk about building a bridge to nowhere. Can private parties build bridges to nowhere? Of course and they should not be illegal or discouraged actively. Still I would think it dishonest to suggest that the state has no interest in building bridges that go somewhere or that it should not prefer one over the other.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
A purely homosexual society would be dead in 100 years. A pure "straight" society does not have this problem.


DBates, please understand that sexual orientation has nothing to do with the desire to have children. Take a look around and you will already see gay partners that are raising healthy, well-adjusted children. There are gay couples fighting to be able to adopt children, not to mention those that go to doctors for help and even are using the more "traditional" means of reproduction.

One thing that you have to admit is that with gay parents there is no chance of "accidental" pregnancies which usually end up causing more strain on society. Each child that is brought into this world by gay parents is intentional. There are no accidental conceptions...
edit on 15-6-2011 by Abrihetx because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 02:28 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by Annee
giving a 10% minority of the population equal rights


Actually you're only talking about 1.8% of the population.

Sexual Behavior, Sexual Attraction, and Sexual Identity in the United States: Data From the 2006–2008


Not really sure what point you are trying to make with this link.

Homosexuality is not a behavior.

Recent polls state homosexuals may be as low as 3% of the population - - differing from the 10% which I believe comes from the Kinsey report.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 02:30 PM
link   
I am currently raising a 3 1/2 year old - - - so gotta go.

Please try to stay on topic. Thank you.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 02:34 PM
link   

Originally posted by Abrihetx
So, if a fertile woman and a sterile man sleep together is this an unequal circumstance?

Yes, this is an unequal scenario to a fertile male and female. Often times however this is unknown before the marriage. Even if it were known it would be micro-management for the government to discourage what is a generally favorable scenario. Let's say hypothetically that I ran a red light the other day. It's 2 a.m. and there is no on-coming traffic but the light won't change for me even after 10 minutes. I'm not going to get legal permission to run that light from any government authority. They'll tell you to sit at that light till hell freezes over because generally running red lights is a safety issue. This is what the government does. It decides what is generally the most favorable scenario and makes laws to encourage those scenarios are played out.



Originally posted by Abrihetx
What about someone that gets sick because they have a weakened immune system. Should we just let them die or try to help them through medicine? That darn Nature playing favorites again..smh.

You're on the opposite end of nature now. I'm talking about creating life, you're speaking of destroying life. Generally government passes laws to encourage life so yes people who are sick get treatment.


Originally posted by Abrihetx
You pointed out how it is unequal. It is not unequal. Just different.

No, different is when you prefer American Airlines over Southwest Airlines. Unequal is when you prefer Ford to Boeing. Totally different equipment. One can fly the other never can and I have no issues with the government preferring Boeing built craft for over Ford built automobiles for flying.



Originally posted by Abrihetx
please understand that sexual orientation has nothing to do with the desire to have children.

No, not the desire, just the ability.
edit on 15-6-2011 by dbates because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
But we can't find laws of nature that have an opposing view can we? And that is the basis of my entire interest in this discussion.


Actually - someone posted in another thread about homosexuality in nature.

And - - that it seems to increase when a group becomes over populated.

I do not have data on this - - but it is an interesting possibility of nature.

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

I must go take care of kid now. See you all later.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 02:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by adifferentbreed
Equal rights don't equal special rights, but you keep on believing. Aren't there more important things to be concerned about other than a politically motivated tantrum thrown by individuals wanting special rights?


How is it special rights for two adults in love to wish to marry, that is a ancient institution symbolizing family. Its special rights when only one sexual orientation wants to have it as their own, thinking they're all that and so special.

Equality is a universal principal that accords all people regardless of sex, age (minors excluded but included depending on the issues), health, abilities, performance, sexual orientation, the same right to happiness and pursuit of this, by their own definitions, belonging to cultures and societies, expected to be somewhat normalized in their standards. Equality for it to be real actually means SUBSTANT:IVE which means equalizing the qualitative experiences of people who are in very dissimilar situations. Our Canadian Constitution uses the word SUBSTANTIVE. Cause everyone is a special case.
edit on 15-6-2011 by Unity_99 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 02:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Annee
Actually - someone posted in another thread about homosexuality in nature.

And - - that it seems to increase when a group becomes over populated.


I don't know if that's true but it would be sad if so.

Congratulations! Your genetic lineage has been selected for extermination.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 02:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by leo123
reply to post by Annee
 


Apparently the ruling judge is openly gay.

Talk about a conflict of interest!



I know... Just like hetero judges making a decision going the other way... right?



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 02:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Annee
 


I'm not sure its true. I have done a search and the main articles regarding population surplus and homosexuality relate to eugenics and nwo. It seems a theory that is promoted or encouraged by certain factions.

Whereas info concerning the differences in brain structure between gay men and gay women, and their counterparts, ie. the men match women's brains, and the women match men's has been proven through scientific means repeatedly.

I recall something along the lines of fruit flies or some creations in nature being tested that did rise in population, but can't find it. Also, that kind of experiment if its not repeatable can be propaganda.

I do believe there are physical differences, but not everything a person reads is true.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 02:47 PM
link   
reply to post by grahag
 

As far as the ruling goes I don't see an issue with judge being homosexual. Hopefully this man was appointed based on his merit and not his personal opinions.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
Even if it were known it would be micro-management for the government to discourage what is a generally favorable scenario.


So micro-management is ok in one instance, but not another?


Originally posted by dbates
You're on the opposite end of nature now. I'm talking about creating life, you're speaking of destroying life. Generally government passes laws to encourage life so yes people who are sick get treatment.


But nature creates and destroys. You can't pick and choose to fit what you want.


No, not the desire, just the ability.Originally posted by dbates


As mentioned before, being gay does not mean that your reproductive system stops working. There are many ways to have kids and some choose to use doctors while others choose to use a turkey baster. Just like some straight couples seek medical help to have kids.

DBates, I'm getting the impression that you and I will never see eye-to-eye on this topic, And that is fine. We are different people with different perspectives which has resulted in differing opinions regarding this. I do respect your opinion, though.
edit on 15-6-2011 by Abrihetx because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 02:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates

Originally posted by Annee
Point is - - you are finding articles to prove your point.

I can just as easily find articles that have an opposing view.


But we can't find laws of nature that have an opposing view can we? And that is the basis of my entire interest in this discussion.

Of course and they should not be illegal or discouraged actively. Still I would think it dishonest to suggest that the state has no interest in building bridges that go somewhere or that it should not prefer one over the other.


By law, my country demands that same-sex couples be identified to such government agencies as the taxation office and social security and yet, actively denys the very same couple any equal status for their partnership.

It is legal and social discrimination and denying same-sex couples a legal partnership does not kill a society. Nothing will change other than a few more might choose a path they feel will make them happy.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 02:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by ImnotMelvin
reply to post by Annee
 


Your right!


The only thing I'm mad about is the vote was on the ballet two times, and people voted for it.

So does our vote really matter?

That's the right thing to be mad about.


What if it was a vote to put blacks back into slavery? The people want it so lets go ahead and do it!

You're voting to take people's rights away. Marriage falls under Life, Liberty, and Pursuit of Happiness. It should never have been on the ballot.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 02:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by dbates
I'll concede that point but still argue that "only societies that reproduce survive". Gay parents can not reproduce.


No one is suggesting that everyone become gay. Our society will still reproduce, even if gay people get married.


I just don't think the state has any vested interest in promoting same-sex marriages.


I don't think there's any reason to promote it, either. There's no reason for the state to promote childless marriages, either. Yet, the state treats whose who will not reproduce and cannot reproduce equally to those who can.



Perhaps you could make an exception and grant a marriage license to same sex partners with children. Outside of that I don't see the purpose.


The purpose is to treat everyone equally, whether they can have children or not. People who cannot have children shouldn't be discriminated against and there is no law, rule, guideline or requirement that married people must breed.

While the promotion of reproduction and safety and care of children may be part of the reason the state likes people to marry, they are not restricting it based on breeding practices. If they were to allow marriage only to those who can reproduce, I would not be allowed to be married.


Originally posted by dbates
That would mean that they pull in a 3rd party for reproduction.


Some straight people do this, too.



The fact that 100% of gay couples would need the help of science (and a 3rd person) seems to point to the fact that this isn't what nature intended.


Why would they need science? A third person, yes, but we all know how it works. A gay guy can impregnate a surrogate. No science needed.



I was just stating that perhaps a marriage contract could be granted same-sex couples that have acquired children through some means such as adoption or via a previous marriage.


Children are not required for marriage. Your argument doesn't stand up.


Originally posted by dbates
There is a remote chance that they could end up having children. It is possible is it not?


It is scientifically impossible for some to have children (me included). The state allows marriage of 75-year-olds. It is not possible for a woman after menopause to have a child. But they get married.


Originally posted by dbates
But we can't find laws of nature that have an opposing view can we? And that is the basis of my entire interest in this discussion.


No one is arguing that gay people can reproduce alone. But this isn't about reproduction. It's about marriage, which is currently granted to people, regardless whether they can or will reproduce.

Are you saying that it's OK to micromanage gay marriages by not allowing them to get married unless they have children, but it's not OK to micromanage straight marriages by not allowing them to get married unless they have children?

Good to see you!
edit on 6/15/2011 by Benevolent Heretic because: (no reason given)



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 02:59 PM
link   
post removed because the user has no concept of manners

Click here for more information.



posted on Jun, 15 2011 @ 03:00 PM
link   
Everyone has equal rights to marry the opposite sex. Everyone also equally does not have the right to marry the same sex. Not sure how this is considered a rights issue. Marriage was originally created and is viewed as being between a man and a woman. People get married and have a family, usually though the natural act of heterosexual intercourse. Why would gays want to marry each other? Its not like they are going to have natural intercourse with each other that will result in a family. Marriage is a religious practice that is recognized by the State. If gays feel like married couples get government benefits, maybe they should attack that angle instead.





new topics
top topics
 
20
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join