Way to go California Supreme Court

[katiev]

...Wow. This thread is getting more and more ridiculous, and more and more off topic. My brain hurts after reading alexmir's posts.
Pardon me for veering off, but I wanted to enlighten socal57che to the fact that same s-ex relationships do, in fact, frequently occur in nature.
I'm out. Congrats, California. I'm hoping more states follow.

 

[alexmir]

Just curious how my comments were considered ridiculous........You were using nature as an example that animals, including humans sometimes have same s.,;e,;,x relationships.
And i was using an animal in nature as an example, stating that many things happen in nature that humans dont do.
Seahorse males carry the babies and give birth to them, Salmon swim for miles and days to lay their eggs and die, lemmings jump off cliffs and dogs eat their poop!!!
Many things happen in nature that humans do not do so the statement that animals sometimes have same --- relationships is not a valid argument when saying that homo-s...e,-xual couples should be able to get married.
Then you said that the reason that

[hr]
was not okay was because it has negative effects on the child (which is proven, i am not disagreeing with that), so i said the 2 brothers should be able to get married. They love each other, and their relationship doesn't effect anyone but them!
And people in favor of the same-s...e-)x marriages say that the government should not be able to keep people that love each other from getting married.
So i stated that polygamists should be able to have multiple wives with it being completely legal. They love the woman, and the woman loves the man, so I dont see the problem. The only reason that they can-not is because the people supporting the same.,.s--)ex marriages are down-trodden liberals, and the people who are polygamists are conservative. (not christians, but are God following people).
I apologize that my logic and refusal to support this radical movement made by 4 judges, not the millions that live in the state, but 4 people has made your head hurt!

 

[kikithemermaid]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2612606
Are you proud of your state for voting 61% to ban gay marriage or 4 unelected judges that overturned the the law

I'm proud of my state for letting people be happy, no matter their sexual orientation, thank you very much.

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2612595
You are comparing apples to orange juice. It was a solid legal ruling as far as striking down the interracial marriage ban. This is not so cut and dry.
It is apples to apples when you compare that the majority of America wanted to keep the ban on interracial marriage and that the courts went against the will of the people to make it legal because that was the right thing to do.
In 1948, when California’s Supreme Court became the first state to strike down a ban on interracial marriage, nine out of 10 Americans opposed such unions. Ten years later, the first Gallup poll conducted on the subject of interracial marriage found that 94 percent of whites opposed it, with only 4 percent in favor.
In 1965, at the crest of the civil rights movement, another Gallup poll found that 72 per cent of Southern whites and 42 per cent of Northern whites still wanted to ban interracial marriage. When the US Supreme Court issued its 1967 decision against laws banning interracial marriage, more than 57 percent of Americans still did not approve of interracial marriage.
I'd actually be curious to see a poll of people 30 years old and younger to see what percentage of them would like to see the ban on same --- marriage overturned. I'd bet it'd be the majority; even if you included the south.
This thread has become borderline ridiculous, which isn't that surprising. People have no real reasons why these people should not be able to marry so they make outlandish comparisons and what if's. It'd be easier if they'd just tell the truth and admit that the lifestyle gays and lesbians lead disgusts them or it threatens them or confuses them. It just goes to show that hate and discrimination is still alive and rampant in the US.

 

[bionicarm]

I think the individual's who are so adamantly against this ruling truly don't understand the intent homo$exual couples have for getting this passed. They don't want to invade the churches and make a mockery of the sanctity of marriage. What they strive for are equal rights in regards to their families, health, and safety. As someone else said, homo$exual couples have no legal rights when it comes to health insurance, life insurance, property rights, raising children, etc. That's what they have trying to get passed all these years. The right to have the same legal freedoms as any other married couple, regardless of $exual orientation. Get your minds out of the gutter and take the $exual part out of the equation. Look at it in regards to two individuals who want to share their lives together and have the ability to do so. You stigmatize homo$exuality as some deviant disease. There is no cure for it. You can't fix it, or force someone from being homo$exual. It is just another lifestyle that individual's live. If you don't agree with it, fine. But what makes your lifestyle superior to theirs? Just because some religious fanatic says so? How would like it if the Federal Government came out of the blue and said, "All married couples of Irish decent no longer have legal rights in regards to sharing healthcare, death benefits, or property rights". Of course you'd say that's not right. But would it be because they were a married couple of the opposite $ex, or because they were Irish?

 

[alexmir]

Well since we cant force them to not get married, why can they force peoples children to be taught about trans-s)(e.,-xuals, homo-S.,)exuals, and why some kids have 2 daddies or 2 mommies in the first 2 yrs of school, when they are no where near matured enough to understand.

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by alexmir
http:///forum/post/2612727
Well since we cant force them to not get married, why can they force peoples children to be taught about trans-s)(e.,-xuals, homo-S.,)exuals, and why some kids have 2 daddies or 2 mommies in the first 2 yrs of school, when they are no where near matured enough to understand.
I have no problem with teaching grade school childern about diversity to help build a more tolerant society and if part of it talks about little Billy having two mommies then so be it.
Let me ask you this Alex, if you had your way what would we do with all gays and lesbians?

 

[ibew41]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2612739
I have no problem with teaching grade school childern about diversity to help build a more tolerant society and if part of it talks about little Billy having two mommies then so be it.
Let me ask you this Alex, if you had your way what would we do with all gays and lesbians?
a teachers job is to teach not place their values or political beliefs on others.(public teachers that is)

 

[alexmir]

Well Jmick, i would do absolutely nothing with them. I dont care what they do when 2 men are by themselves, its none of my business. I have absolutely no problem with gay people, but i do not think that the secret bond of marriage was meant to be shared with people of the same ---.
Were you hoping i was going to say something horrible so you could post hate speech on me? sorry, but everyone who opposes gay marriage does not hate gay people. And teaching diversity is ok, but it is not okay when a parent teaches their child in a certain way, and then teachers at school tell them something different for 8 hours a day.

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by IBEW41
http:///forum/post/2612746
a teachers job is to teach not place their values or political beliefs on others.(public teachers that is)
They are more then capable of teaching kids about diversity without adding their beliefs or values. Don't you think the world would be a far better place if we taught our young to be accepting and to have a greater awareness of those around them? Or should we shelter them their whole life?

 

[salty blues]

Sodom and Gommorah pales in comparison to the way society in the US is heading. Liberal activist judges are killing this country. Ronald Reagan must surely be spinning in his grave.

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by alexmir
http:///forum/post/2612748
Well Jmick, i would do absolutely nothing with them. I dont care what they do when 2 men are by themselves, its none of my business. I have absolutely no problem with gay people, but i do not think that the secret bond of marriage was meant to be shared with people of the same ---.
Were you hoping i was going to say something horrible so you could post hate speech on me? sorry, but everyone who opposes gay marriage does not hate gay people. And teaching diversity is ok, but it is not okay when a parent teaches their child in a certain way, and then teachers at school tell them something different for 8 hours a day.
I didn't think you were going to say anything terrible but I was curious to see what you'd say. If marriage is so sacred in our country then why do almost 50% of marriages end in divorce? You might not hate gay people but you certainly don't think they are equal to you because you'd like to keep them from having the same rights you are granted.
What if a child is raised in a home where he or she was taught to hate those who were different from them? Wouldn't it be wonderful if they were taught to be more open minded and accepting from another authority figure?

 

[ibew41]

no they are not because they are human and will place their beliefs on others.Think back to when you where in school did you have teachers telling you their views?By the way my wife is a public teacher in NY and if a parent complains that a teacher has a history of placing their views on politics or religion it is a grounds for dismissal

 

[scotts]

How interesting, society is going to he^^ in a handbasket because two people are in a relationship for years are allowed to get married. Yet there are TV shows where the prize is that two people who really do not know each other get married. Which one is ruining the "sanctity" of marriage?

 

[stdreb27]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2612168
And I wonder what percentage of the people wanted to overturn the ban on interracial marriage? I can only hope you feel that was a good decision, even if was against the will of the majority?
except the whole foundation of our country is by the people for the people. I just didn't realise it ment the 7 people with power in the supreme court. Ignoring the 61% of the people who voted in support of the ban.

 

[bionicarm]

What is everyone who is against this afraid of? You think you may catch "gayness" from them if you allow two people who care for one another to get married simply because they want the same freedoms and liberties given to what you call 'normal' married couples? Again, that's what this law is all about. You make it sound like a gay man wants to dress up in a bridal gown and going prancing down the aisle of your local church to make a spectacle of it all. It's called equality. Nothing more. Yes, there are gay people who flaunt their 'love' in public that seems to disgust the close-minded individuals of this world. But at the same time, I've seen much worse with two people of the opposite genders. But hey, that's OK. It's normal.

 

[socal57che]

Originally Posted by Scotts
http:///forum/post/2612771
How interesting, society is going to he^^ in a handbasket because two people are in a relationship for years are allowed to get married. Yet there are TV shows where the prize is that two people who really do not know each other get married. Which one is ruining the "sanctity" of marriage?
I don't want this garbage streamed into my living room, therefore, I do not have "TV."

 

[salty blues]

Originally Posted by kikithemermaid
http:///forum/post/2612430
Why are you against it? I don't understand.

It's not a matter of for or against. Homosexuality and gay marriage is contradictory to God's natural order and design. It's like saying someone is against eating or breathing. It is totally unnatural to not eat or not breathe. You will perish otherwise.
And please don't tell me some worm or bug is gay. Worms and bugs don't have souls. People do.
And for me, it doesn't even have to get to a point of morality. I have just never understood how a person can be physically and s e x ually attracted to another person of the same s e x.
I don't hate homo s e x uals. I just can't comprehend them.

 

[reefreak29]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2612760
I didn't think you were going to say anything terrible but I was curious to see what you'd say. If marriage is so sacred in our country then why do almost 50% of marriages end in divorce? You might not hate gay people but you certainly don't think they are equal to you because you'd like to keep them from having the same rights you are granted.
What if a child is raised in a home where he or she was taught to hate those who were different from them? Wouldn't it be wonderful if they were taught to be more open minded and accepting from another authority figure?
the average marriage of a gay couple is less then one year go figure

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by salty blues
http:///forum/post/2612834
It's not a matter of for or against. Homosexuality and gay marriage is contradictory to God's natural order and design. It's like saying someone is against eating or breathing. It is totally unnatural to not eat or not breathe. You will perish otherwise.
And please don't tell me some worm or bug is gay. Worms and bugs don't have souls. People do.
And for me, it doesn't even have to get to a point of morality. I have just never understood how a person can be physically and s e x ually attracted to another person of the same s e x.
I don't hate homo s e x uals. I just can't comprehend them.
That's the problem with your disagreement. You want to bring religion into the debate. It has nothing to do with religion. If a homosexual doesn't believe in God, then there shouldn't be any problem with them getting married. AGAIN, it's a legal issue. If you don't want homosexuals getting married in your church, fine. Ban them from having formal religious wedding ceremonies. You'd find they would have no problem with that. You want to chastise a class of individuals because it goes against YOUR moral principles. The religious zealots are who keep this country in the Dark Ages.