|
|
|
|
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/17/2008 6:48:19 AM | ^^^ I agree, basically. I've never seen why they'd felt it necessary to outlaw polygamy either. As long as the practice follows other basic laws (which admittedly are for the best -- such as not forcing 13 or 14 yr olds into marriages with old men who already have several wives) then I don't see what the problem with it is really. So legalize polygamy as well as same-sex marriage. Either way polygamy would more than likely still remain , just like marriage between two people of the same gender, a minority practice in the overall bigger picture. And the "Christian Right" (except for Mormons) would be madder than a Baptist in a brothel  , which would make me  | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/17/2008 7:26:31 AM | Any minority that side steps a vote of the people in something that will affect the people in one or more ways by going to the courts to get a ruling by constitutional rights and not by what the general populace endorses.....that is pushing an agenda of a minority upon the majority IF the majority has shown they are against it.
First off, your argument is a logical fallacy, "argumentum ad populum", in that it assumes that because a majority believes something to be true or right (which is questionable in itself in this instance) that belief must BE true or right. Majority belief is not a valid measure of truth.
Secondly, one of the primary reasons for having a "constitution" in any country is to protect the rights of individuals from infringment by a majority belief/decision ("tyranny of the majority", a subject discussed at length by many influential philosophers and a significant raison d'etre for the US constitution).
In short, the mere beliefs of a majority does not, under US constitutional law, grant them an automatic right to infringe on the rights of a minority where no demonstrable harm to the rights of the majority can be shown no matter how strongly that belief is held. SCOTUS and other courts have long upheld this principle and will likely continue to do so as they rightly should. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/17/2008 8:34:17 AM | The U.S is a sausagefest, there are more men than women ( contrary to popular belief)
I don't know where you are getting your data but your wrong,according to the 2000 census women still outnumber men in the US:
http://nationalatlas.gov/articles/people/a_gender.html
Some areas on the country have a higher male:female ratio but several areas have a higher female:male ratio.Most farming,mining and contruction areas have more men because they do the bulk of the work.Most immigrants(legal and illegal) are men because they are looking for work and once they get a home their wives immigrate.
I couldn't imagine having multiple wives and I doubt the majority of people on this planet would also. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/17/2008 9:20:36 AM |
I don't know where you are getting your data but your wrong,according to the 2000 census women still outnumber men in the US:
http://nationalatlas.gov/articles/people/a_gender.html
You are talking about 2000, this is 2008, and even back then, they didn't count everybody, they left out MILLIONS of people out ! They didn't even count illegals back in 2000, you can be sure that over 60% of them are men, coming here to do heavy work like construction, agriculture,etc. Not only the U.S, the world is a sausagefest. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/17/2008 6:19:02 PM | "First off, your argument is a logical fallacy, "argumentum ad populum", in that it assumes that because a majority believes something to be true or right (which is questionable in itself in this instance) that belief must BE true or right. Majority belief is not a valid measure of truth."
Well Mungojoe, what we have going here is something that is actually quite more powerful then the power a politician holds or that power a minority can gather up to get what it wants by going through the legal system. It is more powerful then what is held right or wrong by the populace. Tradition. Tradtion can keep something going for centuries if not longer. This is not a matter if the tradition is correct or incorrect. We don't have a majority of a population that is against homosexual relationships. We don't have a majority of a population against some sort of recognizeable civil union for homosexuals. But what we do have, and it has been proved everytime this gays for equal marriage rights as hetros goes before the public for a vote and is voted against, is a majority that "feels" through a tradition that has been happening for a long, long time, that the piece of paper declaring two people as a married couple belongs to hetrosexual couples only.
This ceremony can be traced wayyyy back as a religious celebration. Whether it took place in a native village, a small town or a city, a "holy" man of sorts usually did the honors and the community celebrated.
Now we jump to our time period and almost anyone can marry anyone one else. It is no longer a "religious" ceremony as once it was. Now it's usually just a ceremony with a few in attendence or many in attendence. But the value of the religious aspect, that is all but gone. But even though the religious aspect is mostly gone, the thought by most that a marriage certificate belongs to a hetro couple lives on. When that traditional thinking is all but gone like the religious value, I will bet then you will see marriages for gay and bigamy and polygamy instituted. It won't be a forced issue any more. It will come down to rights. Constitutional rights and the constitution shall be amended and so will many other aspects the founding fathers put in motion.
Something people miss here is that this is more then a "gay rights" issue. And the courts have the hindsite to see this. This is a issue of human sexuality and who and what exactly does a human have a legal right to have sex with whether it be a another human or an animal or a thing in or out of a marriage scenairo. That is where this issue shall ballon into in the near future. Polygamy and bigamy shall be next for marriage certificates.
Those into beastality shall have their day also. It is a form of human sexuality no matter how disgusting people find it. It is now where homosexuality once was, in the closet, not allowed out of it, but it shall be where the gay issue is now one day. Why do I believe that? Because the only thing those who are involved in it will have to prove to the courts is that having sex with an animal can be as safe as a human having sex with another human. The issue of the animal giving consent shall not even be approached or else the base ownership rights that a human has of an animal shall be questioned because that animal never said it wanted to be owned as a pet!
We are getting farther and farther away from what is morally well and correct for what a person has a right to do or not do. This will be the downfall of our constitution. The constitution was brought forth by the morals that guided the logical thoughts of the men that put it together. They had no idea that one day it would be wrong to consider things from a moral perspective as we constantly do it now in our courts of law. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/17/2008 6:28:25 PM | | It sounds like your argument then runs, in short, basically like , officially "approving" of homosexuality in any way = slippery slope towards bestiality ruining our constitution. Practicing bestiality is a manifestation of a mental illness, possibly severe -- similar to other severe paraphilias, eg, coprophilia/coprophagia, necrophilia, etc (all of which, including true bestiality/zoophilia, are quite rare in any case). Do you feel homosexuality is on a par with these kinds of things? As of the mid-1970's homosexuality is no longer in the DSM as a manifestation of any sort of mental illness or disorder. No more so than masturbation is. It sounds like, through this kind of argument (that basically, if we let this continue, eventually people will be lining up to marry animals outside courthouses around this nation), you at some level feel that homosexual behavior of any sort is roughly speaking morally equivalent to bestiality. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/17/2008 6:44:46 PM | Yawn.  All of the California Supreme Court justices have had their terms confirmed by voters.
The solution to this is simple, but nobody wants to do it. Marriage is a religious institution, it needs to be removed from government. If the government wants to subsidize unions between heterosexual or homosexual couples and/or subsidize their dependent children because it is beneficial to the state, so be it, but that is not marriage. If a workplace wants to give benefits to an employee's partner or dependent children, that's a called a benefit, not marriage. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/17/2008 8:50:06 PM | "It sounds like your argument then runs, in short, basically like , officially "approving" of homosexuality in any way = slippery slope towards bestiality ruining our constitution."
Neither homosexuality nor beastiality shall ruin the constitution. It is the way in which "rights" are being established in courts of law without a moral base that shall be the down fall. We in our day are changing what is moral and what is not moral in comparison to what was moral and what was not moral just 50 years ago. You have to follow the train of thought of humans to see where this is going. It is obvious. Once upon a time the only acceptable form of sexuality among various human populations was hetrosexuality. Any other form of human sex was considered by most immoral, perverted, wrong, evil, sordid, etc. So now, of all of those forms of sex, sex with the same species has found a place of approval. So as it stands now in our day and time, hetrosexuality and homosexuality are the only acceptable forms of human sexuality and all the rest are immoral, perverted, wrong, evil, sordid, etc. The next two forms of human sexuality that are most popular though illegal are beastality and pedophilia. To hetrosexuals and homosexuals these forms are immoral, perverted, wrong, evil, sordid, etc. But of the two, I bet beastiality shall have it's legal day in court long before pedophilia will get there.
"Practicing bestiality is a manifestation of a mental illness, possibly severe -- similar to other severe paraphilias, eg, coprophilia/coprophagia, necrophilia, etc (all of which, including true bestiality/zoophilia, are quite rare in any case)."
I just Googled the word animal sex and this was the result..."Results 1 - 10 of about 22,800,000 for animal sex." I also Googled beastiality and this was the result..."Results 1 - 10 of about 1,680,000 for beastality." A lot of "mentally ill" out there eh? One day, maybe not in our time, they to will be seen as "normal."
"Do you feel homosexuality is on a par with these kinds of things?"
No, alone it is not. But the encompassing field of "human sexuality" and it's diversness, it is on par with all it's forms as tagged normal or abnormal.
"As of the mid-1970's homosexuality is no longer in the DSM as a manifestation of any sort of mental illness or disorder. No more so than masturbation is. It sounds like, through this kind of argument (that basically, if we let this continue, eventually people will be lining up to marry animals outside courthouses around this nation), you at some level feel that homosexual behavior of any sort is roughly speaking morally equivalent to bestiality."
All forms of human sexuality are equivilent to each other because of one single factor..."a human is performing sex" with whatever be it living or dead. That is my point. I am not equating hetro sex to sex with the dead anymore then I am equating homo sex to sex with animals.
I am equating all forms of sex a human can preform in one catagory because a human is preforming the act whether it is an acceptable act of sex or at present an unacceptable form of sex. And as time edges foreward, humans of most natons are becoming more and more tolerant of various forms of sex a human takes part in then at any previously recorded era. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/17/2008 9:02:50 PM |
The solution to this is simple, but nobody wants to do it. Marriage is a religious institution, it needs to be removed from government.
The real solution is exactly the opposite. Marriage is a legal institution, and it's religion, not government, that needs to get out of it. Any change in the legal status of marriage is necessarily a public policy issue, and the ignorance, bigotry and superstition of religion are incompatible with good public policy. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/17/2008 9:06:07 PM |
We are getting farther and farther away from what is morally well and correct for what a person has a right to do or not do. I fail to see the "immoral" aspect of a gay marriage. I thought it was "moral" for two people to commit to each other.
There are a lot of people out there who consider it "immoral" not to believe in God ... but non-religious people ARE NOT "immoral". Of all the people I know, unfortunately more and more, I'm finding the more "religious" ones are the "immoral" ones. But I guess that's all in the interpretation. I personally consider it "immoral" to lie and cheat and just in general ... be a hypocrite. I sure don't want those people telling me what I should consider "immoral" or "moral" ...  | |
|
| |
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/17/2008 9:17:32 PM |
Marriage is a religious institution
Marriage is not just some lucky charm from God, as if there was something magically religious about it.
Marriage is also a social contract apart from religion. A marriage between two people of the same sex does nothing to deny those who see a religious nature to it simply because the word is the same in any way other than in their own mind. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/17/2008 9:57:49 PM |
"Practicing bestiality is a manifestation of a mental illness, possibly severe -- similar to other severe paraphilias, eg, coprophilia/coprophagia, necrophilia, etc (all of which, including true bestiality/zoophilia, are quite rare in any case)."
I just Googled the word animal sex and this was the result..."Results 1 - 10 of about 22,800,000 for animal sex." I also Googled beastiality and this was the result..."Results 1 - 10 of about 1,680,000 for beastality." A lot of "mentally ill" out there eh? One day, maybe not in our time, they to will be seen as "normal."
Results 1 - 10 of about 22,300,000 for slavery
Does this mean the majority of people believe in slavery? You’re kidding, right?
Because the “Google” comment is beyond sad, I can only imagine that all your logical faculties are running based on the same faulty connections. Mostly ignorance based.
There are legal consequences that exist in tangent with the word marriage. These legalities would prohibit a marriage contract between more than two people, therefore, your argument has no basis in reality or in conjunction with the logic that exists in the laws of this land.
You also seem to be confusing a tradition with how and when humans should and can have sexual relations. That has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of which two people can be given all the protections and benefits that the law allows, simply by granting the observance of a “marriage contract”. You see, that is ALL that marriage is meant to be in the eyes of the law; a contract. The problem is not tradition, if the tradition is tied in any way to religion, because religion has no place being instituted within the law. The problem is not the inability of two people to enter into a binding contractual agreement. The problem is not that permitting the extension of these contractual benefits hurts society in any way. In fact the only problem is the problem I see in the arguments you give. Those arguments include a severe ignorance of how things work, as well as, a severe lack of motivation to listen to the opposition and research the new information provided. I suspect this is NOT a matter of tradition, but rather a matter of a lazy mind, all too willing to allow the tradition of bigotry and prejudice to be handed to another generation.
Yours, is a path of traditional legacy, but it is not the one most would desire to leave behind, anymore than we would want to reinstate slavery or segregation.
Knowledge is within our grasp but having it doesn't guarantee that is will override a deeply ingrained sense of bigotry. | |
|
| The End Is Near
Posted: 5/17/2008 10:38:38 PM |
You have to follow the train of thought of humans to see where this is going.
I do not see it to be the runaway train that you do.
I'm reminded of that JayCee guy who calls into 'Coast-to-Coast AM' every once in a while and rants about how the world is going to hell-in-a-handbasket because people are having sex with toasters and stuff...
BREAKING NEWS
MSNBC staff and news service reports
updated 16 minutes ago
SAN FRANCISCO - The California Supreme Court has overturned a ban on gay marriage, paving the way for California to become the second state where gay and lesbian residents can marry.
Two States down, forty eight to go.
Happy International Day Against Homophobia, btw!
 | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/17/2008 11:41:32 PM | Emotionalheat said....
Results 1 - 10 of about 22,300,000 for slavery
"Does this mean the majority of people believe in slavery? You’re kidding, right?"
I'm curious Emotional....did you even google the words I did and did you check to see how many of those listed sites had nothing to do with the listing? Neither did I say the majority of people believe in beastality. I did say it was a growing portion of human kind. a very large growing portion that increases in numbers every year.
Maybe before you fly off the handle, you should do some checking so you'll understand what I was speaking about instead of understanding what you wanted it to mean.
"Because the “Google” comment is beyond sad, I can only imagine that all your logical faculties are running based on the same faulty connections. Mostly ignorance based."
If ignorance is bliss your in a pool of the stuff because your first response shows you have no knowledge of what was said that I made statements to that come from statistics and web sources that you have the same oppertunity to learn from. But as you stated...your ignorance is bliss. Keep on talking.....
"There are legal consequences that exist in tangent with the word marriage. These legalities would prohibit a marriage contract between more than two people, therefore, your argument has no basis in reality or in conjunction with the logic that exists in the laws of this land."
What exactly was my argument? I didn't know I had an argument going. I'm in ignorance here Emotional so show me what my argument was and whom it was with ok????
"You also seem to be confusing a tradition with how and when humans should and can have sexual relations."
I was confusing nothing. You are confusing what I said. I was showing the difference between how people thought of something and why they thought that way just 50 years ago in comparison to how people now do not think of the same issue for the same reasons now.
"That has absolutely nothing to do with the subject of which two people can be given all the protections and benefits that the law allows, simply by granting the observance of a “marriage contract”. You see, that is ALL that marriage is meant to be in the eyes of the law; a contract."
And that is by today's definition. A definition that we are growing into. Because the one that use to exist was EXCLUSIVE to only HETROSEXUAL couples.
Are you sure you read my post????
"The problem is not tradition,"
The problem WAS tradition. Tradition for the large part of society here in America caused them to believe that marriage was ONLY for a hetrosexual couple. That traditional teaching was and had been well supported and nurtured by the various Christian religions right here in America. Atheists and gays didn't institute that train of thought!!!Christians did!!!!It is termed TRADITIONAL THINKING when you want to prove something theologically or non-theologically that has no sound base for why it should not be. Like hetro marriages good.....homo marriages evil.....that is Christian thinking. It is called TRADITIONAL THINKING and that thinking got a LOT OF LAWS passed that now are being changed by sound based LOGICAL thinking.
"In fact the only problem is the problem I see in the arguments you give. Those arguments include a severe ignorance of how things work, as well as, a severe lack of motivation to listen to the opposition and research the new information provided. I suspect this is NOT a matter of tradition, but rather a matter of a lazy mind, all too willing to allow the tradition of bigotry and prejudice to be handed to another generation. Yours, is a path of traditional legacy, but it is not the one most would desire to leave behind, anymore than we would want to reinstate slavery or segregation. Knowledge is within our grasp but having it doesn't guarantee that is will override a deeply ingrained sense of bigotry."
Your last statements are so far out in left field for what I was not saying......you need to go back and actually READ what I wrote and then QUOTE it to show how what you think I wrote is not what I meant.  | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 7:42:23 AM | We should have no rights given based solely on our sexual preferences...
changed by sound based LOGICAL thinking actually in this case the opposite is occurring. If we were to apply sound Logical thinking we would ask what the actual cause of homosexuality is? If this cause is genetically predetermined or is it environmental? after we made this determination then we would approach the subject of how to treat those afflicted, and to protect their "rights" accordingly.. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 8:34:44 AM | | In my opinion a marriage consists of a male and a female. A family consists of a man, woman, and their children. Gays should NOT be permitted to marry or adopt children. If gays want to live together in harmony and quietly I don't have a problem with that, but when they start demanding equal rights to that of a male/female union I have a problem with that and do not condone it. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 11:08:56 AM |
Remember, someone else's sexual orientation is not your business, just because you don't agree does not make it wrong.
One of the reasons that pedophiles are tracked here in the USA after they have served their time in prison is because they are thought to have an orientation towards children. I take it that you would have no problem at all with a pedophile becoming wed to a child as long as the child was willing. Or perhaps you do have a problem with that based on some personal moral reasoning. Then again, guess that would make you a hypocrite. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 11:29:36 AM | and why can't they have equal rights?
there is no such thing as "gay marriage"
there is marriage
and that is the union between two loving consenting individuals
homosexuality may not be a choice, but living out your life as an openly homosexual person and finding a partner is a choice, and a difficult one at that, and in this country there just happens to be a freedom of choice.
if you dont think homosexuals should be married, then you should ask yourself, "Am I really that superior to someone?" And if your answer is yes, then thank you for being this country back to the dark ages when interracial marriage was prohibited and minority women were sterilized in hospitals. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 11:32:44 AM | Why should the populence be able to dictate ppl's lifes.
Is America not the land of the free?????? That is what you boast about....
In Canada Gay marriages are legal and personally I don't see a problem with that.
Why should same sex couples not be entitled to the bonds of matrimony and be like the rest of us.
Everyone is created equal so it should be equal rights for all.
I don't care if your homosexual or heterosexual... the choice is yours to make.
What bothers me is one group deciding for another what they can and cannot do.
I applaud the Courts for upholding the constitution. You tout yourselves and freedom fighters for democracy yet don't practice what you preach....Shame I say.... | |
|
| |
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 11:41:44 AM | Wow, you actually convinced yourself of your argument...
Holy cow, your one twisted individual if you truly believe what you have said.
Or do you just like to think your a know it all.
There is clearly a very big difference between same sex marriage(commitment) then there is to having sex with animals.
Holy moly I am stunned at your backwards egotistical higher then thou attitude.
Once again shakes head and is glad I am Canadian....
Oh, and the government is already in the marriage game you don't pay to get your marriage liscense to the church...oh no siree bob it goes to the government....
Give your head a shake dude.... I think you need some serious counseling when your comparing the love of two ppl to a sexual act with animals. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 11:51:20 AM | Warthnpassion said....
"One of the reasons that pedophiles are tracked here in the USA after they have served their time in prison is because they are thought to have an orientation towards children. I take it that you would have no problem at all with a pedophile becoming wed to a child as long as the child was willing. Or perhaps you do have a problem with that based on some personal moral reasoning. Then again, guess that would make you a hypocrite."
I'm going to use that line of reasoning to show a paralle of of our modern type thinking. I'm going to show that what we think is not necessarily correct or incorrect but just a way of thinking for us in our time.
Just 60 years ago and beyond, it was common for first cousins to marry. It was common for uncles to marry nieces. If you have did any genealogy you would know that was an accepted thing in those times and happened quite commonly. It was also acceptable for a child to be married off to an older male the moment she began menustration and sometimes promised to an older man by her family a year or so before. People saw nothing wrong in those relationships. But to us now.....all of us had ancestors that believed in incest and were pedophiles to the modern day definition. We think it horrid, perverse, wrong, evil, mental ill that anyone would even entertain being involved in those things in our day and era.
But in their day and time it was horrid, perverse, wrong, evil, mental ill if you had sex with the same sex and it was worse in their opinion if you actually were found to be living together in a same sex relationship. That could get those same sex couples tarred, whipped and hung. But in our day and time.....same sex relationships are thought to be as normal as any hetrosexual relationship.
Amazingly....of any type of relationship that has existed, it is bigamy and polygamy that societies have had a harder time adjusting to then even same sex couples. Now to most those two types have just been perverse to everyone in general. But....we are an era of change regarding human sexual relationships. It will be a while but polygamy will be accepted and passed as a legal form of marriage. When it happens, bigamy shall be close behind because as we are proving in our day and time, what is good for one sex is good for all sexes. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 11:54:12 AM | the constitution does not say they don't have the right, it does say freedom for all regardless of race/religion ect..
And if your homophobic that is your choice, but not one that should be pushed on two consenting adults...
And pulling beastiality and pedofiles into the mix to try to use as a valid argument for two consenting adults being able to have the right to marriage is so ignorant.
And not even close to the same thing.
Those are perversions and are not born of love and commitment.
They are born of a sickness.
But then again Ignorance is bliss.
And for those really ignorant out there, marriage was around long before religion or government I am happy to say...
Religion is not as old as man....and man paired off long before government or religion stepped in to tell us how we should or should not behave. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 12:13:06 PM |
And for those really ignorant out there, marriage was around long before religion or government I am happy to say...
In every culture marriage was always conducted by a holyman(chief,shaman,priest,etc).
and man paired off long before government or religion stepped in to tell us how we should or should not behave.
That would be man and woman paired off. | |
|
|
| Page 3 of 12
|
1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12 |
|
Home
login 
