| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 12:16:33 PM | Icey43 said....
"There is clearly a very big difference between same sex marriage(commitment) then there is to having sex with animals."
You, like some others are not understanding the legal implications this deals with or else you would not have made the statement you did.
In being a human you have certain "sexual" rights to what you choose to do sexually in most countries and in those same countries their are laws forbidding you from having sex in ways of fashions not approved of by the laws of that land.
At one time homosexuality was equated with beastiality. That is a fact. But that fact is changed. A good lawyer in a court of law, using the non-moral principles that are used more and more to show what are rights to be had and enjoyed could get laws against beastiality changed. But that has not happened because a majority of people think it is evil, wrong, perverse and down right mentally ill to even think of having sex with an animal. When that thinking strays from such a negative tone, beastiality laws shall change.
That was my point. Don't read more into it then I stated. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 12:52:13 PM | | My two cent's about this situation. We live in a country that according to the constitution is a country separate by state and church. Although morality (given by whatever supreme force or being you believe in) dictate and form many of our laws. For a politician to say that gay marriages are against nature and against God, is wrong and UN-AMERICAN!!!! This country can not dictate what in their understanding is "God's" will. If that would ever happen we would be no different then this Islamic-State countries that we consider terrorist. At the end of it all we will be all accountable individually for our action's may it be karma or judgment day. I personally have a good friend that just came out of the closet, and I could not be happier for him. My feelings for him has not changed and in the contrary my respect for him has increased. This goes back to the whole debate, are they born gay or external factors influence such behavior. Let say their is a gay gene, then what? will we become a Fascist country like Nazi Germany and commit murder, to innocent life's? | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 2:36:49 PM |
You, like some others are not understanding the legal implications this deals with or else you would not have made the statement you did.
If you can even hint that legalized gay marriage in any way implies a potential tolerance for bestiality, or that it is even appropriate to bring bestiality into this debate, the only failure of understanding is yours - and it's a failure that goes far beyond understanding the legal issue.
The topic here is gay marriage, NOT bestiality. Homosexuality and bestiality are not related in any way. No matter what may have been thought in the distant past, to introduce bestiality into this debate today is disgusting beyond words.
The same, of course, must be said for other posts involving pedophilia. | |
|
| |
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 5:00:51 PM | Sorry to burst your bubble, but shayman/medicine men ect were not around in the beginning of man, yet man still paired off.
And homosexuality has been around since before Christ...
People are born homosexual.....it is not a choice....
Just as I did not choose to be born female, that is the way I was born.....
I don't see why any person, or person's cannot live in a committed relationship and have that relationship recognized for all benefits. EG: Health/Death benefits ect.
I don't believe in religion never have. I think it was created to keep the masses in line when the groupings of man got too big. Essentially Religion and churches were our first government.
And in ancient times most of those were medicine woman....not men....
Only the woman were taught those arts as the men were hunter/gathers and warriors... | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 5:12:16 PM | Icey43,
I studied anthropology so I know what I am talking about,yes there were medicinewomen but my point was a chief or tribal elder performed the marriage ceremony between the MAN and WOMAN.Marriages were arranged by the parents and the woman usually had no say in the matter,in fact that still goes on in many parts of the world(including Texas). | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 5:35:09 PM |
At one time homosexuality was equated with beastiality. That is a fact. But that fact is changed. A good lawyer in a court of law, using the non-moral principles that are used more and more to show what are rights to be had and enjoyed could get laws against beastiality changed.
Fist you suggest that homosexuality was equated with beastiality. Explain that, I have never seen such an equation? Secondly, you propose that lawyers use “non-moral” principles. Please present an example of a non-moral principle that a lawyer would follow according to you?
But that has not happened because a majority of people think it is evil, wrong, perverse and down right mentally ill to even think of having sex with an animal. When that thinking strays from such a negative tone, beastiality laws shall change.
Yes I may think that ‘beastiality’ is an illness but no amount of legal argument is going to change the fact that the laws require sexual acts can only place between “consenting” adults. The word CONSENTING is the focal point in that conversation.
That was my point. Don't read more into it then I stated.
As someone stated earlier in this thread, you ride the faulty argument of the slipper slope. You do so blatantly, and that can only be due to ignorance or a predetermined homophobic bias.
In the words of Mr.MXYZ
If you can even hint that legalized gay marriage in any way implies a potential tolerance for bestiality, or that it is even appropriate to bring bestiality into this debate, the only failure of understanding is yours - and it's a failure that goes far beyond understanding the legal issue.
The topic here is gay marriage, NOT bestiality. Homosexuality and bestiality are not related in any way. No matter what may have been thought in the distant past, to introduce bestiality into this debate today is disgusting beyond words.
The same, of course, must be said for other posts involving pedophilia.
Very well said, but unfortunately it won’t get past the gate keeper of the mind it was meant to touch.
Cheers to all! And good points Icy43 | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 5:44:53 PM | lostincali, does your theory hold true for the Asian countries as well? I don't recall them having medicine men and women or Shamans?
Also, arranged marriages may have nothing to do with religion, but they do have everything to do with a "contract". In this country, prohibiting any sane and otherwise cabable adult, from enterign into a contract is illegal and to prohibit it bases on selection criteron is discrimination. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 6:58:49 PM | Lost do you seriously think your the only one who has ever studied Anthropology or History....
How much have you studied??????
Have you studied only certain areas ??????
How far back have you studied??????
As every day we are learning more and more of our ancestors before us due to our increasing technology I find this interesting to say the least.
And if you have studied Anthropolgy then you would also know that cavemen....did not have an shayman/medicine men ect and still paired off....if they paired off as men/men woman/woman man woman we don't truly know the answer to that.
But for all the religious one's out their that claim homosexuality is immoral...if I am to understand the teachings of the bible...incest was acceptable... As there were only two ppl created..Adam and Eve..hmmmmmmmm how did we become populated.....
I studied many things, and I also studied Religion, including Mormon/Jehovah/Buddism/Native American/Wiccan/Cathloism ect...and guess what it is all BS.....
Also just b/c something is in print does not mean it is the truth.....
Everyone has certain rights and they include the right to freedom ....and to choose things for themselfs...how arrogant for one to decide how to choose for another.
And yes woman after christ and church were thought of as chatel....isn't that a nice way to think and were prohibited from going to school, learning how to read, write ect..yet in other cultures much much older then Christianity woman were the only one's with Knowlege...
So, you can take it and use it to put a spin on whatever you choose to win your argument if your closed minded, but those that can think for themselves and reason will see the light and follow it to their own truth. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 7:03:00 PM |
if they paired off as men/men woman/woman man woman we don't truly know the answer to that. Yes we do...if they had paired of man/man and woman/woman we probably wouldn't be here ..... | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 7:10:19 PM | okay you want to get into that argument...
So then on the books in some states in American to this day along with other countries it is against the law for your consenting wife to give you oral sex.
It also used to be against the law and punishable by death if you had consenting sex with your wife without the blessing of the king...that is where the term F.U.C.K originated from.
If you seriously think that allowing same sex marriages will lead to the deterioration of mankind then you need to educate yourself.
Mankind will destroy mankind b/c of attitudes like yours.
Our only hope of survival as a species and top of the food chain is to embrace all our brothers and sisters for all our uniqueness.....
When boarders come down and we all live as one community and all work together then we might have a chance of survival.
DNA testing has already proved we all started in Africa.... | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 7:11:42 PM |
if they paired off as men/men woman/woman man woman we don't truly know the answer to that. Yes we do...if they had paired of man/man and woman/woman we probably wouldn't be here .....
Because, just like today, everyone is either homosexual or everyone is heterosexual. There can't be a mix, right? | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 7:21:26 PM | | The great thing about our culture is that we all free to think for ourselves and to make our own judgments. I personally think that gays should not be entitled to any additional rights based on their sexual preference. All they are really after is benefits and compensations. Really when you break it down the whole basis of the argument for gay rights is based on sexual preference alone. Why should that be considered criteria for determining eligibility for rights additional or otherwise? Sorry I think gays should be allowed to marry but not be entitled to any of the benefits given to a heterosexual couple.They should most definitely not be allowed to adopt children until we have determined what the cause of homosexuality is... | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 7:33:05 PM |
Really when you break it down the whole basis of the argument for gay rights is based on sexual preference alone. Why should that be considered criteria for determining eligibility for rights additional or otherwise? Sorry I think gays should be allowed to marry but not be entitled to any of the benefits given to a heterosexual couple.
1. You don't think sexual preference is a valid criteria for determining eligibility for benefits
2. You want heterosexuals to be given a certain set of benefits based on their sexual preference
3. My head asplode | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 7:38:40 PM | Hmmmm on that premise and thinking then no one should be allowed to adopt or have children.
When you think of the children that have been abused physically/sexually/emotionally by their natural parents/adoptive parents/extended family/neighbours.
The cases of incest where a father has abused and even locked up and fathered children by his own daughter are popping up all over the globe.
Homosexuality is caused by genetics...plain and simple just as your being born a female or a male are caused by genetics. Then their are the odd one's that nature has really messed up and they are born with both sexes and forced to become one or the other sex...yes there are cases of this out there even in Canada.
It is a genetic mix up...just as children that are born with mental disabilities ect.
The POINT being just b/c someone is born attracted to the same sex does not make them a sexual deviant or a immoral person.
I have met many hetrosexuals in my life and online that are sexual deviants my god some of the emails I have received leave me aghast.
marriage is about commitment. Two ppl committing to love honour and cherish each other for their life's.
And if you can provide a loving and nuturing home for a child why should you not be able to provide that to a child in need and believe me their are millions of children in need. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 7:39:05 PM | Sigh.. marriage should be abandoned as a legal institution. It's religious or it's personal.. if it needs to be legal then two people can fight over division of assets like roomates when they break up.
The original intent of marriage was to say this woman is going to do it with this man and the babies she has will be his to provide for. We don't need that any more. We have paternity testing and women support themselves just fine. A government that registers which woman and which man are supposed to be living together and getting it on is absurd.
I vote we have legal bonding so that any two people can join their assets or cover one anothers insurance.. regardless of whether they live together or have intercourse of any kind.
If my best friend loses her job and moves in with me; I'd like to be able to put her on my health insurance.
And another thing!!! - We should have socialized healthcare so nobody has to be married to anyone for benefits. | |
|
| |
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 8:45:18 PM | Icy and Emotional heat said....
"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"......"Fist you suggest that homosexuality was equated with beastiality. Explain that, I have never seen such an equation?"
Well lets get something established. Heard of Sweden and how homosexuals like to talk of how accepted it is there? Some don't know the whole story.....
Europe: Early Modern and Modern
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jens Rydström. Sinners and Citizens: Bestiality and Homosexuality in Sweden, 1880–1950. (Chicago Series on Sexuality, History, and Society.) Chicago: University of Chicago Press. 2003. Pp. xiv, 416. $20.00.
This book is a contribution to queer theory whose insights, according to Jens Rydström, should "influence the analysis of society also in a historical perspective" (p. 13). His foremost aim is to study "the gradual modernization of male same-sex sexuality" (p. 20). Using a welter of Swedish court cases and other source material from the period 1880–1950, Rydström seeks to pinpoint a change of perspective in Western society and thought "from a penetrative sodomy paradigm to a masturbatory paradigm of homosexuality" (p. 9). He take as his point of departure the official conflation of bestiality and same-sex intercourse as it appears in Swedish law and legal thinking in the late nineteenth century, exemplified by the Swedish Penal Code of 1864. The connection between bestiality and homosexuality was strong in Sweden, perhaps due to the fact that bestiality had been unusually common in the country for centuries, at least compared to neighboring countries. It led, among other things, to the concept that the passive party in a homosexual relation was exculpated (p. 17).
Contrary to what certain people here on POF think, I do research into mopst any forum I comment on. I usually know what I speak of because I use statistics and references for what I say that are the accepted train of thinking for our day and time.
Now for some reason their are people here who seem to WANT to claim fame to ignorance of what is really happening here with the passage of laws legalizing same sex marriages.
Listen to what I am stating here...google it if you want....LEARN......since America was America various people with various likes of sex that were outside the standardized hetro-union have tried for many times in American courts to get what they like legalized. Homosexuals went to court for their rights and lost. Polygamists and Bigamists have went to court for their rights and lost. There are even recorded instances of where people have tried to get their relationship to an animal legalized and lost. Even pedophilias have went to court for what they thought was their right.
For a long...long...long time all were deni because they were all thought of as perverse, evil and wrong. Some a bit worse and evil then the others. BUT....they all continued to petition the courts for their rights as an American to have the right to have a choice of what they wanted to do sexually.
Finally with Americans making a great divide between religion not being the base for laws anymore.....homosexuals finally had their day in court and found acceptance in the law because religion was no longer a counter point by the offense in a court of law. Two states have passed same sex marriages. More shall do the same. And if you think that polygamists and bigamists are not going to use "gay case precedents" to get their day in court.....you are extremely ignorant of what it means when a person or group sets a precedent for others to use to get what they also want in courts of law. The precedent shall be.......if marriage in American courts is legalized for any two humans regardless of sexual persuasion, then it will be shown by those taking their cases to courts of law that can also be binding for three or more regardless of sexual persuasion.
No matter who likes it or who doesn't like it....the American people are redefining the legal definition that constitutes a contract of marriage between two people.
Now....remember what part of the educated portion of America gave homosexuality the "green light" and that it was not a 'mental disorder' anymore??? The American Psychiatric Association gave that green light.
Well the following is from the Wikipedia which is a pretty good source for up dated news. Now remember Ice and Emotion I said that zoophilia/beastiality/bestiality would one day be seen as an extension of a human's right to their own sexuality as long as no one or thing was being injured........read on.....
"There is currently considerable debate in psychology over whether certain aspects of zoophilia are better understood as an aberration (or paraphilia) or as a sexual orientation. The activity or desire itself is no longer classified as a pathology under DSM-IV (TR) (the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of the American Psychiatric Association) unless accompanied by distress or interference with normal functioning on the part of the person.[2] Critics point out that that DSM-IV says nothing about acceptability or the well-being of the animal, and many critics outside the field express views that sexual acts with animals are always either abusive or unethical."
Did you understand that in the above SHRINKS are now debating (as once they did with homosexuality) whether zoophilia is an actual sexual orientation of the human!!
So call me crazy and whatever but your hearing it form the APA of America!!!!
Not only are Americans redefining marriage of a human.....the content of the type of sexuality that one displays in a marriage to human or non-human form is also being looked at and later then sooner redefined. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 8:48:25 PM | Wickpedia is not a reliable source of information anyone with any intelligence knows anyone can write what they want....
And as for your other source of information just b/c one person writes it does not make it so....... | |
|
| |
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 9:11:23 PM | I beg to differ, Ice. Wikipedia is not a refereed journal but there are protocols for it to be peer reviewed. Over time, articles are edited and improved. So, while you can't cite it in a research paper, the information tends to be pretty good. You still need to double check it for sure.
But you can't wave off the entire argument if the logic is plausible, even if you don't trust the source of the data.
I think MM is right about the way precedents work, and we will soon see polyamorous groups in court. All they have to do is argue that 2 isn't all that much different than 3.
If the APA is no longer branding bestial acts as inherently disordered then issues of distress or harm to self, others, or property (e.g., the animals), would still allow for treatment or prosecution of such acts, and to disallow the extension of spousal rights to animals.
The issues in marriage that give the state a compelling interest are child support, abandonment of a dependent spouse, and inheritance. If a woman with 3 husbands dies, who gets the stuff? | |
|
NERO1
|
Joined: 3/8/2008
Msg: 97 | |
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 9:44:00 PM | So reading pretty much all of this one guy's posts and responses he seems mainly hung up about zoophilia and bestiality and how it will possibly be the logical "next step" for states here to take; your friend has married his same-sex partner, and now you may marry your animal. It's the end of the Republic.
I cannot for the life of me however fathom how in the hell people can foresee that actually happening --whether as an indirect "result" of legalized gay marriages, or even in any other way. I have heard this bestiality kind of argument before, so perhaps it's something that's discussed in .... political round-tables over cake and coffee in evangelical church basements or something, but , I'm just not making the connection between man & man together (or woman & woman) , and man & animal. How would the legal marital recognition of the one lead to the legal marital recognition of the other?!
Even if it did, and if the APA removed it as a mental disorder or what have you (zoophilia that is), and then suddenly the CA Supreme Court decided to allow Californians to begin legally marrying their ... pets .... carrying it out to perhaps the furthest extreme of the argument how would even that development (unless it was YOUR pet he was b@nging) really directly affect you?
Again, the basic issue at the heart of it seems to be some people have such a visceral dislike or revulsion towards homosexual behaviour (even if perhaps they don't realize this fully) that they are roughly putting it on a par with, or placing it as some sort of societal harbinger of, fully "legalized" and officially recognized man-on-animal sex.
| |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 9:50:10 PM | | It happens sure enough. It happens in gay marriage households. The gays are going about their business and their dog runs into the bedroom and hops on the bed and begins to bark. The dog is warning against the ungodliness of gay sex. The gays go in to see what is wrong, and seeing the dog on the bed, well, being gay it naturally gets them thinking about sex with the dog. So they have gay sex and make the dog do bad things. That dog once corrupted gets loose in the neighborhood and goes gay on the other dogs. Those dogs go back into their own homes, wait for their masters to fall asleep, and chew up their wedding albums and pee on their bible and leave the family without proof of its sanctity and vulnerable to evil influence. It's a problem people are ashamed to talk about openly but we have to, for the sake of the children. | |
|
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 9:53:43 PM | Thanks Ace, I know we agree to disagree but we also agree too.
Nero....my points are about the evolution of marriage and humans as it has never went before court systems on this planet till our time era. We are making history and few seem to be aware of it. We are redefining what constitutes marriage and humans and sex and humans and what is approvable and what remains un-approvable.
My present point here has not been about the right or wrong of same sex marriages but how the standards of merit will be used by other human sexual relations that now are being established by same sex marriage cases in courts of law. In the case of Cali and Vermont, we have very liberal thinking governors that over rode and by passed what the public at large did not want to happen just to further their political careers because the minority would become a majority when they'll need their votes in the future. If they did not do it for their political careers as some will state I am sure, then the fact would be is that they would not of went against the majority vote of the people. This is seldom done where a vote of the people is taken to establish what the people want and then that vote is overridden and tossed out the window as heresay and meaningless. That shows the politician(s) involved did it for their careers and not the majority vote.
The ONLY thing at present that is keeping same sex marriages from being fully recognized by law as equal to hetro unions are the votes that are being put to the citizens of each state that show they don't want hom0sexual unions equated with hetrosexual unions. Regardless of the "why" the majority of each state at the voting booths have shown they want a difference to remain. So as it stands, even in one of the states with the largest homosexual societies going, governors have to over ride the populace at large to give homosexuals what they want. Even if doing that is unconstitutional. | |
|
NERO1
|
Joined: 3/8/2008
Msg: 100 | |
| Calif. Supreme Court rejects gay marriage ban......
Posted: 5/18/2008 10:01:28 PM | QUOTE: It happens sure enough. It happens in gay marriage households. The gays are going about their business and their dog runs into the bedroom and hops on the bed and begins to bark. The dog is warning against the ungodliness of gay sex. The gays go in to see what is wrong, and seeing the dog on the bed, well, being gay it naturally gets them thinking about sex with the dog. So they have gay sex and make the dog do bad things. That dog once corrupted gets loose in the neighborhood and goes gay on the other dogs. Those dogs go back into their own homes, wait for their masters to fall asleep, and chew up their wedding albums and pee on their bible and leave the family without proof of its sanctity and vulnerable to evil influence. It's a problem people are ashamed to talk about openly but we have to, for the sake of the children.
^^  | |
|
Home
login 
