California Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage.

Want to talk politics, religion, opinion, or Current events? go here.

Moderator: Officers

Re: California Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage.

Postby ThinkInk » Sat May 17, 2008 11:34 am

Gawd, I need to stay out of this discussion! Oooops, too late!

As long as humanity has been around homosexuality has existed. It also exists in the animal world and it's most prevalent amongst primates.

The ancient Egyptians and Romans accepted and condoned homosexual lifetime partnerships in every level of their society.

This didn't become a problem until around the 14th century AD when the church, wanting to minimize their sexual exploits and hide it's inherent homosexual practices, pronounced homosexuality to be an abhorent behavior.

An individual has no choice as to which gender appeals to him or her. It is a trait with which we are born. Denial can lead to devastating tragedies in the lives of those involved, as I am sure most of you have already heard about in the news over the past 5-6 decades as well as the enormous amount of research that has been done in this field.

I am a heterosexual by inclination and education. My parents never indicated that homosexuals were flawed in anyway.

In this country, the good Ole USA, we are granted the freedom to pursue any lifestyle we desire. Why then should we judge those that don't follow the norm?
Perhaps the question should be what is "normal"? And why?
ThinkInk
Member
 
Posts: 820
Joined: Fri Aug 18, 2006 4:50 pm
Location: Tampa, FL

Re: California Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage.

Postby Jamjum » Sat May 17, 2008 1:15 pm

Bilnick wrote:Fact or opinion? If these are facts you are saying lets see some links to legitimate research. If the Ellen Degenreas foundation says there is no difference, I would be skeptical of the validity of the research. If they are just your opinions, state them as such.


How about research done by the APA (american psychological association) : http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/policy/parents.html

theres a bunch of references to the bottom. some highlights

"These include concerns that lesbians and gay men are mentally ill, that lesbians are less maternal than heterosexual women, and that lesbians' and gay men's relationships with their sexual partners leave little time for their relationships with their children. In general, research has failed to provide a basis for any of these concerns (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002; Tasker, 1999; Tasker & Golombok, 1997)."

"there is no reliable evidence that homosexual orientation per se impairs psychological functioning. Second, beliefs that lesbian and gay adults are not fit parents have no empirical foundation (Patterson, 2000, 2004a; Perrin, 2002)"

"The results of some studies suggest that lesbian mothers' and gay fathers' parenting skills may be superior to those of matched heterosexual parents. There is no scientific basis for concluding that lesbian mothers or gay fathers are unfit parents on the basis of their sexual orientation (Armesto, 2002; Patterson, 2000; Tasker & Golombok, 1997)"

"Research suggests that sexual identities (including gender identity, gender-role behavior, and sexual orientation) develop in much the same ways among children of lesbian mothers as they do among children of heterosexual parents (Patterson, 2004a"

"The picture that emerges from research is one of general engagement in social life with peers, parents, family members, and friends. Fears about children of lesbian or gay parents being sexually abused by adults, ostracized by peers, or isolated in single-sex lesbian or gay communities have received no scientific support. Overall, results of research suggest that the development, adjustment, and well-being of children with lesbian and gay parents do not differ markedly from that of children with heterosexual parents."


The AACAP (American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychology http://www.aacap.org/cs/root/facts_for_ ... er_parents

It is the quality of the parent/child relationship and not the parent’s sexual orientation that has an effect on a child’s development. Contrary to popular belief, children of lesbian, gay, or transgender parents:

* Are not more likely to be gay than children with heterosexual parents.
* Are not more likely to be sexually abused.
* Do not show differences in whether they think of themselves as male or female (gender identity).
* Do not show differences in their male and female behaviors (gender role behavior).
Image-ImageImage
User avatar
Jamjum
Member
 
Posts: 1040
Joined: Mon Oct 13, 2003 12:03 am
Location: Camp Pendleton, CA

Re: California Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage.

Postby Antok » Sat May 17, 2008 3:09 pm

if we allow gay marraige? I now pronounce you man and sheep... I really get off to that mutton!!! We demand our rights!! Boy that would be a strange parade :P It's just weird and I'm sorry but I will never accept them as normal as I would not accept a guy that buys a 5lb. chicken from the grocery store and goes home and fucks it.

There is a huge difference between homosexuality and bestiality. Fucking a chicken is wrong for the same reason that fucking a child is wrong. The same arguments cannot be applied to homosexuality, unless you're trying to argue that you shouldn't be able to marry someone who you've fucked without their consent with something four times bigger than is healthy, in which case I would wholeheartedly agree with you.

the most basic laws of nature prove that male/female unions have been and still are what makes any society flourish.. whether it's a human society or one in the animal kingdom, or even friggin plants. Yes there are freaks of nature as exceptions but they are the exception, not the rule. Even down to the smallest atomic structure, 2 unlike charges attract, 2 like charges repel. In addition, it takes a man and a woman to procreate, even if it's done in a petri-dish for some lesbians... it still takes a man and a woman to get that job done... period.

no... they don't. I'd point you to this. Most of that list are flourishing, and certainly none of them have been destroyed by gayness. In many of these species, homosexuality is not a rare aberration. (Though I feel obligated to point out that many animal species use rape as a reproductive strategy, so using them for any kind of moral guide to what's normal is pretty silly to begin with.)

If you feel that gay marriage is wrong because no child can stem naturally from it, I assume you don't want infertile straight people to get married, or those who choose not to make babies?

This is mentioned way more than just casually in the bible, for instance. Since marraige is not just a legal union but also a spiritual one, the church could not possibly endorse gay marraige according to their own doctrines. And most marraiges are preformed in churches.

Do you have the same bible I have?

pretty much any government will view marraige as between a man and a woman because that's how societies work the best. It's how procreation is done that makes new little taxpayers, workers, and population expanders (China needs to stop lol!). It's how a country's churches (also a pillar in any society) feel about the issue. It's also the popular relationship.

It's how societies work best? what?

What society in history that officially endorsed homosexuality is still standing today? The Roman empire? Sodom and Gomorrah? Allowing gay marraige would be the same as allowing a man to marry more than one wife (a couple of countries might still do this) which is also frowned upon in our society. Hey it's a sexual preference by the same definition gays use. Yeah I like screwing more than one woman, lets have a parade and demand to be recognized!! puh-leeze. If you really want to be treated equal keep your damn mouth shut about it and keep it in the closet. Don't ask, don't tell :P

What society in history that officially endorsed equal rights for women before 1800 is still standing today? Clearly, recognizing women as our equals is tantamount to destroying our society!

Gay marriage and polygamy are NOT the same, and are not even fairly comparable. The problem with polygamy is that polygamous relationships have an extreme tendency towards being exploitative and abusive.

The last three hundred years of history in this country has proven beyond any doubt that oppressed minorities do not magically become less oppressed if they decide to shut up about it.

Why do women not want men walking in a women's bathroom?

Funny you mention this; 95% of the bathrooms in Berkeley are coed, and I have never heard a single complaint about it. As far as I know since the policy was introduced maybe twenty years ago, no problems have arisen as a result of it.
A CAT IS FINE TOO!!!
Antok
Member
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:11 pm

Re: California Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage.

Postby Antok » Sat May 17, 2008 3:11 pm

ooh, missed this!

The swingers, bi-curious, or bisexual don't have parades and demands because they see it for what it is

I've seen plenty of bisexual pride parades. Although I think the last one I witnessed was actually hosted in conjunction with the trannies.
A CAT IS FINE TOO!!!
Antok
Member
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:11 pm

Re: California Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage.

Postby Ceruis » Sat May 17, 2008 5:06 pm

Antok wrote:
Why do women not want men walking in a women's bathroom?

Funny you mention this; 95% of the bathrooms in Berkeley are coed, and I have never heard a single complaint about it. As far as I know since the policy was introduced maybe twenty years ago, no problems have arisen as a result of it.


Using Berkeley or any other institution of higher learning as an example for anything doesn't show much intelligent.

In the end, this argument come down to cultural norms within the United States. The way the United States solves things is to put things to a vote. The vote was 60/40 or something like that against gay marriage within Cali. I rightly believe this is a state issue. Now, the Supreme Court in California basically told 60% of the population of one of the most liberal states (or it seems like it anyways) that your vote mean jackshit to us. As far as I'm concerned the Supreme Court of Cali can go get fucked. If ppl in Cali want gay marriage then put it to a vote again instead of ass ending the entire system I believe in.
Alan - Fenny's little helper

App Officer: Tarvas (that me, Ceruis, idiot)

Image
Ceruis, Tarvas
Wife: Mechell
User avatar
Ceruis
Officer
 
Posts: 1990
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:01 pm
Location: Dead in a Ditch!
Highscores: 1

Re: California Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage.

Postby Antok » Sat May 17, 2008 6:14 pm

Ceruis wrote:In the end, this argument come down to cultural norms within the United States. The way the United States solves things is to put things to a vote. The vote was 60/40 or something like that against gay marriage within Cali. I rightly believe this is a state issue. Now, the Supreme Court in California basically told 60% of the population of one of the most liberal states (or it seems like it anyways) that your vote mean jackshit to us. As far as I'm concerned the Supreme Court of Cali can go get fucked. If ppl in Cali want gay marriage then put it to a vote again instead of ass ending the entire system I believe in.

?

The way the US solves things is NOT to put them to a vote. and yeah this is a state issue or at least is considered so by all involved currently, which is why it was handled by a state court and involved a state constitution.

There was a time when slavery had popular support in this country; it was ended anyway, because it was wrong. There was a time when miscegenation laws had popular support in this country; they were ended anyway, because they were wrong. There was a time when sodomy laws had popular support in this country; they were ended anyway, because they were wrong. When the Little Rock Nine wanted to go to school, a majority of Arkansasians didn't want them to, but they got to anyway.

Getting the idea? Popular vote cannot overwrite individual rights. If it could, then most of us would be a million dollars richer and bill gates would be awfully poor.

this is not ass ending the entire system you believe in, unless you hate the Constitution, dislike the idea of protected free speech, and support lynchings.
A CAT IS FINE TOO!!!
Antok
Member
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:11 pm

Re: California Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage.

Postby Ceruis » Sat May 17, 2008 7:49 pm

Slavery...nothing to do with the topic...would of still been a going concern if Lincoln could of used it to bargain the South back into the Union.
Miscegenation laws have nothing to do with gays...why do ppl keep linking blacks civil rights movement and gays together as if the two issue were the same.
Sodomy...I get to do you first.
Arkansas Nine....Piss Eisenhower off and that what you get + plus it was in violation of the 14th amendment of the Constitution which was ratified by the majority of the states.
Protecting Free Speech....all against it...you caught me.
Lynching...every Friday...wanna come?
Yes, I hate the constitution of California...and Texas.

We are still talking about cultural norms here, something which the Constitution of the United States say nothing about. Why is that? Because the founders probably never imagined that one day the issue of people of the same sex ever being allowed to marry would come up. So who has the right to decide, Supreme Court of California or the people?
Alan - Fenny's little helper

App Officer: Tarvas (that me, Ceruis, idiot)

Image
Ceruis, Tarvas
Wife: Mechell
User avatar
Ceruis
Officer
 
Posts: 1990
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:01 pm
Location: Dead in a Ditch!
Highscores: 1

Re: California Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage.

Postby Antok » Sat May 17, 2008 8:10 pm

Slavery...nothing to do with the topic...would of still been a going concern if Lincoln could of used it to bargain the South back into the Union.
Miscegenation laws have nothing to do with gays...why do ppl keep linking blacks civil rights movement and gays together as if the two issue were the same.
Sodomy...I get to do you first.
Arkansas Nine....Piss Eisenhower off and that what you get + plus it was in violation of the 14th amendment of the Constitution which was ratified by the majority of the states.
Protecting Free Speech....all against it...you caught me.
Lynching...every Friday...wanna come?
Yes, I hate the constitution of California...and Texas

All of the things I listed have a common thread; they were situations where a court (or president, etc) took action against a majority-held opinion to defend a minority right. If you call this ass-ending the system you believe in, if you apply the exact same standard to slavery, miscegenation, or sodomy laws, you'll conclude that they also ass-ended the system you believe in.


So who has the right to decide, Supreme Court of California or the people?

The Supremes have the right (and duty) to uphold the constitution of the state of California. All personal opinions aside, it is very very hard to argue that this is an incorrect reading of the state constitution. There is 100% nothing wrong with a state supreme court making decisions that go against popular opinion based off of an accurate reading of a state constitution.
A CAT IS FINE TOO!!!
Antok
Member
 
Posts: 1299
Joined: Tue Jul 25, 2006 5:11 pm

Re: California Supreme Court legalizes gay marriage.

Postby Ceruis » Sat May 17, 2008 9:55 pm

Okay look...nowhere in California's Constitutions Article 1 which is where their bill of rights and associated sections does it say anything about sexual orientation and marriage. Gender, Race, and Religion are all in there.

This is from the dissenting (and concurring) opinion written by Justice Corrigan and sums up some of my feeling on the issue.

In my view, Californians should allow our gay and lesbian neighbors to call
their unions marriages. But I, and this court, must acknowledge that a majority of
Californians hold a different view, and have explicitly said so by their vote. This
court can overrule a vote of the people only if the Constitution compels us to do
so. Here, the Constitution does not. Therefore, I must dissent.

He finishes with:

We should allow the significant achievements embodied in the domestic
partnership statutes to continue to take root. If there is to be a new understanding
of the meaning of marriage in California, it should develop among the people of
our state and find its expression at the ballot box.
Alan - Fenny's little helper

App Officer: Tarvas (that me, Ceruis, idiot)

Image
Ceruis, Tarvas
Wife: Mechell
User avatar
Ceruis
Officer
 
Posts: 1990
Joined: Thu Sep 01, 2005 12:01 pm
Location: Dead in a Ditch!
Highscores: 1

Previous

Return to Real Life and Opinion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron