PDA

View Full Version : California Supreme Court affirms Prop 8


Pages : [1] 2

BroncoBuff
05-26-2009, 10:07 AM
Too bad for gays ...

SonOfLe-loLang
05-26-2009, 10:10 AM
yeah, pretty absurd. Still a lot of prejudice and hate in this country, though it is getting better i suppose. Hopefully more dominos will fall soon

Dagmar
05-26-2009, 10:15 AM
O'er the land of the free and the home of the brave

Sure.

Jesterhole
05-26-2009, 10:18 AM
Odd for this to happen in California, yet a state like Iowa allows it.

How some people can be happy about preventing other people from having basic rights is beyond me.

mr007
05-26-2009, 10:19 AM
Honestly, this is more of a problem with Prop 8 in general and how the Federal Gov. observes benefits to partners.

What ever happened to separation of church and state?

I can see both sides of the marriage argument, but I think this is more about rights than anything else. A gay couple should be able to enjoy the exact same benefits that a straight couple should. Marriage should not be the binding agreement that the Government observes for benefits granted to couples.

Civil unions should be the binding between 2 individuals that the Government recognizes for all benefits and marriage should be a sub-category that falls underneath. This would pretty much solve these problems without causing the closed minded overly-religious to lose their minds..

Rock Chalk
05-26-2009, 10:20 AM
Too bad for gays ...

No.

Look, marriage is the religious part of a civil union. Civil unions are required for two people to share their lives together and receive the tax breaks. Marriage is the religious union of a man and a woman by ALL religions.

Gays may have civil unions. They are not being discriminated against by the governmental law. Governement however, has no right to force religion to change thousands of years of their doctrine. Whether you agree with it or not. This is the backside of separation of church and state. No government should be able to dictate what religions do with their rituals. Marriage is a religious ritual that harms no one so falls under the freedom of religion act.

If the CHURCH decides that they want to allow marriage, then gays can, and will get married. Until that day, they can have a civil union and receive all the legal benefits that a hetero sexual couple receives, they just do not get the blessing of God.

How can the government LEGALLY force churches to marry gays?

mr007
05-26-2009, 10:22 AM
No.

Look, marriage is the religious part of a civil union. Civil unions are required for two people to share their lives together and receive the tax breaks. Marriage is the religious union of a man and a woman by ALL religions.

Gays may have civil unions. They are not being discriminated against by the governmental law. Governement however, has no right to force religion to change thousands of years of their doctrine. Whether you agree with it or not. This is the backside of separation of church and state. No government should be able to dictate what religions do with their rituals. Marriage is a religious ritual that harms no one so falls under the freedom of religion act.

If the CHURCH decides that they want to allow marriage, then gays can, and will get married. Until that day, they can have a civil union and receive all the legal benefits that a hetero sexual couple receives, they just do not get the blessing of God.

How can the government LEGALLY force churches to marry gays?

Umm, civil unions do not hold the same rights as marriage when it comes to benefits, sorry man. This was actually the driving force for Prop 8.

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 10:25 AM
Sure.

You can always head back to where you came from Scotsmen.

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 10:26 AM
How some people can be happy about preventing other people from having basic rights is beyond me.

What basic right would that be?

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 10:28 AM
Civil unions should be the binding between 2 individuals that the Government recognizes for all benefits and marriage should be a sub-category that falls underneath. This would pretty much solve these problems without causing the closed minded overly-religious to lose their minds..

I agree. Or we could do even another thing. Remove any and all references, benefits, and any other involvement by the Federal Governemnt to marriage or unions. They shouldn't be in this "business" at all except to enforce the contract or disolve the contract.

Smiling Assassin27
05-26-2009, 10:39 AM
How many churches do we see burned in the aftermath of this tantrum? Hell hath no fury...

TailgateNut
05-26-2009, 10:42 AM
No.

Look, marriage is the religious part of a civil union. Civil unions are required for two people to share their lives together and receive the tax breaks. Marriage is the religious union of a man and a woman by ALL religions.

Gays may have civil unions. They are not being discriminated against by the governmental law. Governement however, has no right to force religion to change thousands of years of their doctrine. Whether you agree with it or not. This is the backside of separation of church and state. No government should be able to dictate what religions do with their rituals. Marriage is a religious ritual that harms no one so falls under the freedom of religion act.

If the CHURCH decides that they want to allow marriage, then gays can, and will get married. Until that day, they can have a civil union and receive all the legal benefits that a hetero sexual couple receives, they just do not get the blessing of God.

How can the government LEGALLY force churches to marry gays?


LOL

Marriage is NOT A RELIGIOUS UNION. It's a legal union, !

cutthemdown
05-26-2009, 10:44 AM
What basic right would that be?

Pursuit of happiness I guess.

Tombstone RJ
05-26-2009, 10:49 AM
Too bad for gays ...

Well, the people did vote for it... the people of an extremely diverse state. A state where there are millions of minorities (Blacks overwhelmingly voted against gay marriage).

But that's ok right? So what if millions of people from all different backgrounds voted against gay marriage. They must all be wrong, right?

watermock
05-26-2009, 10:52 AM
<object width="425" height="344"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/GZ7z6hpO57c&hl=en&fs=1"></param><param name="allowFullScreen" value="true"></param><param name="allowscriptaccess" value="always"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/GZ7z6hpO57c&hl=en&fs=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" allowscriptaccess="always" allowfullscreen="true" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

Tombstone RJ
05-26-2009, 10:52 AM
Odd for this to happen in California, yet a state like Iowa allows it.

How some people can be happy about preventing other people from having basic rights is beyond me.

I say let the state's decide! If some states want to recognize gay marriage, then so be it. If some state's don't want to recognize gay marriage, then so be it.

But let the states decide!!

OBF1
05-26-2009, 10:54 AM
Let everyone get married.... why shouldn't they be just as happy as the rest of us that have/had been married???

The state can use the money from marriage and the divorce that follows in over 50% of the marriages that happen.

rugbythug
05-26-2009, 10:54 AM
Why does the whole world need to change for the Minority? Marriage has meant the same thing for thousands of years and needs to be updated for what reason? Because a vocal few want it so? And what are these fabulous tax rates Married People are raking in?

Spider
05-26-2009, 10:57 AM
Why does the whole world need to change for the Minority? Marriage has meant the same thing for thousands of years and needs to be updated for what reason? Because a vocal few want it so? And what are these fabulous tax rates Married People are raking in?

why did we change from having more then 1 wife ? why did we change from arranged Marriages ?

SonOfLe-loLang
05-26-2009, 10:59 AM
I cant believe that anyone would be so bigoted to stand in the way of gay marriage. The idea that this threatens the sanctity of anything is complete and utter bull****. We should always promote a society of togetherness, not exclusion and alienation. Humans are pretty disgusting sometimes.

dbfan21
05-26-2009, 11:02 AM
24281


.

Dagmar
05-26-2009, 11:03 AM
You can always head back to where you came from Scotsmen.

Americans are so clever.

Scotsmen? Am I more than one person?

http://i40.tinypic.com/mwb8k8.jpg

Cosmo
05-26-2009, 11:07 AM
Most people, as well as most of you it seems, misunderstand the desire to disallow gay marriage.

If I have a bachelors degree which took me X amount of work, money and time and you arbitrarily change the requirements to such an amount that my bachelors degree no longer has the same value or meaning I would protest against those wanting to create the change.

The same applies to marriage, it isn't about not letting gays obtain rights or benefits. By changing the definition of marriage rather than creating a different type of union for gays, you are making my marriage different....as I want my bachelors degree to retain its original value, so do I want my marriage to be (whether that be spiritual or not).

So, again, not about hate or prejudice. It is simply about protecting what you have.

On a side note, Polygomy has the longest history with marriage yet is illegal and shunned in this country. How long before you see this legalized and what argument could you have against it if the terms of marriage are changed now?

rugbythug
05-26-2009, 11:08 AM
why did we change from having more then 1 wife ? why did we change from arranged Marriages ?

Less men were Dying. If some y based Disease Killed 80% of men you would see multiple wives with in 5 years. It would be a Bio Priority.

Arranged Marriages have gone the way side because the youth are free to decide for themselves.

Spider
05-26-2009, 11:12 AM
Most people, as well as most of you it seems, misunderstand the desire to disallow gay marriage.

If I have a bachelors degree which took me X amount of work, money and time and you arbitrarily change the requirements to such an amount that my bachelors degree no longer has the same value or meaning I would protest against those wanting to create the change.

The same applies to marriage, it isn't about not letting gays obtain rights or benefits. By changing the definition of marriage rather than creating a different type of union for gays, you are making my marriage different....as I want my bachelors degree to retain its original value, so do I want my marriage to be (whether that be spiritual or not).

So, again, not about hate or prejudice. It is simply about protecting what you have.

On a side note, Polygomy has the longest history with marriage yet is illegal and shunned in this country. How long before you see this legalized and what argument could you have against it if the terms of marriage are changed now?

Bull****

Spider
05-26-2009, 11:14 AM
Less men were Dying. If some y based Disease Killed 80% of men you would see multiple wives with in 5 years. It would be a Bio Priority.

Arranged Marriages have gone the way side because the youth are free to decide for themselves.

it was all about taxes and rights , rights of women to be treated as people instead of property , now we are infringing on gay peoples rights in different way ..... My philosophy is pretty simple on this , dont like gay marriage , dont get involved with one

Tombstone RJ
05-26-2009, 11:14 AM
I cant believe that anyone would be so bigoted to stand in the way of gay marriage. The idea that this threatens the sanctity of anything is complete and utter bull****. We should always promote a society of togetherness, not exclusion and alienation. Humans are pretty disgusting sometimes.

Again, let the states decide. If you want to live in a state that recognizes gay marriage, then please move to that state.

What should not happen is that a small minority dictates laws for an entire country. In the US we have around 300 million people. If lets say 5% of the entire US population is homosexual, then that is what like 6 million people (I suck at math)?

Let's just say 10 million people in the US are homosexual. That is a pretty liberal estimate of how many gays there are in the US.

So, do the other 290 million hetersexual people in the US have to recognize gay marriage simply because a few extreme gays are figting for it?

Listen, I have some gay friends who could care less about having the right to get married. One of my gay friends said to me, and I quote: "Why do I want to screw up my life like all the heterosexuals who get married?"

No crap, that's what HE said! I was like, hmmmm, never thought of it that way...

So, not even all the gays care about gay marriage!

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 11:15 AM
Americans are so clever.

Scotsmen? Am I more than one person?

http://i40.tinypic.com/mwb8k8.jpg

I am descended from native americans. But the point still stands. If you don't like this country you can certianly head back to yours.

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 11:15 AM
I personally could care less if two guys or gals want to get 'married'. Half of hetero marriages end in failure and perhaps gays can set the example for the rest of us in working through marital issues;)

although, a one night stand with Ms CALIFORNIA could surely influence my vote;)

broncofan7
05-26-2009, 11:18 AM
Bull****

I sincerely hope that you and TGN are finally able to enjoy the consumation of your relationship in the ceremony of marriage---you'll look very 'nice' with your mullet up and his hand on your ASS. Which of your goats will be the ring bearer?

Spider
05-26-2009, 11:21 AM
I sincerely hope that you and TGN are finally able to enjoy the consumation of your relationship in the ceremony of marriage---you'll look very 'nice' with your mullet up and his hand on your ASS. Which of your goats will be the ring bearer?

No matter how many times you beg ,we are not sending you video ........ Now stop asking ya freak

Jesterhole
05-26-2009, 11:23 AM
So, again, not about hate or prejudice. It is simply about protecting what you have.

On a side note, Polygomy has the longest history with marriage yet is illegal and shunned in this country. How long before you see this legalized and what argument could you have against it if the terms of marriage are changed now?

I see nothing wrong with Polygamy in general either. In fact, I don't think there is anything wrong when consenting adults doing whatever they want to do, as long as it doesn't hurt others or society as a whole.

Oh well...in 20-30 years, people who are against gay marriage will be seen in the same light as those who opposed civil rights in the 60's. Their bigotry can't hide forever.

Inkana7
05-26-2009, 11:26 AM
Again, let the states decide. If you want to live in a state that recognizes gay marriage, then please move to that state.

What should not happen is that a small minority dictates laws for an entire country. In the US we have around 300 million people. If lets say 5% of the entire US population is homosexual, then that is what like 6 million people (I suck at math)?

Let's just say 10 million people in the US are homosexual. That is a pretty liberal estimate of how many gays there are in the US.

So, do the other 290 million hetersexual people in the US have to recognize gay marriage simply because a few extreme gays are figting for it?

Listen, I have some gay friends who could care less about having the right to get married. One of my gay friends said to me, and I quote: "Why do I want to screw up my life like all the heterosexuals who get married?"

No crap, that's what HE said! I was like, hmmmm, never thought of it that way...

So, not even all the gays care about gay marriage!

You're right. Only 24% of the population is Black. Why should they vote?!

Dagmar
05-26-2009, 11:27 AM
I am descended from native americans. But the point still stands. If you don't like this country you can certianly head back to yours.

I'm a citizen. This is mine. Anything else?

Smiling Assassin27
05-26-2009, 11:30 AM
I see nothing wrong with Polygamy in general either. In fact, I don't think there is anything wrong when consenting adults doing whatever they want to do, as long as it doesn't hurt others or society as a whole.

NAMBLA claims that screwing kids actually HELPS society. People who have sex with animals claim that this doesn't hurt society but helps it. People that strangle homeless people claim that this doesn't hurt society as a whole. You see the trouble with that standard?

Inkana7
05-26-2009, 11:31 AM
The number of gays and the number of left handed people is about even. Why should we let left handed people dictate policy? They're a minority.

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 11:32 AM
I'm a citizen. This is mine. Anything else?

No that will do for now.

Spider
05-26-2009, 11:33 AM
The number of gays and the number of left handed people is about even. Why should we let left handed people dictate policy? They're a minority.

Dont be hatin on us south paws ;D

Spider
05-26-2009, 11:34 AM
NAMBLA claims that screwing kids actually HELPS society. People who have sex with animals claim that this doesn't hurt society but helps it. People that strangle homeless people claim that this doesn't hurt society as a whole. You see the trouble with that standard?

Murders , Pedophiles , and animal rapers all included with gay marriage .........

Spider
05-26-2009, 11:35 AM
NAMBLA claims that screwing kids actually HELPS society. People who have sex with animals claim that this doesn't hurt society but helps it. People that strangle homeless people claim that this doesn't hurt society as a whole. You see the trouble with that standard?

Just out of curiosity , what part of Consenting adults trips you up on this issue ?

Rohirrim
05-26-2009, 11:39 AM
I am descended from native americans. But the point still stands. If you don't like this country you can certianly head back to yours.

There's no such thing as a native American.

Anyway, leave the gay people alone. They have it tough enough just living in this homophobic society. If the state is going to recognize legal unions between one group of people, how can it discriminate against another. Just more "back of the bus" mentality.

Br0nc0Buster
05-26-2009, 11:40 AM
Again, let the states decide. If you want to live in a state that recognizes gay marriage, then please move to that state.

What should not happen is that a small minority dictates laws for an entire country. In the US we have around 300 million people. If lets say 5% of the entire US population is homosexual, then that is what like 6 million people (I suck at math)?

Let's just say 10 million people in the US are homosexual. That is a pretty liberal estimate of how many gays there are in the US.

So, do the other 290 million hetersexual people in the US have to recognize gay marriage simply because a few extreme gays are figting for it?

Listen, I have some gay friends who could care less about having the right to get married. One of my gay friends said to me, and I quote: "Why do I want to screw up my life like all the heterosexuals who get married?"

No crap, that's what HE said! I was like, hmmmm, never thought of it that way...

So, not even all the gays care about gay marriage!

Gotta love the shear stupidity of the anti-gay crowd
The point is not to let the majority get whatever they want, the point is to have laws that are fair to EVERYONE.
That is the entire point of the Constitution.

The people voted to ban interracial marriage, it took the Supreme Court to step in and overturn it
The majority were wrong back then, and they are wrong now.

If gays cant get married, then no one should be able to, certain people shouldnt be excluded from rights.

Oh and I also love it when people compare homosexuality to beastiality or pedophilia....that takes a special kind of stupid.

vancejohnson82
05-26-2009, 11:40 AM
I am shocked that California, out of all states, voted this way...

it is what it is though...its a democratic nation...sucks for people who voted and didnt get their way...just like it sucks when you vote for a school budget or a policy change and it doesnt go your way

i think we can all agree though that gay marriage will be legalized nationwide in 20-30 years

Spider
05-26-2009, 11:41 AM
Smiling Assassin27 i am not just picking on you here ( well maybe I am ) But why is you azzholes always leave off the consenting adults part in this argument ?
you used NAMBLLA , is there a reason you cant tell the difference in a kid vs an adult ?
you used barn yard rapist , Again is there a reason you cant tell the difference in an animal and a consenting Adult ?
People choking homeless people to death again the consenting thing comes into play here ........ if a homeless person agrees to be choked to death , then doesnt that become assisted suicide?

Cosmo
05-26-2009, 11:42 AM
Bull****

Leave it to spider to respond to a constructive post with an expletive. I'll just do what I usually do and ignore threads like this.

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 11:43 AM
There's no such thing as a native American.

Anyway, leave the gay people alone. They have it tough enough just living in this homophobic society. If the state is going to recognize legal unions between one group of people, how can it discriminate against another. Just more "back of the bus" mentality.

We've had this discussion before. There is a genetic basis for gender or skin color for example. There is no genetic basis for homosexuals across the board. They have decided to be this way, or rather there exists those that decide to be that way. While I support equal protection under the law, I do not support calling a union between two men or women a marriage. A marriage, and President Obama agrees, is between a man and a woman. I would prefer that the Federal Governemnt not be involved in marriage at all. The solution is simply to remove the word marriage from the federal vocabulary and call them all Civil Unions.

And I believe you understand the native american comment. I think most people understand that the "native americans" here migrated her from Asia.

Smiling Assassin27
05-26-2009, 11:44 AM
Just out of curiosity , what part of Consenting adults trips you up on this issue ?

well, there's the definition of 'consenting' and the definition of 'adult' for starters. lots of people are willing to define those in ways that are utterly unreasonable to further what they see as their God given right.

but 'consenting adults' doesn't end the question. are you saying, spider, that nothing that goes on between 'consenting adults' can possibly be harmful to society? my point is that the term 'harmful to society' is vague and useless when dealing with some.

Requiem
05-26-2009, 11:45 AM
It is no business of any State Supreme Court to rule against and reverse the decision of its voting population. The citizens of California in a 52/48 (rounded) vote on Prop 8 were for the ban on gay marriage. I personally have no problems with allowing gays to marry, but that doesn't mean we get to skirt the Constitution and judicial process for catering to the political desires of a certain group of interest. The job of the court is to interpret the law, not make policy. The California State Supreme Court did the right thing adhering to the rule of law and not reversing the will of its people.

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 11:46 AM
well, there's the definition of 'consenting' and the definition of 'adult' for starters. lots of people are willing to define those in ways that are utterly unreasonable to further what they see as their God given right.

but 'consenting adults' doesn't end the question. are you saying, spider, that nothing that goes on between 'consenting adults' can possibly be harmful to society? my point is that the term 'harmful to society' is vague and useless when dealing with some.

Just like the phrase "Pursuit of Happiness"

Spider
05-26-2009, 11:46 AM
Leave it to spider to respond to a constructive post with an expletive. I'll just do what I usually do and ignore threads like this.

you really didnt expect more on a post like that did you ?
first off working for a degree means you are learning something , you gain knowledge ,all the degree says is , you are not bull****ting , you did learn this crap .... the knowledge learned from gay marriage will only come in handy in pornos , no way letting gays get married will wreck a conventional marriage, if that marriage fails it was already doomed to failure

DomCasual
05-26-2009, 11:47 AM
I hate Prop 8.

Spider
05-26-2009, 11:48 AM
well, there's the definition of 'consenting' and the definition of 'adult' for starters. lots of people are willing to define those in ways that are utterly unreasonable to further what they see as their God given right.

but 'consenting adults' doesn't end the question. are you saying, spider, that nothing that goes on between 'consenting adults' can possibly be harmful to society? my point is that the term 'harmful to society' is vague and useless when dealing with some.
2people over the age of 18 say sure why not ? .......... you need to butt out and mind your own business ........ how is that for a definition

Tombstone RJ
05-26-2009, 12:00 PM
You're right. Only 24% of the population is Black. Why should they vote?!

But they did vote--against gay marriage.

Tombstone RJ
05-26-2009, 12:02 PM
Gotta love the shear stupidity of the anti-gay crowd
The point is not to let the majority get whatever they want, the point is to have laws that are fair to EVERYONE.
That is the entire point of the Constitution.

The people voted to ban interracial marriage, it took the Supreme Court to step in and overturn it
The majority were wrong back then, and they are wrong now.

If gays cant get married, then no one should be able to, certain people shouldnt be excluded from rights.

Oh and I also love it when people compare homosexuality to beastiality or pedophilia....that takes a special kind of stupid.

I'm not anti-gay. Please find one post where I'm anti-gay, or say anything close to being anti-gay.

I'm simply saying it should be left up to the states to decide, not the federal governemnt.

Your the one sounding intolerant...

Spider
05-26-2009, 12:34 PM
I'm not anti-gay. Please find one post where I'm anti-gay, or say anything close to being anti-gay.

I'm simply saying it should be left up to the states to decide, not the federal governemnt.

Your the one sounding intolerant...

Shut the hell up hompphobe ;D

Jason in LA
05-26-2009, 12:49 PM
No.

Look, marriage is the religious part of a civil union. Civil unions are required for two people to share their lives together and receive the tax breaks. Marriage is the religious union of a man and a woman by ALL religions.

Gays may have civil unions. They are not being discriminated against by the governmental law. Governement however, has no right to force religion to change thousands of years of their doctrine. Whether you agree with it or not. This is the backside of separation of church and state. No government should be able to dictate what religions do with their rituals. Marriage is a religious ritual that harms no one so falls under the freedom of religion act.

If the CHURCH decides that they want to allow marriage, then gays can, and will get married. Until that day, they can have a civil union and receive all the legal benefits that a hetero sexual couple receives, they just do not get the blessing of God.

How can the government LEGALLY force churches to marry gays?

I don't by into the religious argument. People who do not believe in God, or in any religion, can get married. And marriage is a legal bonding. People can go down to the court house and get married.

If a church does not want to marry a gay couple, I have no problem with that. But gays should be able to get married just like a man and a woman.

HILife
05-26-2009, 12:50 PM
Too bad for gays ...

Prop 8?

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_kfHVNW-1Skg/SY3aL2u9cbI/AAAAAAAAApg/pv3TE3vnAnM/s320/preph.jpg

Kaylore
05-26-2009, 01:02 PM
Too bad for gays ...

And good for democracy.

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 01:03 PM
I don't by into the religious argument. People who do not believe in God, or in any religion, can get married. And marriage is a legal bonding. People can go down to the court house and get married.

If a church does not want to marry a gay couple, I have no problem with that. But gays should be able to get married just like a man and a woman.

Well it's all semantics really. You are talking about the difference between getting church married vs legally married and State Recognized married. Many gay couples are married today, but it is not recognized by the state.

broncocalijohn
05-26-2009, 01:03 PM
I like the fact that our vote will stay true but what is the compromise with allowing those that got the gay marriage to stay married? We voted once to not allow gay marriages and then the court reversed it. Gays get married and so then the signatures are rushed out to get the necessary sigs on the next available ballot for a proposition. It came and was voted again to ban gay marriages. Those marriages should be illegal and voided. It wasnt like Prop 8 was the first prop on this issue. It was the 2nd. Once again, our courts in California are screwed up and start policy at the bench. Marriage is defined as man AND women. Simple and easy. We have laws that restrict based on age so should that be disallowed too?

Br0nc0Buster
05-26-2009, 01:28 PM
I'm not anti-gay. Please find one post where I'm anti-gay, or say anything close to being anti-gay.

I'm simply saying it should be left up to the states to decide, not the federal governemnt.

Your the one sounding intolerant...

Rights should never be left up to vote, again the point of the Constitution was to prevent mob rule.

If you really support the whole "people voted on it" ideal, then you should be outraged that people of different ethnicities are able to get married, as the majority voted on interracial marraige bans at one time as well.

Br0nc0Buster
05-26-2009, 01:29 PM
And good for democracy.

good thing we are not a true democracy then

Br0nc0Buster
05-26-2009, 01:33 PM
I like the fact that our vote will stay true but what is the compromise with allowing those that got the gay marriage to stay married? We voted once to not allow gay marriages and then the court reversed it. Gays get married and so then the signatures are rushed out to get the necessary sigs on the next available ballot for a proposition. It came and was voted again to ban gay marriages. Those marriages should be illegal and voided. It wasnt like Prop 8 was the first prop on this issue. It was the 2nd. Once again, our courts in California are screwed up and start policy at the bench. Marriage is defined as man AND women. Simple and easy. We have laws that restrict based on age so should that be disallowed too?

The usage of marriage has been so fluent over the years one would have to be incredibly naive to think it is the same now as it has always been.

Besides there is no universal definition that states marriage must be between a man and a woman, different societies have and still do practice same sex marriage, so say it is "defined as a man and woman" is incorrect.

I guarantee any anthropology textbook would back me up on that

slyinky
05-26-2009, 01:34 PM
good thing we are not a true democracy then
Exactly, we are in fact a Republic.

"A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine." -- Thomas Jefferson

watermock
05-26-2009, 01:37 PM
In Islam, a healthy dose of BSDM is deemed appropriate.

In the Name of Allah, Most Gracious, Most Merciful.

All praise and thanks are due to Allah, and peace and blessings be upon His Messenger.

Dear brother in Islam, we do really appreciate your question, which shows how far you are interested in getting yourself well-aquatinted with Islam and its teachings. May Allah bless your efforts in the pursuit of knowledge!

First of all, it should be clear that this man committed two heinous crimes: 1) homosexuality, and 2) murder. Each crime is sufficient to warrant death penalty. In addition, this man has severed ties of kinship by seducing and killing his nephew.

The Glorious Qur’an is explicit in deciding the Hadd (legal penalty) for the crime of murder, when saying: “O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: …” (Al-Baqarah: 178)

Homosexuality, moreover, is an abomination and a grave sin. In Hadith, the Prophet, peace and blessings be upon him, clarifies the gravity of this abomination by saying: “Allah curses the one who does the actions (homosexual practices) of the people of Lut” repeating it three times; and he said in another Hadith: “If a man comes upon a man then they are both adulterers.” Here, he considered homosexuality tantamount to adultery in relation to the Shari’ah punishments because it is an abomination on the one hand and the definition of adultery applies to it on the other hand.

However, death fall is not the sole penalty agreed upon by the Muslim Jurists as a punishment for this crime. The punishment here is controversial due to divergence of views among `Ulama in deducting ruling as regards this case from Shari`ah sources.

Focusing more on the question in point, the eminent Muslim scholar, Sheikh `Abdel Khaliq Hasan Ash-Shareef, states:

“As regards this case (if genuine), this man committed two heinous crimes, which deserve severe punishment. He is a murderer and homosexual. Besides, he severed ties of kinship by doing such grave sins.

Death penalty (Qisas) is well established by the Qur’an in more than one verse. Allah, Most High, says: “O ye who believe! the law of equality is prescribed to you in cases of murder: …” (Al-Baqarah: 178)

As to the issue of how the homosexual person is judged in an Islamic State, the Companions of Prophet Muhammad, peace and blessing be upon him differed among themselves on this issue, and this led to different views maintained by Muslim Jurists. For example, in the Hanafi school of thought, the homosexual is punished through harsh beating, and if he/she repeats the act, death penalty is to be applied. As for the Shafi`i school of thought, the homosexual receives the same punishment of adultery (if he/she is married) or fornication (if not married). This means, that if the homosexual is married, he/she is stoned to death, while if single, he/she is whipped 100 times. Hence, the Shafi`i compares the punishment applied in the case of homosexuality with that of adultery and fornication, while the Hanafi differentiates between the two acts because in homosexuality, the anus (a place of impurity) may also be involved while in adultery (and fornication), the penis/vagina (which are reproductive parts) are involved. Some scholars hold the opinion that the homosexual should be thrown from a high building as a punishment for his crime, but other scholars maintain that he should be imprisoned until death.

chickennob2
05-26-2009, 01:40 PM
No.

Look, marriage is the religious part of a civil union. Civil unions are required for two people to share their lives together and receive the tax breaks. Marriage is the religious union of a man and a woman by ALL religions.

Gays may have civil unions. They are not being discriminated against by the governmental law. Governement however, has no right to force religion to change thousands of years of their doctrine. Whether you agree with it or not. This is the backside of separation of church and state. No government should be able to dictate what religions do with their rituals. Marriage is a religious ritual that harms no one so falls under the freedom of religion act.

If the CHURCH decides that they want to allow marriage, then gays can, and will get married. Until that day, they can have a civil union and receive all the legal benefits that a hetero sexual couple receives, they just do not get the blessing of God.

How can the government LEGALLY force churches to marry gays?

There's a big difference in a state forcing churches to marry homosexuals and a state banning gay marriage. It should be the church's choice. Which, when gay marriage is banned, it is not.

watermock
05-26-2009, 02:00 PM
Interesting how lax, (for Islam) homosexuality is, since Mohammed was in fact both gay and pedophile.

If your not married, a simple 100 lashes is fine.

In fact, in Samurai culture, both were the norm. Sexuality was simply a function.

OBF1
05-26-2009, 02:09 PM
The number of gays and the number of left handed people is about even. Why should we let left handed people dictate policy? They're a minority.

Looks like you missed the point. THE MAJORITY of the people of the STATE OF CALIFORNIA voted against it... Anyone that was registered to vote had the right to express their opinion. The choice was made, so get the efff over it.

Or does a vote only count if you get what you want?

TDmvp
05-26-2009, 02:10 PM
Or does a vote only count if you get what you want?

+1 ...

Kaylore
05-26-2009, 02:21 PM
good thing we are not a true democracy then

We're a republic that has democratic principles. If the state voted to allow gay marriage, it would be just as wrong if the Judges struck it down. When the people vote their, will it should be a mandated with very few exceptions (those that are unconstitutional) without one or two people (judges) deciding to legislate from the bench.

SonOfLe-loLang
05-26-2009, 02:34 PM
We're a republic that has democratic principles. If the state voted to allow gay marriage, it would be just as wrong if the Judges struck it down. When the people vote their, will it should be a mandated with very few exceptions (those that are unconstitutional) without one or two people (judges) deciding to legislate from the bench.

yeah, i tend to agree its hard for a court to overturn something like this because it was voted on, but i find it incredibly sad that the majority of californians actually think this way. Its so backward

Popps
05-26-2009, 02:38 PM
I'm in favor of gay marriage. But, I'm happy to see the will of the people in California being upheld. I wish people were more reasonable, but I'd rather see the democratic process play out properly, here.

California, more than most states, has been subject to the minority controlling the majority for a long time, now. Things like this... and the recent ballot measures being shot down are making a statement.

We look a lot like a communist state, but we're still a democracy... barely.

Meck77
05-26-2009, 02:39 PM
Gay marriage isn't the problem. It's all the heteros out there getting hitched, having babies, getting divorced and leaving the problem for the rest of us tax payers! I could care less if gays get married but for crying out loud people take care of your kids!

BroncoBuff
05-26-2009, 02:49 PM
Odd for this to happen in California, yet a state like Iowa allows it.

How some people can be happy about preventing other people from having basic rights is beyond me.

I think there was confusion on the 'Yes' or 'No' options on the ballot ... and of course the LDS people (Mormons) poured $12 million into ads opposing gay marriage.l

BroncoBuff
05-26-2009, 02:51 PM
I'm in favor of gay marriage. But, I'm happy to see the will of the people in California being upheld. I wish people were more reasonable, but I'd rather see the democratic process play out properly, here.

California, more than most states, has been subject to the minority controlling the majority for a long time, now. Things like this... and the recent ballot measures being shot down are making a statement.

We look a lot like a communist state, but we're still a democracy... barely.
Yeah, fine. But the ballot "Yes" and "No" options were confusing ... even numbskull voters should have their vote count ... and therefore they have a right to understand what they're voting on.

It's not democracy when large blocs of voters vote the opposite of what they think.

Hercules Rockefeller
05-26-2009, 02:55 PM
Rights should never be left up to vote, again the point of the Constitution was to prevent mob rule.


First, this isn't a right. Same sex marriage has never been recognized as a right anywhere. Just like healthcare isn't a right either. Just because people think something should be a right does not make it one. The populance of California went through the constitutionally mandated steps to amend their state constitution.

and for the record, I could have cared less whether Prop 8 was voted up or down. The supporters went through the proper avenues to change their state constitution, the people voted, and the court should respect that decision.

slyinky
05-26-2009, 02:56 PM
We're a republic that has democratic principles. If the state voted to allow gay marriage, it would be just as wrong if the Judges struck it down. When the people vote their, will it should be a mandated with very few exceptions (those that are unconstitutional) without one or two people (judges) deciding to legislate from the bench.
We are a representative democracy. A nation that is a constitutional republic in which the representatives are elected democratically, nothing more. In fact, the word Democracy is not mentioned in the US Constitution or any of the 50 states' constitutions. What you are describing is mob rule that takes away the rights of minorities. Something that the founding fathers were expressly against. This is a nation founded on Liberty not Democracy.

Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide. -- John Adams

A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine. -- Thomas Jefferson

The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived. -- John Quincy Adams

Between a balanced republic and a democracy, the difference is like that between order and chaos. -- John Marshall

Hercules Rockefeller
05-26-2009, 02:57 PM
Yeah, fine. But the ballot "Yes" and "No" options were confusing ... even numbskull voters should have their vote count ... and therefore they have a right to understand what they're voting on.

It's not democracy when large blocs of voters vote the opposite of what they think.

No, they're just retarded and probably shouldn't be in the voting booth. It's not that ****ing hard to research the ballot ahead of time so people actually understand what they're voting on when they step into the booth.

BroncoInferno
05-26-2009, 02:59 PM
And good for democracy.

Was it "good for democracy" when the whims of the majority legally prevented interracial couples from marrying?

Fedaykin
05-26-2009, 03:07 PM
Marriage has meant the same thing for thousands of years and needs to be updated for what reason?

Ahh, and the ignorant weigh in.

Sorry bub, but the institution of marriage has never been consistently defined, and likely never will be.

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 03:09 PM
Ben Franklin put it best:

"Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch."

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 03:10 PM
Was it "good for democracy" when the whims of the majority legally prevented interracial couples from marrying?

We aren't talking about interracial couples

Fedaykin
05-26-2009, 03:17 PM
It is no business of any State Supreme Court to rule against and reverse the decision of its voting population.

You don't understand how our government works. It's is the RESPONSIBILITY of the courts to evaluate the legality of laws* passed by the legislatures. I swear, it's seriously disappointing how many people in this country who don't understand how our government works.

* Now, in this particular case, the "law" in question is a constitutional amendment, so the CA courts have no authority to overturn the decision (though the SCOTUS does).

Mountain Bronco
05-26-2009, 03:23 PM
Bull****

Hey, Spider and I actually agree on something. That was the most contrived argument I have ever read. With a bachelors degree you are competing for jobs in the same fields. With Marriage you get some tax benefits (and penelties I may add). Apples and oranges dude.

I have no problem with gay marriage. If they want to make that mistake, let them.

slyinky
05-26-2009, 03:25 PM
We aren't talking about interracial couples
What's the difference? Interracial. Same sex. Just two people wanting to get hitched and attain the same benefits afforded everyone else.

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 03:25 PM
You don't understand how our government works. It's is the RESPONSIBILITY of the courts to evaluate the legality of laws* passed by the legislatures. I swear, it's seriously disappointing how many people in this country who don't understand how our government works.

* Now, in this particular case, the "law" in question is a constitutional amendment, so the CA courts have no authority to overturn the decision (though the SCOTUS does).

The SCOTUS doesn't either IMO. The rights of marriage are not a power given to the Federal Government in the Constitution.

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 03:25 PM
What's the difference? Interracial. Same sex. Just two people wanting to get hitched and attain the same benefits afforded everyone else.

One is a genetic occurrance and the other is a choice.

BroncoInferno
05-26-2009, 03:26 PM
Ahh, and the ignorant weigh in.

Sorry bub, but the institution of marriage has never been consistently defined, and likely never will be.

Exactly. At one time, marriage was defined as a union between one man and as many women as he could support (it still is defined this way in some parts of the world). The idea that marriage has always been defined the same is woefully ignorant.

slyinky
05-26-2009, 03:28 PM
One is a genetic occurrance and the other is a choice.
Link?

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 03:29 PM
Link?

Link to what?

Orange_Beard
05-26-2009, 03:29 PM
Keith is really sick of politicians and church leaders defining what is right and wrong for the majority. Choose what is right and wrong for you and and enjoy it. There are laws to protect you if someone decides to steal from you, hurt you etc. You don't need to go writing redundant laws to control things that don't hurt impact you, like people wearing odd socks, staying up late, or marrying someone of the same sex[/B]


My friend posted this on his face book today. I agree.

Why are people so concerned about what fags do?
Enjoy your life, quit worrying about what other people.

slyinky
05-26-2009, 03:31 PM
Link to what?
A link to this co called fact that it is a choice.

Fedaykin
05-26-2009, 03:32 PM
The SCOTUS doesn't either IMO. The rights of marriage are not a power given to the Federal Government in the Constitution.

In my opinion, marriage rights (specifically and exclusively the legal privileges granted under a marriage contract) fall under the scope of the 14th amendment (equal protection under the law). Your opinion may differ, which is fine.

Orange_Beard
05-26-2009, 03:33 PM
it's a choice? WTF?

So what you are saying is that you could choose to like guys? It's just a choice, so one day you may wake up and suck a cock?

Not really a choice for me.

slyinky
05-26-2009, 03:34 PM
One is a genetic occurrance and the other is a choice.
Even if it was a choice (I can't imagine why somebody would choose to be gay) what the hell do you care what two consenting adults do with their naughty parts?

cutthemdown
05-26-2009, 03:36 PM
The people have spoken, the Supreme Court of the state has also. I don't really care much but at some point you just have to let it go and try again in a few more yrs.

By trying again to soon you risk alienating people you may get to your side in the next fight.

One thing is I think govt pushed marriage, gave benefits to marriage etc, because they understood couples, become married, have young, those young feed the country with youth and keep country moving forward.

What benefit does a gay couple do for the country? I'm not sure anything more then 2 dudes who are just buddies living together. Maybe they should just do away with anything that has to do with marriage benifits, and then let anyone marry. Even more then two people, IE 3 wives for one dude etc.

I mean if we are abandoning any of the moral religious aspects of marriage then why not multiple wives or hubbies if the individuals so choose?

Just change the tax code make everyone file on your own merits regardless of kids, married, everything. Straight what you make, a %, pay your tax.

Spider
05-26-2009, 03:37 PM
Hey, Spider and I actually agree on something. That was the most contrived argument I have ever read. With a bachelors degree you are competing for jobs in the same fields. With Marriage you get some tax benefits (and penelties I may add). Apples and oranges dude.

I have no problem with gay marriage. If they want to make that mistake, let them.

:thumbsup: exactly why should us strait people be the only ones miserable......speaking of my 17 year daughter made me cry real tears ......Walks up to me and says Daddy I am never moving out ......

cutthemdown
05-26-2009, 03:37 PM
Link?

A link for what. Are you saying being gay is Genetic? I would say that is something you should get a link proving if that is the case.

Certainly you agree being black, or white, or Latino is genetic.

Spider
05-26-2009, 03:38 PM
Even if it was a choice (I can't imagine why somebody would choose to be gay) what the hell do you care what two consenting adults do with their naughty parts?

:rofl: I should but I wont

cutthemdown
05-26-2009, 03:39 PM
Even if it was a choice (I can't imagine why somebody would choose to be gay) what the hell do you care what two consenting adults do with their naughty parts?

I totally don't care, but I'm against discrimination of single people. Like somehow married is better? At least gays cant make stupid snot nosed kids running around ruining everyones good time.

Too bad we can't just grow kids on an island until they are about 22.

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 03:40 PM
A link to this co called fact that it is a choice.

We can solve it logically. To be fair I should have posted above that it can be choice. It can be genetic. Rarely are things only nature or only nurture

"There exists" and "Every"

Every person that is gay is so by genetics. Can you say this is true? For one we can't even prove this to be true in any lab anywhere. In fact the best we could ever say is there is a correalation. That's not causation.


There exists a person that has decided to have sex with a same sex partner. Can we say this is true? Certainly we can. The fact that we have people that sexually experiment says this is true. We also have case studies of men leaving wives for other men and then returing to their wives or another female consort.

Now compare this to skin color, which is determined by genetics after years of environment(nurture) exposure to different regions of our world. And you realize that race and gayness aren't even in the same ball park at this point. Not even in the same league at this point.

You don't even have facts that say gayness is genetic yet you except this as fact. Why?

Spider
05-26-2009, 03:40 PM
A link for what. Are you saying being gay is Genetic? I would say that is something you should get a link proving if that is the case.

Certainly you agree being black, or white, or Latino is genetic.

what Iwould bring up ( being raised on a farm) s there are just as many homosexuals in the animal kingdom as there are strait ...... Dairy cows are a bunch of lesbos .. they will mount each other when they come in heat Chickens , pigs , dogs, rabbits ........

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 03:41 PM
Even if it was a choice (I can't imagine why somebody would choose to be gay) what the hell do you care what two consenting adults do with their naughty parts?

I didn't say they couldn't have sex with each other, only that they have no right to claim discrimination and compare themselves as an entire group to other based on genetics.

cutthemdown
05-26-2009, 03:43 PM
I'm sure there are genetic traits that make people more likely to be gay or lesbian, but I doubt there is a gay genetic marker.

For one they have identical twins, some are both gay, some both straight, some a 50/50 gay/straight. So that likely means that environment and experiences play a huge roll in whether or not someone becomes gay.

If it is genetic then they should do some stem cell gene therapy and make sure no dudes are gay. Wouldn't all the straight guys in the room agree that being straight has got to be better. We should push for all our brothers to be fixed!!!!!

But I think that is nonsense, it's not genetic, it's experiences and people just become who they become. Nothing wrong with it, just the way it is. You won't change it through DNA, or trying to go the religious route and make them feel like sinners.

I just don't see why they should get any perks to being married. What do gay people do to help country become stronger and younger?

cutthemdown
05-26-2009, 03:49 PM
what Iwould bring up ( being raised on a farm) s there are just as many homosexuals in the animal kingdom as there are strait ...... Dairy cows are a bunch of lesbos .. they will mount each other when they come in heat Chickens , pigs , dogs, rabbits ........

Well I have heard that before but that doesn't mean that it's genetic. If so then why do some humans with identical genes turn out one gay one straight?

If a straight guy can kid himself and he really is a closet homo, then its logical it could also go the other way, people who think they are gay aren't.

My question would be have you ever seen a female cow, that not only would go lesbo, but also refuse the bull?

IMO bisexuality much more logical. You get all the sex, but the will to procreate and attracting to other sex is always present.

Spider I'm not saying I know. My main argument isn't that gays are wrong or need to be fixed. I think people just become what they become and its about 90% environment and experiences. But my other point is societies made benefits to marriage, because they feel families, having babies, raising those babies, is good for society.

Gays dont do that, convince me, a single guy, they deserve any type of tax benefit or loan application etc over me.

You, I can live with. You need to be able to claim kids, they are tough to raise. One day your kids will be paying my social security. I totally understand that reasoning.

I'd like to someone to tell my why gays need to be married to live the lifestyle they want to live?

cutthemdown
05-26-2009, 03:54 PM
what Iwould bring up ( being raised on a farm) s there are just as many homosexuals in the animal kingdom as there are strait ...... Dairy cows are a bunch of lesbos .. they will mount each other when they come in heat Chickens , pigs , dogs, rabbits ........

also on the farm dudes screw animals, because it happens does that make it normal or genetic? Or more just because the environment of farm life?

slyinky
05-26-2009, 03:55 PM
I didn't say they couldn't have sex with each other, only that they have no right to claim discrimination and compare themselves as an entire group to other based on genetics.
You can therefore say the same thing about race. That a person of color has "no right to claim discrimination and compare themselves as an entire group to other based on genetics". So how is interracial marriage any different to same sex marriage on this basis?

Spider
05-26-2009, 03:57 PM
Well I have heard that before but that doesn't mean that it's genetic. If so then why do some humans with identical genes turn out one gay one straight?

If a straight guy can kid himself and he really is a closet homo, then its logical it could also go the other way, people who think they are gay aren't.

My question would be have you ever seen a female cow, that not only would go lesbo, but also refuse the bull?

IMO bisexuality much more logical. You get all the sex, but the will to procreate and attracting to other sex is always present.

Spider I'm not saying I know. My main argument isn't that gays are wrong or need to be fixed. I think people just become what they become and its about 90% environment and experiences. But my other point is societies made benefits to marriage, because they feel families, having babies, raising those babies, is good for society.

Gays dont do that, convince me, a single guy, they deserve any type of tax benefit or loan application etc over me.

You, I can live with. You need to be able to claim kids, they are tough to raise. One day your kids will be paying my social security. I totally understand that reasoning.

I'd like to someone to tell my why gays need to be married to live the lifestyle they want to live?

Dude if I had the answers i wouldnt be a trucker , I would be a multi Billionaire hiring hookers to rub his feet ........ all I know is there are just as many homos in the animal kingdom , as strait ......... why would someone choose to be gay ? Hell I dont know ........ But I will add this a doc one time told me mt testosterone levels were off the chart , maybe that has something to do with it

Spider
05-26-2009, 03:59 PM
also on the farm dudes screw animals, because it happens does that make it normal or genetic? Or more just because the environment of farm life?
LOL I would like to see someone screw an animal , your average barn yard animal dont want to see you or be near you unless it is feeding time ........ Maybe you would like to try ? I can arrange it

bombquixote
05-26-2009, 04:01 PM
Most people, as well as most of you it seems, misunderstand the desire to disallow gay marriage.

If I have a bachelors degree which took me X amount of work, money and time and you arbitrarily change the requirements to such an amount that my bachelors degree no longer has the same value or meaning I would protest against those wanting to create the change.

The same applies to marriage, it isn't about not letting gays obtain rights or benefits. By changing the definition of marriage rather than creating a different type of union for gays, you are making my marriage different....as I want my bachelors degree to retain its original value, so do I want my marriage to be (whether that be spiritual or not).

So, again, not about hate or prejudice. It is simply about protecting what you have.

On a side note, Polygomy has the longest history with marriage yet is illegal and shunned in this country. How long before you see this legalized and what argument could you have against it if the terms of marriage are changed now?

Alright, then let's say someone else puts in the exact same amount of work for their degree as you have for yours, and then your university denies them their diploma because they are gay. That's more akin to what we're talking about.

And what exactly are you protecting by denying gay marriage? So two men get married or two women get married. It has ABSOLUTELY NO BEARING ON YOU OR YOUR MARRIAGE.

Your argument is very "separate but equal," and based entirely on arbitrary prejudice. Sorry.

SportinOne
05-26-2009, 04:09 PM
Homosexual people have existed from the beginning of man. Get over it.

Popps
05-26-2009, 04:11 PM
Gays dont do that, convince me, a single guy, they deserve any type of tax benefit or loan application etc over me.


I don't think any gay people are claiming they deserve rights OVER you. Just the same as you.



I'd like to someone to tell my why gays need to be married to live the lifestyle they want to live?

I think it's partially just about recognition. The same reasons you don't want them to marry are among the same reasons they want to.

Beyond that, you have issues of medical coverage, insurance, joint tax filing, divorce and proper divorce proceeding, due legal process, etc.

Again, it just really boils down to the issue of them considering it to be a civil right, and those opposed... claiming that it is not. It's a tricky situation, but having lived in CA for coming up on 20 years, I can tell you that my impression of how most gays handle themselves has been pretty positive.

I'm married with two kids and cherish the tradition of marriage, but I also don't think a couple of women who love each other being married on a beach will harm my children over the long-haul.

I could rattle off 100 issues that would concern me more for the sanctity of the American family than two same-sex partners responsibly joining as a recognized couple.

BroncoBuff
05-26-2009, 04:14 PM
I don't think any gay people are claiming they deserve rights OVER you. Just the same as you.

Yeah cuts ... no duh.

I don't your objections, cuts ... nobody's taking anything away from you, there's nothing to be worried about.

slyinky
05-26-2009, 04:20 PM
also on the farm dudes screw animals, because it happens does that make it normal or genetic? Or more just because the environment of farm life?
I grew up on a farm. With over 50 head of sheep no less. Not once did I ever even consider having sex with one. Or the horses. Or the chickens. Now I live in L.A. and have been propositioned many times for gay sex. I have had gay roommates. Never once have I ever considered taking up an offer. Not even while under the influence. I just have no desire for anything other than a woman. Hence, I would be inclined to believe it is genetic. I just don't see how you would do something that you have no desire in simply because you are exposed to it.

TheReverend
05-26-2009, 04:21 PM
I'm sure there are genetic traits that make people more likely to be gay or lesbian, but I doubt there is a gay genetic marker.

For one they have identical twins, some are both gay, some both straight, some a 50/50 gay/straight. So that likely means that environment and experiences play a huge roll in whether or not someone becomes gay.

If it is genetic then they should do some stem cell gene therapy and make sure no dudes are gay. Wouldn't all the straight guys in the room agree that being straight has got to be better. We should push for all our brothers to be fixed!!!!!

But I think that is nonsense, it's not genetic, it's experiences and people just become who they become. Nothing wrong with it, just the way it is. You won't change it through DNA, or trying to go the religious route and make them feel like sinners.

I just don't see why they should get any perks to being married. What do gay people do to help country become stronger and younger?

Oh come on, man. That's ridiculous.

I'm admittedly homo-phobic to an extent, but people have the right to live their own lives, especially on issues that were predetermined for them. And no way it's a choice outside of some attention seeking bi-girls (who I love, btw). Listen, I'm pretty sure I don't have a specific gene saying I don't like asparagus, but that doesn't mean it was a learned trait. I don't ****ing like asparagus.

I wrote one of the guys I was in the Marines with a year back and found out he's gay. Turns out the entire time he was in, he was in denial, a raging alcoholic and almost committed suicide on a daily basis because that's just who he was, and his learned social experiences with it, and I'm probably largely to blame for this, was that it's wrong and unacceptable. He didn't choose to be what he is. He is what he is.

cutthemdown
05-26-2009, 04:22 PM
LOL I would like to see someone screw an animal , your average barn yard animal dont want to see you or be near you unless it is feeding time ........ Maybe you would like to try ? I can arrange it

what's she like?

cutthemdown
05-26-2009, 04:24 PM
Oh come on, man. That's ridiculous.

I'm admittedly homo-phobic to an extent, but people have the right to live their own lives, especially on issues that were predetermined for them. And no way it's a choice outside of some attention seeking bi-girls (who I love, btw). Listen, I'm pretty sure I don't have a specific gene saying I don't like asparagus, but that doesn't mean it was a learned trait. I don't ****ing like asparagus.

I wrote one of the guys I was in the Marines with a year back and found out he's gay. Turns out the entire time he was in, he was in denial, a raging alcoholic and almost committed suicide on a daily basis because that's just who he was, and his learned social experiences with it, and I'm probably largely to blame for this, was that it's wrong and unacceptable. He didn't choose to be what he is. He is what he is.


That's fine I agree with all of it. People can do what they want, and it really doesn't matter to me why it happened. Genetic, environment, experience, who cares someone wants to be gay I am fine with.

But convince me they should get marriage benifits. My point is they only exist because the govt wanted the morality of marriage, the family unit, so they would have kids and keep country young.

Convince me gays are important enough for the perks and legal protections and obligations of marriage.

Also re read my post rev, I say in it that part of what I said was in jest, maybe you didn't understand. Because all of the points you made, I already made.

TheReverend
05-26-2009, 04:28 PM
That's fine I agree with all of it. People can do what they want, and it really doesn't matter to me why it happened. Genetic, environment, experience, who cares someone wants to be gay I am fine with.

But convince me they should get marriage benifits. My point is they only exist because the govt wanted the morality of marriage, the family unit, so they would have kids and keep country young.

Convince me gays are important enough for the perks and legal protections and obligations of marriage.

Also re read my post rev, I say in it that part of what I said was in jest, maybe you didn't understand. Because all of the points you made, I already made.

In all fairness, the vote was rigged. They held it on national cock sucking day.

cutthemdown
05-26-2009, 04:29 PM
I grew up on a farm. With over 50 head of sheep no less. Not once did I ever even consider having sex with one. Or the horses. Or the chickens. Now I live in L.A. and have been propositioned many times for gay sex. I have had gay roommates. Never once have I ever considered taking up an offer. Not even while under the influence. I just have no desire for anything other than a woman. Hence, I would be inclined to believe it is genetic. I just don't see how you would do something that you have no desire in simply because you are exposed to it.

Right whatever way you lean is ok. I can see it being one or the other, or a combo of both. My point is I don't care, convince me gays are a benefit to society like a straight couple? The only reason govt even cared to make marriage different then being single was because it followed the christian teachings, and led to more stable families to have kids.

I have not heard one good argument that gays are somehow going to improve society by being married. If not then why any perks?

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 04:31 PM
You can therefore say the same thing about race. That a person of color has "no right to claim discrimination and compare themselves as an entire group to other based on genetics". So how is interracial marriage any different to same sex marriage on this basis?

Race is genetic. So yes you could say that, but since skin color is rarely ever a choice. Same sex intercourse is however a choice, and that choice does not establish discrimination in the same network as race.

BroncoBuff
05-26-2009, 04:31 PM
That's fine I agree with all of it. People can do what they want, and it really doesn't matter to me why it happened. Genetic, environment, experience, who cares someone wants to be gay I am fine with.

But convince me they should get marriage benifits. My point is they only exist because the govt wanted the morality of marriage, the family unit, so they would have kids and keep country young.

Convince me gays are important enough for the perks and legal protections and obligations of marriage.

Also re read my post rev, I say in it that part of what I said was in jest, maybe you didn't understand. Because all of the points you made, I already made.

I don't think gays should have to "convince you" of anything.

Those who wish to RESTRICT rights have the burden of persuasion.

So, YOU convince ME why a person should be excluded form the fundamental right of marriage because of the gender of their partner.

cutthemdown
05-26-2009, 04:32 PM
I grew up on a farm. With over 50 head of sheep no less. Not once did I ever even consider having sex with one. Or the horses. Or the chickens. Now I live in L.A. and have been propositioned many times for gay sex. I have had gay roommates. Never once have I ever considered taking up an offer. Not even while under the influence. I just have no desire for anything other than a woman. Hence, I would be inclined to believe it is genetic. I just don't see how you would do something that you have no desire in simply because you are exposed to it.

Much of what I said about the animals was in jest. I'm sure a very small percentage of farm boys are screwing sheep. It's just not natural.

I won't argue against the DNA thing, I'm just not smart enough to answer that or argue it any further then to say I'm not convinced.

In any event the people spoke, the courts spoke, time to move on and worry about our economy not gay rights.

They can try again in a couple yrs and they will probably win.

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 04:32 PM
Homosexual people have existed from the beginning of man. Get over it.

But never in a family model being promoted here in this country. Even in older times it was considered a devation.

TheReverend
05-26-2009, 04:32 PM
So did you guys miss my joke...?

I was sure that was gonna be a grand slam.

Or am I losing my touch?

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 04:35 PM
I'm sure there are genetic traits that make people more likely to be gay or lesbian, but I doubt there is a gay genetic marker.

For one they have identical twins, some are both gay, some both straight, some a 50/50 gay/straight. So that likely means that environment and experiences play a huge roll in whether or not someone becomes gay.



This is more likely the answer. Why do kids that are sexually abused become gay. I mean to pedophiles just know which ones to pick?

Spider
05-26-2009, 04:35 PM
Right whatever way you lean is ok. I can see it being one or the other, or a combo of both. My point is I don't care, convince me gays are a benefit to society like a straight couple? The only reason govt even cared to make marriage different then being single was because it followed the christian teachings, and led to more stable families to have kids.

I have not heard one good argument that gays are somehow going to improve society by being married. If not then why any perks?well then using this criteria interracial shouldnt be allowed either , they dont serve society ......

cutthemdown
05-26-2009, 04:36 PM
I don't think gays should have to "convince you" of anything.

Those who wish to RESTRICT rights have the burden of persuasion.

Gays should want to convince me because then I would vote for them.

What about the rights of single people? Why should we get left out just because we aren't married? Maybe we should get a tax break for not clogging up the courts with marriage and divorce.

They attorneys in my office all voted against prop 8. Why? because they know half of those gay people will be getting a divorce in 1 yr just like the straight couples.

Really Broncobuff I could care less, people can do what they want, I just want someone to tell my why gays deserve tax breaks or benefits when going for loans? Straight couples raise families and have kids.

For gays to get those benefits I would say they have to raise some foster kids or something.

But it has nothing to do with restricting rights? your saying people have a right govt perks for being a couple? I always assumed the marriage perks were because they wanted people to form families and have kids. Are you saying that I am not right about that? If not then why give any difference between married and non married couples?

cutthemdown
05-26-2009, 04:37 PM
well then using this criteria interracial shouldnt be allowed either , they dont serve society ......

Well interracial can still have kids and raise them good, have a real family. So I don't see any different between that and a same race couple. Not sure what your point is on this one.

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 04:38 PM
Genetics are the basis for these arguments of discrimination.

cutthemdown
05-26-2009, 04:38 PM
This is more likely the answer. Why do kids that are sexually abused become gay. I mean to pedophiles just know which ones to pick?

Also though I don't really think its that important to know why? i just want to know why they need to be married and get those perks? If there are no financial perks then why does it even matter?

cutthemdown
05-26-2009, 04:43 PM
Genetics are the basis for these arguments of discrimination.

I agree with that.......But why not just ditch the whole perks of marriage then. We have moved past the point where the bible matters. We have moved past the point where we judge.

Society has enough people to not worry about how many people have babies.

Just have every citizen do taxes by themselves, or you can have a tax partner if that helps you out. Every person can choose someone to get their benefits after death, life, health insurance. hell if I want to help my best bro out, and I have a job all the other people are getting insurance for spouse, gay spouse etc, then why should I not be able to for me best friend? I mean just because I don't screw him doesn't mean I don't love him. Or it could be a female friend etc etc.

I mean why exclude people who maybe choose not to have sexual relationships, just want to be life partners and screw hookers together LOL!!!

Or what about people who want more then one wife? I mean if we are throwing out the bible part of it I don't really see the difference. By the way I think is all people consent they should be able to live like that.

I mean we either go all the way, or leave it the same.

I'm not for restricting anyones rights, I just want it taken all the way.

Popps
05-26-2009, 04:44 PM
I always assumed the marriage perks were because they wanted people to form families and have kids. Are you saying that I am not right about that?

I think you're right, to a point. Our laws are all geared towards civility and creating properly structured society. (Or at least that's the aim.)

Wouldn't you agree that encouraging gay people to assimilate and contribute as couples would be beneficial to society? One of the biggest complaints (legitimate or not) about gay people is that they're promiscuous. But, then we tell them they can't get married, either.

Wouldn't it stand to reason that encouraging civil behavior in gays (as a group) would be a good thing for society? Before you say that they shouldn't have to be married to behave civilly, remember... they disagree in principle. They believe it is a civil right. So, let's put that issue aside and just focus solely on practicality.

Married, tax-paying, home-owning gays aren't better than those cast out of normal society?

slyinky
05-26-2009, 04:44 PM
Much of what I said about the animals was in jest. I'm sure a very small percentage of farm boys are screwing sheep. It's just not natural.

I won't argue against the DNA thing, I'm just not smart enough to answer that or argue it any further then to say I'm not convinced.

In any event the people spoke, the courts spoke, time to move on and worry about our economy not gay rights.

They can try again in a couple yrs and they will probably win.
Actually, I think I read that it is fairly high. Like 50%, which is pretty shocking. I was a horny little bastard growing up but not that horny. Although, I guess life on the farm could have been a little more exciting if I were so inclined.

TheReverend
05-26-2009, 04:45 PM
I agree with that.......But why not just ditch the whole perks of marriage then. We have moved past the point where the bible matters. We have moved past the point where we judge.

Society has enough people to not worry about how many people have babies.

Just have every citizen do taxes by themselves, or you can have a tax partner if that helps you out. Every person can choose someone to get their benefits after death, life, health insurance. hell if I want to help my best bro out, and I have a job all the other people are getting insurance for spouse, gay spouse etc, then why should I not be able to for me best friend? I mean just because I don't screw him doesn't mean I don't love him. Or it could be a female friend etc etc.

I mean why exclude people who maybe choose not to have sexual relationships, just want to be life partners and screw hookers together LOL!!!

Or what about people who want more then one wife? I mean if we are throwing out the bible part of it I don't really see the difference. By the way I think is all people consent they should be able to live like that.

I mean we either go all the way, or leave it the same.

I'm not for restricting anyones rights, I just want it taken all the way.

Because religious people would have a **** fit and start protesting and bombing court-houses alongside abortion clinics.

I love the idea, but Allah would not be pleased.

El Minion
05-26-2009, 04:48 PM
it's a choice? WTF?

So what you are saying is that you could choose to like guys? It's just a choice, so one day you may wake up and suck a cock?

Not really a choice for me.

:rofl:

Popps
05-26-2009, 04:48 PM
Genetics are the basis for these arguments of discrimination.

They're not.

I believe being gay is at least partially genetic. HOWEVER, many gay people do NOT believe this. In fact, I've had a long-time battle with a friend (lesbian) of mine who thinks I'm nuts. She refutes the concept of it being genetic, rather... a result of experience. She equates the genetic-gay argument with saying gay people were born "flawed." (Which, from a biological standpoint, you could argue, I suppose.)

Point being, don't assume all gays think they deserve rights because of a gene. Some reject the genetic argument, and yet still demand that they're treated as equal citizens.

Spider
05-26-2009, 04:49 PM
Well interracial can still have kids and raise them good, have a real family. So I don't see any different between that and a same race couple. Not sure what your point is on this one.

whats a " real family " ? My memory of my mother is busting me in the head with an ashtray , then kicking me in the nuts , stomping on my rib cage ....... is that a real family ?

Popps
05-26-2009, 04:49 PM
FYI... there are no gay people in Iran.

Just a reminder.

TheReverend
05-26-2009, 04:53 PM
FYI... there are no gay people in Iran.

Just a reminder.

FYI all the Arab dudes in the middle east walk around holding hands. If they don't have the social standing to afford a woman they do each other.

Circle Orange
05-26-2009, 04:56 PM
Wasn't there some fighting in the streets and rioting? Thot I saw it in the news.

It's back to the Village...People. :peace:

cutthemdown
05-26-2009, 05:09 PM
I think you're right, to a point. Our laws are all geared towards civility and creating properly structured society. (Or at least that's the aim.)

Wouldn't you agree that encouraging gay people to assimilate and contribute as couples would be beneficial to society? One of the biggest complaints (legitimate or not) about gay people is that they're promiscuous. But, then we tell them they can't get married, either.

Wouldn't it stand to reason that encouraging civil behavior in gays (as a group) would be a good thing for society? Before you say that they shouldn't have to be married to behave civilly, remember... they disagree in principle. They believe it is a civil right. So, let's put that issue aside and just focus solely on practicality.

Married, tax-paying, home-owning gays aren't better than those cast out of normal society?


Hmmm the first good argument thank you very much. Amazing what direction a debate can take when someone just takes the time to actually think about something and then answer a question as good as he or she can.

I agree some of what you say could be better and a benefit to society. Had that point been made better before the prop 7 vote who knows.

You could have a point. More gays would probably buy homes rather then rent by themselves. Maybe that raises more property tax or something. Good point Popps.

Inkana7
05-26-2009, 05:24 PM
I really don't understand how someone can make a rational argument against Gay Marriage, besides the religious, boogey-man bull**** that people are just about fed up with.

Popps
05-26-2009, 05:25 PM
Hmmm the first good argument thank you very much. Amazing what direction a debate can take when someone just takes the time to actually think about something and then answer a question as good as he or she can.

I agree some of what you say could be better and a benefit to society. Had that point been made better before the prop 7 vote who knows.

You could have a point. More gays would probably buy homes rather then rent by themselves. Maybe that raises more property tax or something. Good point Popps.

Thanks...

Yea, I don't think there's any winning the emotional/religious side of this argument with people, but the practicality is something most can relate to.

My son goes to a private school here in LA. Nothing too fancy, but a nice little school. I have no idea if any of his teachers are gay, but frankly.. I'd be surprised if none were. Of course, I don't care... as long as they're worth the money we're paying for him to go there!

Beyond that, though... let's say my son did find out one of his teachers was gay. I just feel like I'd much rather have him know that said-teacher had a normal relationship, owned a home, was a good contributor to society, etc.
Does marriage have to be in play for that? Maybe not. I understand your concerns about the potential abuses.

What's to stop gay people from abusing marriage? Nothing. Same as straight people. But, I'll go out on a limb and say that given what they had to go through to get it, you might see a bit more respect paid to the institution than even among straight people. PURELY a guess based on observation.

cutthemdown
05-26-2009, 05:40 PM
I really don't understand how someone can make a rational argument against Gay Marriage, besides the religious, boogey-man bull**** that people are just about fed up with.

Then there would be no rational argument against having 3 wives.

Spider
05-26-2009, 05:43 PM
Then there would be no rational argument against having 3 wives.

Taxes , but I wouldnt have a problem if some silly bastard wanted to double his suffering

TonyR
05-26-2009, 05:47 PM
One of the biggest ironies in all of this is that the demographic most for Prop 8 (opposed to gay marriage) is the African American community. So the same people whose ancestors fought so hard to obtain civil rights now oppose the civil rights of another group.

Garcia Bronco
05-26-2009, 05:47 PM
They're not.

I believe being gay is at least partially genetic. HOWEVER, many gay people do NOT believe this. In fact, I've had a long-time battle with a friend (lesbian) of mine who thinks I'm nuts. She refutes the concept of it being genetic, rather... a result of experience. She equates the genetic-gay argument with saying gay people were born "flawed." (Which, from a biological standpoint, you could argue, I suppose.)

Point being, don't assume all gays think they deserve rights because of a gene. Some reject the genetic argument, and yet still demand that they're treated as equal citizens.

My postion is that we could all be gay and that it's not genetic at all.

Xenos
05-26-2009, 06:06 PM
No.

Look, marriage is the religious part of a civil union. Civil unions are required for two people to share their lives together and receive the tax breaks. Marriage is the religious union of a man and a woman by ALL religions.

Gays may have civil unions. They are not being discriminated against by the governmental law. Governement however, has no right to force religion to change thousands of years of their doctrine. Whether you agree with it or not. This is the backside of separation of church and state. No government should be able to dictate what religions do with their rituals. Marriage is a religious ritual that harms no one so falls under the freedom of religion act.

If the CHURCH decides that they want to allow marriage, then gays can, and will get married. Until that day, they can have a civil union and receive all the legal benefits that a hetero sexual couple receives, they just do not get the blessing of God.

How can the government LEGALLY force churches to marry gays?
Except for the fact that marriage preceded religion.

And who said anything about the government forcing churches to marry gays. I would be opposed to that. If the churches don't want to perform the ceremony then fine.

That being said, the Courts made the right decision. As much I may dislike it, it's better that it turned out this way. The voters now have a chance to right a wrong in 2010. And this way the supporters of prop 8 can't complain that activist judges were against them.

SportinOne
05-26-2009, 06:10 PM
:flower:

SportinOne
05-26-2009, 06:15 PM
But never in a family model being promoted here in this country. Even in older times it was considered a devation.

I'm not going to argue with any of that. In fact, that is the problem.

Xenos
05-26-2009, 06:20 PM
I think there was confusion on the 'Yes' or 'No' options on the ballot ... and of course the LDS people (Mormons) poured $12 million into ads opposing gay marriage.l
Yeah the irony of the Mormons opposing gay marriage.

Hamrob
05-26-2009, 06:24 PM
I really don't have a dog in this fight. However, wouldn't it be responsible of someone to do some cost analysis of what this could potential mean in terms of $$$$$$$$$?

So, fine give anyone and everyone the right to a union and tax breaks. Great....so WHAT'S THE COST???

Let's just make changes and think that someone will pay for it. That seems to be the way we're moving!!!

Xenos
05-26-2009, 06:25 PM
Well I have heard that before but that doesn't mean that it's genetic. If so then why do some humans with identical genes turn out one gay one straight?

If a straight guy can kid himself and he really is a closet homo, then its logical it could also go the other way, people who think they are gay aren't.

My question would be have you ever seen a female cow, that not only would go lesbo, but also refuse the bull?

IMO bisexuality much more logical. You get all the sex, but the will to procreate and attracting to other sex is always present.

Spider I'm not saying I know. My main argument isn't that gays are wrong or need to be fixed. I think people just become what they become and its about 90% environment and experiences. But my other point is societies made benefits to marriage, because they feel families, having babies, raising those babies, is good for society.

Gays dont do that, convince me, a single guy, they deserve any type of tax benefit or loan application etc over me.

You, I can live with. You need to be able to claim kids, they are tough to raise. One day your kids will be paying my social security. I totally understand that reasoning.

I'd like to someone to tell my why gays need to be married to live the lifestyle they want to live?
But no human has identical genes though. Unless you're counting human clones, which don't exist yet.

Xenos
05-26-2009, 06:31 PM
I really don't have a dog in this fight. However, wouldn't it be responsible of someone to do some cost analysis of what this could potential mean in terms of $$$$$$$$$?

So, fine give anyone and everyone the right to a union and tax breaks. Great....so WHAT'S THE COST???

Let's just make changes and think that someone will pay for it. That seems to be the way we're moving!!!

Wasn't there like a news report about how gay marriage actually improved the economy for some reason?

Hey, that would be hilarious if we got over this recession and went into an age of surplus because of legalizing gay marriage.

TheReverend
05-26-2009, 06:32 PM
My postion is that we could all be gay and that it's not genetic at all.

Speak for yourself...

Hogan11
05-26-2009, 08:03 PM
Yawn......what an absolute waste of time and effort.

TheReverend
05-26-2009, 08:10 PM
Yawn......what an absolute waste of time and effort.

Who knew you could post such an accurate autobiography in one sentence?

Impressive as that was, please stay on topic.

cutthemdown
05-26-2009, 09:13 PM
But no human has identical genes though. Unless you're counting human clones, which don't exist yet.

I thought identical twins did have some DNA, or at least really really close to the same?

I admit I am totally ignorant when it come to genetics. Never read a book on it, never took a class, not even any documentaries. So someone smarter then me, maybe that you on this, would have to set the record straight on if identical twins share identical strands of DNA.

cutthemdown
05-26-2009, 09:15 PM
One of the biggest ironies in all of this is that the demographic most for Prop 8 (opposed to gay marriage) is the African American community. So the same people whose ancestors fought so hard to obtain civil rights now oppose the civil rights of another group.

I think it was more that the pro prop-8 did a better job marketing there position in the run up to the vote. The Mormons church hired some high priced people to run that effort and it paid off.

Popps
05-26-2009, 10:30 PM
I think it was more that the pro prop-8 did a better job marketing there position in the run up to the vote. The Mormons church hired some high priced people to run that effort and it paid off.

There's a lot of blame to go around, but you're right, imo.

I'm pro gay-marriage and was basically accosted by shrill, screaming queers demanding I vote no on "Prop Hate" at my polling place. I wanted to voted against them out of spite, but figured why punish most good gay people for the actions of these idiots.

Still, you can't change people's minds by just yelling at them. Prop 8 opponents got a little full of themselves, imo. They figured showing up and getting face-time was enough. I wonder how many gay people really tried to explain their cause in civil forums.

Xenos
05-26-2009, 10:37 PM
I thought identical twins did have some DNA, or at least really really close to the same?

I admit I am totally ignorant when it come to genetics. Never read a book on it, never took a class, not even any documentaries. So someone smarter then me, maybe that you on this, would have to set the record straight on if identical twins share identical strands of DNA.
You and I have similar genes to our parents. Likewise, twins have more in common due to their identical appearance. However, that doesn't mean they are completely identical on a genetic level. That would be asexual like.

Xenos
05-26-2009, 10:38 PM
I think it was more that the pro prop-8 did a better job marketing there position in the run up to the vote. The Mormons church hired some high priced people to run that effort and it paid off.
Actually from what I understand, it's more of a generational gap and a race thing. The younger demographics, white or black, were more opposed to Prop 8. While the older generations were more supportive of it.

Archer81
05-27-2009, 12:33 AM
Well...

1. 68% of the people in the US who voted on gay marriage oppose same sex unions being called a marriage. Thats not anyone being bigoted or homophobic its just what they believe. Its my personal belief that I dont need my government to OK me being in love enough with someone to decide to tie myself to them in every way possible.

2. The only choice about being gay is actually going out and finding someone of the same sex to have sex with. Straight people dont pick to be straight, why would it be different for gays?

3. I find it amusing when a vote goes against what a vocal minority want, the electorate read the ballot wrong or were confused.

4. At the end of the day, who gives a **** how California voted? How did your state vote? We live in a federal republic made up of 50 smaller republics. Focus on where you live and the rest will take care of itself if you are that worried about it.

:Broncos:

GreatBronco16
05-27-2009, 02:46 AM
Well...

2. Straight people dont pick to be straight, why would it be different for gays?

I disagree. IMO, straight people choose to be straight, and gay people choose to be gay. IMO, it is nothing genetic or inherated and whatnot. You choose to be emotionaly who you want to be, and you choose emotionaly who you want to be with. It has nothing to do with a trait you were born with.

Lev Vyvanse
05-27-2009, 05:06 AM
You and I have similar genes to our parents. Likewise, twins have more in common due to their identical appearance. However, that doesn't mean they are completely identical on a genetic level. That would be asexual like.

What? Your genes are not similar to your parents they are 100% your parents genes. Identical twins come from the same egg and thus have the same set of genes. The only differences identical twins have on a genetic level are the result of DNA replication and environmentally triggered changes.

TailgateNut
05-27-2009, 06:35 AM
Then there would be no rational argument against having 3 wives.


Is there? Not that I would want to deal with 3 wives.

Rohirrim
05-27-2009, 07:01 AM
Yawn......what an absolute waste of time and effort.

Yeah, but you say that about every thread. You should build a macro, then you could just use a couple of keystrokes and drop this into every thread. ;)

Hogan11
05-27-2009, 08:18 AM
Yeah, but you say that about every thread. You should build a macro, then you could just use a couple of keystrokes and drop this into every thread. ;)

That's hardly the case. I just find the whole debate on Gay Marriage a total waste of time and effort. If people want to get married, whatever their orientation, then let them. Unless you're on the short end of some gay love triangle, why should it matter to anyone else?

I do tend to find it more of a diversionary topic when it comes to goverment action than anything else...just ask David Paterson, he's dodging a lot of meaningful state fiscal issues by running headlong into this. Unfortunately, it won't help his re-election bid any since he continues to have the lowest approval numbers in New York State history.

BroncoBuff
05-27-2009, 08:50 AM
My postion is that we could all be gay and that it's not genetic at all.

Not genetic at all? What are you, "16th Century Man"?

The near-perfect analogy is that of left-handed persons. There is genetic neuro-hemispheric predisposition toward left-hand/right-handedness. But you can be mixed (bi-sexual/ambidextrous), and you can be forced to be other than your predisposition dictates - many parents force their lefty kids to be rightys, many gay/bi are forced/force themselves into straight lives.

But to say "we could all be gay" is silly. Rev made a joke, but in a way it's true: speak for yourself. I could no more change my orientation than I could change my race.

Lev Vyvanse
05-27-2009, 08:59 AM
Not genetic at all? What are you, "16th Century Man"?

The near-perfect analogy is that of left-handed persons. There is genetic neuro-hemispheric predisposition toward left-hand/right-handedness. But you can be mixed (bi-sexual/ambidextrous), and you can be forced to be other than your predisposition dictates - many parents force their lefty kids to be rightys, many gay/bi are forced/force themselves into straight lives.

But to say "we could all be gay" is silly. Rev made a joke, but in a way it's true: speak for yourself. I could no more change my orientation than I could change my race.

I donít believe there is any scientific proof one way or the other on this issue. I know scientist have been looking for gene combinations that would give individuals a predisposition to being gay but as far I as I know no one has found anything yet.

rugbythug
05-27-2009, 09:23 AM
Why would Gay People want Homosexuality to be Genetic? It has been all the rage the last decade to claim it is genetic, Mostly I think to pass responsibility for what was considered Deviant behavior off to another source. IE if it is genetic I can do nothing about it, I have no choice in the Matter.

It seems to me that as society is getting more and more liberal that the Gay agenda should back away from this line of thought. The end result of Homosexuality actually being a gene based would be catastrophic to the Community.

Think of it like this. The Gay gene is created by some mutation. However society frowns greatly upon this mutation as it has deleterious effects on the population as a whole. But as Society becomes more and more liberal those frowns are turned upside down. What should happen now, The Suppressed Gay Genes should be then let go and Gayness should reach an all time high. The problem begins a generation or two later. Because being gay is "*fatal" gene, the number of homosexuals will plummet to some minute number that then holds steady.

*Fatal-This does not mean it kills. Only that it removes itself from the breeding population. 2 gay men or women do not produce offspring. Even if they do a test tube baby they are still removing 1 persons genetic profile.

The small amount that holds steady would be recessive genes in a given population that is not expressed in the parent. There is no evolutionary advantage to homosexuality.

epicSocialism4tw
05-27-2009, 09:30 AM
Civil unions are enough.

There is no need for gay marriage, and the government should not legislate a coming out party, which is what equating civil unions with tradional marriage essentially would be.

Black96WS6
05-27-2009, 09:31 AM
I donít believe there is any scientific proof one way or the other on this issue. I know scientist have been looking for gene combinations that would give individuals a predisposition to being gay but as far I as I know no one has found anything yet.

I think you're right. A decade ago they thought this, but now after all the studies, it does appear the evidence is leaning back to the fact that you're not born that way.

In fact the APA recently changed their statement on this:

The attempt to prove that homosexuality is determined biologically has been dealt a knockout punch. An American Psychological Association publication includes an admission that there's no homosexual "gene" -- meaning it's not likely that homosexuals are born that way.

For decades, the APA has not considered homosexuality a psychological disorder, while other professionals in the field consider it to be a "gender-identity" problem. But the new statement, which appears in a brochure called "Answers to Your Questions for a Better Understanding of Sexual Orientation & Homosexuality," states the following:

"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation. Although much research has examined the possible genetic, hormonal, developmental, social, and cultural influences on sexual orientation, no findings have emerged that permit scientists to conclude that sexual orientation is determined by any particular factor or factors. Many think that nature and nurture both play complex roles...."

That contrasts with the APA's statement in 1998: "There is considerable recent evidence to suggest that biology, including genetic or inborn hormonal factors, play a significant role in a person's sexuality."

Peter LaBarbera, who heads Americans for Truth About Homosexuality, believes the more recent statement is an important admission because it undermines a popular theory.

"People need to understand that the 'gay gene' theory has been one of the biggest propaganda boons of the homosexual movement over the last 10 [or] 15 years," he points out. "Studies show that if people think that people are born homosexual they're much less likely to resist the gay agenda."

epicSocialism4tw
05-27-2009, 09:31 AM
Not genetic at all? What are you, "16th Century Man"?

The near-perfect analogy is that of left-handed persons. There is genetic neuro-hemispheric predisposition toward left-hand/right-handedness. But you can be mixed (bi-sexual/ambidextrous), and you can be forced to be other than your predisposition dictates - many parents force their lefty kids to be rightys, many gay/bi are forced/force themselves into straight lives.

But to say "we could all be gay" is silly. Rev made a joke, but in a way it's true: speak for yourself. I could no more change my orientation than I could change my race.


You speak as though you are an expert, and you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Leave the science to the scientists. What the science says is that there is little to no evidence that gayness is genetic. Anything else is your own biased presupposition, which in your case is clearly non-scientific.

BroncoBuff
05-27-2009, 09:34 AM
I donít believe there is any scientific proof one way or the other on this issue. I know scientist have been looking for gene combinations that would give individuals a predisposition to being gay but as far I as I know no one has found anything yet.
Yeah well, you go ahead and choose your orientation. Mine is hard-wired, though, I assure you.

And you're partially wrong, there is SOME evidence of heredity, though not fully conclusive: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=8332896&dopt=Abstract


The left-hand right-hand analogy is near-perfect.

Dudeskey
05-27-2009, 09:34 AM
Civil unions are enough.

There is no need for gay marriage, and the government should not legislate a coming out party, which is what equating civil unions with tradional marriage essentially would be.

Agreed. Civil Unions for all couples heterosexual and homosexual. Marriage is a religious institution that violates separation of Church & State...ô

Popps
05-27-2009, 09:39 AM
Pretty good article about genetic properties of homosexuals...

http://www.news24.com/News24/Columnists/George_Claassen/0,,2-1630-1827_1767311,00.html

As I've said, I'm not convinced there is a single gay "gene," but I believe gay people are largely born with a set of genetics/physical properties that lend to them turning out that way.

The funny thing is, as this article points out... some people just won't accept any scientific findings on the subject because if they do, we won't be able to "heal" gay people, or worse... they won't be able to continue to believe that gay people are just choosing to be aberrant.

Beantown Bronco
05-27-2009, 09:47 AM
Civil unions are enough.

This would only be the case if all benefits of marriage carried over to the unions. They don't.

Beantown Bronco
05-27-2009, 09:48 AM
Agreed. Civil Unions for all couples heterosexual and homosexual. Marriage is a religious institution that violates separation of Church & State...ô

Separation of Church and State is largely a myth anyway.

Garcia Bronco
05-27-2009, 09:50 AM
Not genetic at all? What are you, "16th Century Man"?

The near-perfect analogy is that of left-handed persons. There is genetic neuro-hemispheric predisposition toward left-hand/right-handedness. But you can be mixed (bi-sexual/ambidextrous), and you can be forced to be other than your predisposition dictates - many parents force their lefty kids to be rightys, many gay/bi are forced/force themselves into straight lives.

But to say "we could all be gay" is silly. Rev made a joke, but in a way it's true: speak for yourself. I could no more change my orientation than I could change my race.

But an agent could go back in time and produce the environment by which you could prefer sex with other men and thus change your orientation.

BroncoBuff
05-27-2009, 09:51 AM
But an agent could go back in time and produce the environment by which you could prefer sex with other men and thus change your orientation.

A "secret" agent?

TailgateNut
05-27-2009, 09:55 AM
Separation of Church and State is largely a myth anyway.


I, for one, wish it wasn't!

Take a surgical knife to the union and operate!

BroncoBuff
05-27-2009, 09:58 AM
Agreed. Civil Unions for all couples heterosexual and homosexual. Marriage is a religious institution that violates separation of Church & State...ô
Not only is that incorrect legally ... but you've also infringed on any number of trademarks.

epicSocialism4tw
05-27-2009, 10:06 AM
Pretty good article about genetic properties of homosexuals...

http://www.news24.com/News24/Columnists/George_Claassen/0,,2-1630-1827_1767311,00.html

As I've said, I'm not convinced there is a single gay "gene," but I believe gay people are largely born with a set of genetics/physical properties that lend to them turning out that way.

The funny thing is, as this article points out... some people just won't accept any scientific findings on the subject because if they do, we won't be able to "heal" gay people, or worse... they won't be able to continue to believe that gay people are just choosing to be aberrant.

I could write a paper on this and post it here and it wouldnt change your opinion.

The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence in the scientific community of genetic gayness. It really is simple, but it wont keep people from talking out of their behinds about things that they do not understand so that they can convince people of their opinions.

Here's one thing that should throw a monkey wrench in every person's presuppositions on this issue (if they understand it): synaptic plasticity.

Look it up. Start there.

kamakazi_kal
05-27-2009, 10:16 AM
...

Lev Vyvanse
05-27-2009, 10:18 AM
Pretty good article about genetic properties of homosexuals...

http://www.news24.com/News24/Columnists/George_Claassen/0,,2-1630-1827_1767311,00.html

As I've said, I'm not convinced there is a single gay "gene," but I believe gay people are largely born with a set of genetics/physical properties that lend to them turning out that way.

The funny thing is, as this article points out... some people just won't accept any scientific findings on the subject because if they do, we won't be able to "heal" gay people, or worse... they won't be able to continue to believe that gay people are just choosing to be aberrant.


I looked at the article and read some of the research and I was wrong. There are a ton of scientific studies that show at least a biological link to sexual orientation. One study showed that by measuring the size of the corpus callosum and administering tests to see how the brain is organized the testers could predict sexual orientation with 95% accuracy.

BroncoInferno
05-27-2009, 10:44 AM
You speak as though you are an expert, and you clearly have no idea what you are talking about.

Leave the science to the scientists. What the science says is that there is little to no evidence that gayness is genetic. Anything else is your own biased presupposition, which in your case is clearly non-scientific.

And just what is your expertise in this area of study, jackass? That's right, you have none. The fact is, there ARE studies that show a genetic basis, some of which have been posted in this thread, and it is YOUR backward religious bigotry that tells you otherwise.

The fact is, there is homosexual activity observed amongst pretty much every mammalian species, species which only act on instinct and cannot make "choices." This fact clearly suggests a genetic component to homosexuality in nature, even though it may not conclusively "prove" it.

Black96WS6
05-27-2009, 11:00 AM
Actually you guys are quoting old studies.

The newest studies show there is NOT a genetic trait:

Bearman and Bruckner (2002), analyzed data from a large longitudinal study of adolescents. They found the data did not support genetic influence:

ď Among [identical] twins, 6.7% are concordant [that is, both express same-sex romantic attraction]. [Fraternal] twin pairs are 7.2% concordant. Full-siblings are 5.5% concordant. Clearly, the observed concordance rates do not correspond to degrees of genetic similarity. None of the comparisons between [identical] twins and others ... are even remotely significant. If same-sex romantic attraction has a genetic component, it is massively overwhelmed by other factors.[6]

Black96WS6
05-27-2009, 11:03 AM
JUNE 2008:http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18536986 - NOT GENETIC

Their conclusion is that the expression of same-sex attraction requires a social environment: "More plausible is the idea that genetic expression is activated only under strongly circumscribed social structural conditions. In contrast to other theories considered below, we assume that the close connection between gender identity and sexual identity is socially constructed."

A recent study of all adult twins in Sweden (more than 7,600 twins)[11] found that same-sex behavior was explained by both heritable factors and individual-specific environmental sources (such as prenatal environment, experience with illness and trauma, as well as peer groups, and sexual experiences), while influences of shared-environment variables such as familial environment and societal attitudes had a weaker, but significant effect.

Black96WS6
05-27-2009, 11:08 AM
By the way, those of you that keep insisting there's a "gene" that causes you to be gay...that you're just born that way...

You do realize you're going against what the American Psychological Association says don't you?

As I stated in a previous post, they've reversed themselves and now say being gay is NOT genetic:

http://www.norcalblogs.com/post_scripts/2009/05/apa_reverses_itself_on_cl.html

TailgateNut
05-27-2009, 11:13 AM
By the way, those of you that keep insisting there's a "gene" that causes you to be gay...that you're just born that way...

You do realize you're going against what the American Psychological Association says don't you?

As I stated in a previous post, they've reversed themselves and now say being gay is NOT genetic:

http://www.norcalblogs.com/post_scripts/2009/05/apa_reverses_itself_on_cl.html


That one reeks. Ya gotta love the wording used by the BLOGGER.


"There is no consensus among scientists about the exact reasons that an individual develops a heterosexual, bisexual, gay or lesbian orientation.", and "This is what the Scriptures tell us about why men and women practice the behavior of homosexuality"and to top it off: ""(For they exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever. Amen. For this reason God gave them over to degrading passions; for their women exchanged the natural function for that which is unnatural, and in the same way also themen abandoned the natural function of the woman and burned in their desire toward one another, men with men committing indecent acts and receiving in their own persons the due penalty of their error.) Romans 1:25-27 (NASV)



Mixing religion and science is like mixing beer and milk. It just doesn't work.

BroncoBuff
05-27-2009, 11:18 AM
As I've said, I'm not convinced there is a single gay "gene," but I believe gay people are largely born with a set of genetics/physical properties that lend to them turning out that way.
Speaking of "physical properties," and I don't care if this sounds intolerant or prejudicial, I don't care, I've been pro-gay rights my whole life so I don't have to explain myself to anyone. But: sometimes you can tell a guy/girl is gay just by looking at them. Not clothes, shoes or jewelry, but just looking at them.

And here's a good link again, more scientific: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/en...&dopt=Abstract

BroncoInferno
05-27-2009, 11:18 AM
By the way, those of you that keep insisting there's a "gene" that causes you to be gay...that you're just born that way...

You do realize you're going against what the American Psychological Association says don't you?

As I stated in a previous post, they've reversed themselves and now say being gay is NOT genetic:

http://www.norcalblogs.com/post_scripts/2009/05/apa_reverses_itself_on_cl.html

If there is no genetic component to homosexuality, then please explain why homosexual activity occurs in nature amongst nearly every mammalian species? Amongst dolphins, there has been observed homosexual couples which mate for life. Non-humans do not have the capacity to make "choices", so how can this be explained?

BroncoBuff
05-27-2009, 11:21 AM
I could write a paper on this and post it here and it wouldnt change your opinion.

The fact of the matter is that there is no evidence in the scientific community of genetic gayness. It really is simple, but it wont keep people from talking out of their behinds about things that they do not understand so that they can convince people of their opinions.

Here's one thing that should throw a monkey wrench in every person's presuppositions on this issue (if they understand it): synaptic plasticity.

Look it up. Start there.

Synaptic plasticity is not a controversial theory, it's well-accepted in neurological circles. In fact, synaptic development and connections change with maturity ... when they say "teenage brains are wired differently," that's true ... and their "wires" alter with age.

Spider
05-27-2009, 11:23 AM
By the way, those of you that keep insisting there's a "gene" that causes you to be gay...that you're just born that way...

You do realize you're going against what the American Psychological Association says don't you?

As I stated in a previous post, they've reversed themselves and now say being gay is NOT genetic:

http://www.norcalblogs.com/post_scripts/2009/05/apa_reverses_itself_on_cl.html
So according to you , if a father is worried one of his sons might be gay , the father could rough the kid up , making him do manly things and the queer would be cured ?

Beantown Bronco
05-27-2009, 11:24 AM
Non-humans do not have the capacity to make "choices", so how can this be explained?

Maybe because non-humans DO have the capacity to make choices.

Beantown Bronco
05-27-2009, 11:27 AM
Speaking of "physical properties," and I don't care if this sounds intolerant or prejudicial, I don't care, I've been pro-gay rights my whole life so I don't have to explain myself to anyone. But: sometimes you can tell a guy/girl is gay just by looking at them. Not clothes, shoes or jewelry, but just looking at them.

Looking in the mirror doesn't count. :wiggle:

Spider
05-27-2009, 11:27 AM
Maybe because non-humans DO have the capacity to make choices.

Huh ? ..........

Black96WS6
05-27-2009, 11:36 AM
So according to you , if a father is worried one of his sons might be gay , the father could rough the kid up , making him do manly things and the queer would be cured ?

No, where on earth was that said? All I said was, the latest evidence points to the fact that gayness is not genetic.

So much so in fact, that the APA has actually gone to the lengths of changing their brochures.

If you want to stand up for that lifestyle choice and say they can't help themselves, fine. But science disagrees. And what's next? You going to say pedophiles don't have a choice either? Where's the line?

It all comes down to perversion. They're horny. They're perverted. They're gay :curtsey:

Beantown Bronco
05-27-2009, 11:39 AM
Huh ? ..........

What part don't you get? Animals act against instinct all the time.

tonngo0
05-27-2009, 11:40 AM
Umm, civil unions do not hold the same rights as marriage when it comes to benefits, sorry man. This was actually the driving force for Prop 8.

Well then the people that oppose the Prop. 8 were all wrong. If they wanted the same benefit for civil union as a married couple then they should have ask for that instead of accepting as a married couple. People in Califonria are very open, they are open to support the gays and have nothing against the gays at all, just that they are not open for the gays calling themselve as married couple. Anyway, if you look it up in California, civil union hold the same rights as a married couple so nothing change there just that the gay group wanted the marriage on their certificate.

Tombstone RJ
05-27-2009, 12:40 PM
What's the difference? Interracial. Same sex. Just two people wanting to get hitched and attain the same benefits afforded everyone else.

Yah, I wish it were that simple. Fact is, you know and I know that it won't be long before people are pushing the envelope on marriage.

Right now, most states and most people (the vast majority of people) believe marriage is between one man and one woman.

Now gay advocates want to force everyone to ignore sexual orientation and simply make marriage between any two people. Moreover, the envelope is already being pushed (heard this on the radio, can't confirm it) and I believe it's in Maine (could be 100% wrong here) where a union is now between 3 people. That is, there are two women and one man who all want to be a part of the same marriage.

That's pushing the envelope my friend.

Pretty soon, your gonna have people abusing the institution of marriage and then the legal system is gonna get all bound up with stupid legal cases (why can't a I marry my dog?).

Again, if Maine wants to recognize the a marriage between 3 swingers, great! But that doesn't mean the rest of us have to recognize the marriage also.

epicSocialism4tw
05-27-2009, 12:43 PM
Synaptic plasticity is not a controversial theory, it's well-accepted in neurological circles. In fact, synaptic development and connections change with maturity ... when they say "teenage brains are wired differently," that's true ... and their "wires" alter with age.


Yup.

You have one piece of the puzzle to work with there. Keep digging.

Mountain Bronco
05-27-2009, 12:43 PM
You don't have to recognize it. The state is recognizing it, not a church no are you individually. Don't recognize it, tell them you don't consider them to be married. Keep hating on those who are different or hold different views than you do, you are free to do that here.

I wouldn't mind tying the knot with my dog. She talks back less than my wife!

Spider
05-27-2009, 12:47 PM
What part don't you get? Animals act against instinct all the time.

no they dont , an animal cant understand a choice or the ramification of choice, they follow their senses , instinct ..........

Spider
05-27-2009, 12:49 PM
No, where on earth was that said? All I said was, the latest evidence points to the fact that gayness is not genetic.

So much so in fact, that the APA has actually gone to the lengths of changing their brochures.

If you want to stand up for that lifestyle choice and say they can't help themselves, fine. But science disagrees. And what's next? You going to say pedophiles don't have a choice either? Where's the line?

It all comes down to perversion. They're horny. They're perverted. They're gay :curtsey:

well then if it isnt genetic, then it a choice , and if it is choice , hiring a hooker and then you being rough with your son should fix it .........

Tombstone RJ
05-27-2009, 12:53 PM
I'm sure there are genetic traits that make people more likely to be gay or lesbian, but I doubt there is a gay genetic marker.

For one they have identical twins, some are both gay, some both straight, some a 50/50 gay/straight. So that likely means that environment and experiences play a huge roll in whether or not someone becomes gay.

If it is genetic then they should do some stem cell gene therapy and make sure no dudes are gay. Wouldn't all the straight guys in the room agree that being straight has got to be better. We should push for all our brothers to be fixed!!!!!

But I think that is nonsense, it's not genetic, it's experiences and people just become who they become. Nothing wrong with it, just the way it is. You won't change it through DNA, or trying to go the religious route and make them feel like sinners.

I just don't see why they should get any perks to being married. What do gay people do to help country become stronger and younger?


Homosexuality is a fact. Period.

It's seen throughout the animal world (mainly mammals) and it's been a part of human history since the beginning of well, human history.

I don't deny that homosexuals exist and are a part of the human experience.

That being said, it's not a huge part of human experience. It's a small part but a fact non-the-less. The question is, should this minority who either chooses to be gay, or in fact was born gay, be given the right to marry the same way a hetersexual couple can?

If you think that homosexuality is a choice, then NO WAY do I give gays the same rights as heteros because they CHOOSE to be in a minority. If you choose to be different, then you must accept that you are different and just live with the consequences.

If you think homosexuality is not a choice, that it is in fact a genetic occurance, then YES, I think there is a case to be made of homosexuals to have the same rights to marry as heteros.

But we all know the truth is somewhere in between. I tend to think that homosexuality is more nature than nurture simply because WHY CHOOSE TO BE AN OUTCAST? It goes against human nature want to be different. We all want to be accepted and loved. So why would "Billy" choose to be a homo if he knows his parents will dis-own him (my make believe Billy has a good relationship with his parents). Why would a guy who has 3 kids and a wife, want to blow all that up simply to go live with another guy? Assuming this guy truly loves his kids, and yes he loves his spouse too, but he knows he's gay! He's living a lie, and he wants out. Why do this?

TonyR
05-27-2009, 12:54 PM
That's pushing the envelope my friend.


So was ending slavery and giving rights to African Americans. So was giving women the right to vote. One man's "envelope pushing" is perhaps another's progress.

epicSocialism4tw
05-27-2009, 01:00 PM
So was ending slavery and giving rights to African Americans. So was giving women the right to vote. One man's "envelope pushing" is perhaps another's progress.

Its just like modern Americans to equate everything with slavery or sufferage.

Its like the concept that internet arguments devolve into something that relates the issue to the Nazis. Rights arguments are always equated to slavery, no matter how ridiculous the comparison.

Gay marriage is in no way related at all in any sense to the buying and selling of innocent people against their will. No way, no how. Not even close, and never will be.

Beantown Bronco
05-27-2009, 01:01 PM
no they dont , an animal cant understand a choice or the ramification of choice, they follow their senses , instinct ..........

I disagree.

Just one example of many: Dog dumps trash and eats leftovers while you aren't home. You come home and dog immediately runs for it's hiding place of choice before you even see it or say anything. It does this because it knows it did something that is going to result in punishment.

Beantown Bronco
05-27-2009, 01:03 PM
Pretty soon, your gonna have people abusing the institution of marriage

Pretty soon? Over half of all "normal, hetero" marriages end in divorce. I'd say the "institution of marriage" has been abused for some time now.

Spider
05-27-2009, 01:06 PM
I disagree.

Just one example of many: Dog dumps trash and eats leftovers while you aren't home. You come home and dog immediately runs for it's hiding place of choice before you even see it or say anything. It does this because it knows it did something that is going to result in punishment.
Thats a learned behavior ......... hardly choice

Beantown Bronco
05-27-2009, 01:08 PM
Thats a learned behavior ......... hardly choice

He's making the choice to dump the trash to get whatever is in there after weighing the benefits vs. the punishment.

If it wasn't a choice, if it was instinct or whatever, then he'd do it every time I left the house....not just certain times.

Tombstone RJ
05-27-2009, 01:17 PM
So was ending slavery and giving rights to African Americans. So was giving women the right to vote. One man's "envelope pushing" is perhaps another's progress.

Equating someone's right to marry their dog is not the same as ending slavery. There is something called common sense and when people lose site of that, then idiocy is rampant.

Tombstone RJ
05-27-2009, 01:20 PM
Pretty soon? Over half of all "normal, hetero" marriages end in divorce. I'd say the "institution of marriage" has been abused for some time now.

That's not what I'm saying. You can't stop people getting a divorce, not when both parties involved have a choice to end the marriage.

I'm talking about 3 people getting married because well, they want to get married.

Spider
05-27-2009, 01:29 PM
He's making the choice to dump the trash to get whatever is in there after weighing the benefits vs. the punishment.

If it wasn't a choice, if it was instinct or whatever, then he'd do it every time I left the house....not just certain times.

Leave a steak in there

TonyR
05-27-2009, 01:36 PM
Gay marriage is in no way related at all in any sense to the buying and selling of innocent people against their will. No way, no how. Not even close, and never will be.

Agreed, but you're oversimplifying (or failing to see the forest for the trees). What I AM comparing is the denial (or granting) of basic human rights to people. In that sense they are comparable. Some people don't "believe in" homosexuality just as some people didn't believe that African Americans were equal (or human).

TonyR
05-27-2009, 01:37 PM
...then idiocy is rampant.

Idiocy IS rampant.

epicSocialism4tw
05-27-2009, 01:39 PM
Agreed, but you're oversimplifying (or failing to see the forest for the trees). What I AM comparing is the denial (or granting) of basic human rights to people. In that sense they are comparable. Some people don't "believe in" homosexuality just as some people didn't believe that African Americans were equal (or human).

Nah man...you may as well quit while you are behind. That kind of garbage is an insult to slaves. Not in a funny way, but in a "shaking my head in disgust" kind of way.

Beantown Bronco
05-27-2009, 01:41 PM
Leave a steak in there

I do (either that or something equivalent in his/her eyes) every day. Sometimes, such items get left out on tables by the kids. Sometimes they are still there when I come home; sometimes they aren't.

And, while on the topic of food, dogs clearly make choices about what foods they will eat. It's not universal, even within a specific breed. Some simply won't eat things that others within the same breed will scarf down in seconds.

Food is just one example where choices are made. Toys are another. Dogs clearly make choices when they decide what they are going to play with. Some toys interest them. Some toys do not. Not all toys are liked by all dogs. They make the choice. It can't be forced on them to like certain things.

Spider
05-27-2009, 01:44 PM
I do (either that or something equivalent in his/her eyes) every day. Sometimes, such items get left out on tables by the kids. Sometimes they are still there when I come home; sometimes they aren't.

And, while on the topic of food, dogs clearly make choices about what foods they will eat. It's not universal, even within a specific breed. Some simply won't eat things that others within the same breed will scarf down in seconds.

Food is just one example where choices are made. Toys are another. Dogs clearly make choices when they decide what they are going to play with. Some toys interest them. Some toys do not. Not all toys are liked by all dogs. They make the choice. It can't be forced on them to like certain things.I disagree , the fact you leave steak in there and he doesnt knock it over proves it is a learned behavior

cutthemdown
05-27-2009, 01:47 PM
Pretty good article about genetic properties of homosexuals...

http://www.news24.com/News24/Columnists/George_Claassen/0,,2-1630-1827_1767311,00.html

As I've said, I'm not convinced there is a single gay "gene," but I believe gay people are largely born with a set of genetics/physical properties that lend to them turning out that way.

The funny thing is, as this article points out... some people just won't accept any scientific findings on the subject because if they do, we won't be able to "heal" gay people, or worse... they won't be able to continue to believe that gay people are just choosing to be aberrant.


Let's say they identified the genes that make people maybe turn gay. They precursor ones you say may exist.

If they could alter those to eliminate that, and offered it to parents before baby was born, how many of you would choose to

a- do nothing
b- make the switch and therefore eliminate the chance of child being gay.

I bet about 80% or more would make the switch, get the straight kid.

Mountain Bronco
05-27-2009, 01:54 PM
In this country you are free to make choices. You are free to choose to be gay. There are consequences to that choice, just like there are consequences to any choice. Cause and effect and all that. Why should the consequence be not being able to marry? How does it harm you as a straight married couple. Does it take away your benefits? NO. Does it harm you? Only if you have "morals" that are easily offended, which is a consequence of your coice of morals.

I just don't get the harm it causes. Please respond with some more instituion of marriage stuff, it is a sound argument.

JohnnyV
05-27-2009, 01:58 PM
In this country you are free to make choices. You are free to choose to be gay. There are consequences to that choice, just like there are consequences to any choice. Cause and effect and all that. Why should the consequence be not being able to marry? How does it harm you as a straight married couple. Does it take away your benefits? NO. Does it harm you? Only if you have "morals" that are easily offended, which is a consequence of your coice of morals.

I just don't get the harm it causes. Please respond with some more instituion of marriage stuff, it is a sound argument.

I agree with you 100%...it's just like they want to throw the U.S. Constitution out the window

Mountain Bronco
05-27-2009, 01:58 PM
Let's say they identified the genes that make people maybe turn gay. They precursor ones you say may exist.

If they could alter those to eliminate that, and offered it to parents before baby was born, how many of you would choose to

a- do nothing
b- make the switch and therefore eliminate the chance of child being gay.

I bet about 80% or more would make the switch, get the straight kid.

Screwing with the genetic process could have serious unintended consequences. Would it make the child retarded? What else does the "gay" gene do? Can I pick to just eliminate the limp wrist gene, but keep him gay, that is the part I hate the most. Can I get rid of the dark hair gene as well so we can realize Hitlers dream of a blond Arian world?

Wholly cow.

epicSocialism4tw
05-27-2009, 02:01 PM
In this country you are free to make choices. You are free to choose to be gay. There are consequences to that choice, just like there are consequences to any choice. Cause and effect and all that. Why should the consequence be not being able to marry? How does it harm you as a straight married couple. Does it take away your benefits? NO. Does it harm you? Only if you have "morals" that are easily offended, which is a consequence of your coice of morals.

I just don't get the harm it causes. Please respond with some more instituion of marriage stuff, it is a sound argument.

Marriage is an "institution" and has been for a long time because it is the means by which people are able to build a foundation for their children. It helps to ensure the healthy continuation of the species from generation to generation.

It doesnt take a genius to see why someone may have issues with what gay "marriage" potentially does to that institution.

It's hard to see past your own nose into the future effects of choices and decisions that you make today for most people in the modern fast food generation. There are (shhhhhhh!) consequences for our choices! Unfortunately, we have taught our children that there are none. They get medals for losing.

mr007
05-27-2009, 02:01 PM
Well then the people that oppose the Prop. 8 were all wrong. If they wanted the same benefit for civil union as a married couple then they should have ask for that instead of accepting as a married couple. People in Califonria are very open, they are open to support the gays and have nothing against the gays at all, just that they are not open for the gays calling themselve as married couple. Anyway, if you look it up in California, civil union hold the same rights as a married couple so nothing change there just that the gay group wanted the marriage on their certificate.

Umm, that would require a change of <b> Federal </b>law.....

Guess which one is easier to change? Civil Unions do not Federally hold the same rights as Married couples. If you read my first post you'd see I was talking about the Federal and not State Gov't.

BroncoInferno
05-27-2009, 02:03 PM
Maybe because non-humans DO have the capacity to make choices.

Um, no, not intellectual choices. They act on instinct.

cutthemdown
05-27-2009, 02:06 PM
Screwing with the genetic process could have serious unintended consequences. Would it make the child retarded? What else does the "gay" gene do? Can I pick to just eliminate the limp wrist gene, but keep him gay, that is the part I hate the most. Can I get rid of the dark hair gene as well so we can realize Hitlers dream of a blond Arian world?

Wholly cow.

I would think those same issues come up when fixing genes that cause down syndrome etc.

BroncoInferno
05-27-2009, 02:08 PM
Marriage is an "institution" and has been for a long time because it is the means by which people are able to build a foundation for their children. It helps to ensure the healthy continuation of the species from generation to generation.

It doesnt take a genius to see why someone may have issues with what gay "marriage" potentially does to that institution.

It's hard to see past your own nose into the future effects of choices and decisions that you make today for most people in the modern fast food generation. There are (shhhhhhh!) consequences for our choices! Unfortunately, we have taught our children that there are none. They get medals for losing.

Please describe some of the "consequences" gay marriage will cause for heterosexual couples. Be specific.

BroncoInferno
05-27-2009, 02:13 PM
There's is a pretty big problem with the notion that homosexuality is a choice, lacking a genetic component. If everyone is by nature born a heterosexual, that means each person has natural sexual desires for the opposite sex. That would mean that the homosexual for whatever reason suppresses that natural instinct to mate with the opposite sex, and somehow manufactures sexual desires for members of the same sex. Why in hell would anyone choose to do that? It makes no sense at all.

mr007
05-27-2009, 02:16 PM
There's is a pretty big problem with the notion that homosexuality is a choice, lacking a genetic component. If everyone is by nature born a heterosexual, that means each person has natural sexual desires for the opposite sex. That would mean that the homosexual for whatever reason suppresses that natural instinct to mate with the opposite sex, and somehow manufactures sexual desires for members of the same sex. Why in hell would anyone choose to do that? It makes no sense at all.

Anyone who cannot agree with this has serious problems.

Black96WS6
05-27-2009, 02:24 PM
I agree with what another poster said earlier. If they want the same state rights (such as tax breaks) then create a proposition that says that.

Don't force a change of marriage definition on me, that I am against.

And another thing to think of, there's supposed to be separation of church and state, but by getting involved like this, the state really isn't.

And what if Prop 8 went the other way? Now, you'd have gay people suing churches for refusing to marry them, or, you'd have the state telling churches they can't tell them not to be gay against their religious beliefs.

And someone else mentioned the 2 guys, 1 wife, etc. Why not polygamy then? Why not have 10 wives?

It starts to become a quagmire. At some point the state has to admit that its values are based on Judeo-Christian ethics. Isn't that what our values of right and wrong are based on anyway?

Right now it's ok, because what they do in their closet is between them and God (and whomever they're doing that with). And I certainly can't throw stones, I live in a glass house.

But coming out of their own glass house and forcing me to say "Yes, you are not doing anything wrong, I am ok with you twisting the sanctity of marriage", I cannot agree with. I can't stand idly by and watch truth and what's right and wrong be thrown to the ground and trampled on.

A lot of people confuse what is legal and what is moral.

Black96WS6
05-27-2009, 02:30 PM
There's is a pretty big problem with the notion that homosexuality is a choice, lacking a genetic component. If everyone is by nature born a heterosexual, that means each person has natural sexual desires for the opposite sex. That would mean that the homosexual for whatever reason suppresses that natural instinct to mate with the opposite sex, and somehow manufactures sexual desires for members of the same sex. Why in hell would anyone choose to do that? It makes no sense at all.

Because they don't think like you and I do. They're perverted man. It's a turn-on for them. You can't put yourself in their shoes.

Why do some people lie, cheat on their wives, commit murder, etc? Same thing really. They make the choice to do those things. No one forced them to be that way.

Archer81
05-27-2009, 02:34 PM
No, where on earth was that said? All I said was, the latest evidence points to the fact that gayness is not genetic.

So much so in fact, that the APA has actually gone to the lengths of changing their brochures.

If you want to stand up for that lifestyle choice and say they can't help themselves, fine. But science disagrees. And what's next? You going to say pedophiles don't have a choice either? Where's the line?

It all comes down to perversion. They're horny. They're perverted. They're gay :curtsey:


Sexuality has several factors. Genetics and environment are 2 of them.


:Broncos:

JJG
05-27-2009, 02:58 PM
Originally Posted by BroncoInferno
There's is a pretty big problem with the notion that homosexuality is a choice, lacking a genetic component. If everyone is by nature born a heterosexual, that means each person has natural sexual desires for the opposite sex. That would mean that the homosexual for whatever reason suppresses that natural instinct to mate with the opposite sex, and somehow manufactures sexual desires for members of the same sex. Why in hell would anyone choose to do that? It makes no sense at all.

Anyone who cannot agree with this has serious problems.

It's hard to understand why someone would choose to go against societies norms, but thats absolutely no evidence that homosexuality is or is not a choice.

TheReverend
05-27-2009, 02:59 PM
Um, no, not intellectual choices. They act on instinct.

Instincts involve use of crude tools and communication now...?

Chimpanzees, dolphins and other well evolved creatures want to meet you.

Popps
05-27-2009, 03:14 PM
A lot of people confuse what is legal and what is moral.

We legislate morality, whether people want to believe that or not. Those are the aims of criminal and civil laws.

I think you're confusing your religious or personal beliefs with what is "moral."

A large percentage of the population does not feel gay marriage is immoral, and I don't see any evidence to support the idea that gay people cause any more harm to their communities than straight people.

Do you have that info? I don't.

So, you can bring morality into this if you want, but your personal morals don't dictate society's morals. Societies morals are a collective experience, and right now... California is saying that they don't want gay marriage. So, societally, we're still in a place where we don't find it productive.

You don't have to like gay people, but you'll have to accept them into society, like it or not... and most likely, they'll wind up being able to marry.

This isn't about your personal feelings.

mr007
05-27-2009, 03:16 PM
It's hard to understand why someone would choose to go against societies norms, but thats absolutely no evidence that homosexuality is or is not a choice.

Do you know or have you known gay people growing up? There's no answers for many things in life, one of which happens to be homosexuality. Between my beliefs and experiences, it occurs naturally. No sane person chooses to be rejected, judged, and overall considered an outcast by the majority of society.

JJG
05-27-2009, 03:39 PM
Do you know or have you known gay people growing up? There's no answers for many things in life, one of which happens to be homosexuality. Between my beliefs and experiences, it occurs naturally. No sane person chooses to be rejected, judged, and overall considered an outcast by the majority of society.

Raider fans say hi!

but seriously, there are lots of people who are outcasts of society by choice. Sexuality is just one small facet. I dont see how that is any evidence for the gay gene

The majority of society may consider them outcast, but they find their support system with a partner and/or the gay community. It can be their source of strength to stand up to "the norm"

BroncoInferno
05-27-2009, 04:39 PM
Because they don't think like you and I do. They're perverted man. It's a turn-on for them. You can't put yourself in their shoes.

Why do some people lie, cheat on their wives, commit murder, etc? Same thing really. They make the choice to do those things. No one forced them to be that way.

Equating homosexuals with murderers. Nice. Why do people do those things? Because there is a clear benefit to them if they get away with it. The thief has obtained something they wanted but could not have for whatever reason. The murderer has been rid of a person they despised, or received some other sort of gratification (i.e. sexual, feelings of power, etc) in the case of serial killers. What does the homosexual have to gain other than the ridicule of ignorant people like you who equate them with murders and call them perverted?

TonyR
05-27-2009, 05:56 PM
Nah man...you may as well quit while you are behind. That kind of garbage is an insult to slaves. Not in a funny way, but in a "shaking my head in disgust" kind of way.

I'm sorry that you can't see past your own personal bias and prejudice on this topic.

I realize that there is a large difference between the two issues, but there are also similarities. If you open your mind you'll see them.

Before slavery was ended many people thought African Americans were lower forms of life who didn't deserve the freedoms of the white men and so in their minds slavery was okay.

Today, many people feel that homosexuality is immoral and/or unnatural and therefore homosexuals can't be married.

In both cases human beings were denied basic rights because of the beliefs of other people. Whites were allowed to be free, blacks weren't. Today, heterosexuals are allowed to marry, homosexuals are not.

HAT
05-27-2009, 06:02 PM
What does the homosexual have to gain?

The same thing the guy with the foot fetish, the piss fetish or midget fetish gains. Gratification.

TheReverend
05-27-2009, 06:19 PM
I'm sorry that you can't see past your own personal bias and prejudice on this topic.

I realize that there is a large difference between the two issues, but there are also similarities. If you open your mind you'll see them.

Before slavery was ended many people thought African Americans were lower forms of life who didn't deserve the freedoms of the white men and so in their minds slavery was okay.

Today, many people feel that homosexuality is immoral and/or unnatural and therefore homosexuals can't be married.

In both cases human beings were denied basic rights because of the beliefs of other people. Whites were allowed to be free, blacks weren't. Today, heterosexuals are allowed to marry, homosexuals are not.

Very true. Basic rights are being infringed.

Now slavery may have infringed on more and much more severely...

Besides, isn't the look on the father's face as that piece of him dies inside enough shame for gay people to bare?

GreatBronco16
05-27-2009, 06:19 PM
Every time this debate comes up, all I hear about why they want to be married is to gain some sort financial kickback. And it never has anything to do with the fact that they actually love the person and want to spend the rest of their life with them and start a family. Maybe I'm just old school, but I didn't get married thinking I would get money in some way, shape or form, but I married my wife because I love her and wanted to start a family with her.

But what is really the financial gain that you get by being married? Being married with kids is pretty damn expensive these days.

Black96WS6
05-27-2009, 06:20 PM
Equating homosexuals with murderers. Nice. Why do people do those things? Because there is a clear benefit to them if they get away with it. The thief has obtained something they wanted but could not have for whatever reason. The murderer has been rid of a person they despised, or received some other sort of gratification (i.e. sexual, feelings of power, etc) in the case of serial killers. What does the homosexual have to gain other than the ridicule of ignorant people like you who equate them with murders and call them perverted?

Did you miss the part again where they're horny and perverted? What do you not get about that?

What do they get out of it? Sex with a guy (for male homosexuals). It's wrong. It's "taboo". It's a turn-on for them.

Stop trying to put yourself into their shoes. You don't have their paradigm. You didn't grow up like them, make their choices, have their environment, and didn't slowly keep going down the wrong path until you actually thought it was "ok" to do these perverted acts or brushed your conscience away.

And some people will steal just to steal, lie just to lie, etc. Even murder. They get a charge out of it. They make that choice. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? And if you want to continue to have this discussion, don't call me ignorant because I disagree with you. It makes you look like the ignorant person, not me.

Unlike you, I haven't thrown family values and the knowledge of what's right and wrong down the toilet. Why do you think they refer to it as "coming out of the closet"? Because they do those wrong things in the dark, and don't want people to know. Deep down their conscience I'm sure was/is bothering them (depending on how far down that path they've gone until they've completely supressed it).

Ever wonder why the world is as screwed up as it currently is, and getting worse?

Part of it is because we're tossing the correct moral standards right out the window. Flushing them down the toilet. And we only have ourselves to blame for the consequences.

TheReverend
05-27-2009, 06:38 PM
Did you miss the part again where they're horny and perverted? What do you not get about that?

What do they get out of it? Sex with a guy (for male homosexuals). It's wrong. It's "taboo". It's a turn-on for them.

Stop trying to put yourself into their shoes. You don't have their paradigm. You didn't grow up like them, make their choices, have their environment, and didn't slowly keep going down the wrong path until you actually thought it was "ok" to do these perverted acts or brushed your conscience away.

And some people will steal just to steal, lie just to lie, etc. Even murder. They get a charge out of it. They make that choice. Why is that so hard for you to comprehend? And if you want to continue to have this discussion, don't call me ignorant because I disagree with you. It makes you look like the ignorant person, not me.

Unlike you, I haven't thrown family values and the knowledge of what's right and wrong down the toilet. Why do you think they refer to it as "coming out of the closet"? Because they do those wrong things in the dark, and don't want people to know. Deep down their conscience I'm sure was/is bothering them (depending on how far down that path they've gone until they've completely supressed it).

Ever wonder why the world is as screwed up as it currently is, and getting worse?

Part of it is because we're tossing the correct moral standards right out the window. Flushing them down the toilet. And we only have ourselves to blame for the consequences.

Strong brainwashing.

I salute the skills of your cult leader.

GreatBronco16
05-27-2009, 06:40 PM
Strong brainwashing.

I salute the skills of your cult leader.

Game set match. If you don't agree with someone, tell them they are part of a cult.:thumbs:

TheReverend
05-27-2009, 06:45 PM
Game set match. If you don't agree with someone, tell them they are part of a cult.:thumbs:

Uhhh... you realize that's directed at the guy who's not agreeing with people and calling them "wrong", "taboo" and "immoral", right?

Hello, pot.

Signed,
Kettle.

GreatBronco16
05-27-2009, 06:56 PM
Uhhh... you realize that's directed at the guy who's not agreeing with people and calling them "wrong", "taboo" and "immoral", right?

Hello, pot.

Signed,
Kettle.

On the post that you quoted of his, I didn't see him calling anyone(meaning other posters) wrong or taboo or immoral. But continue on Kettle.

Signed,
Pot.