Way to go California Supreme Court

[mie]

Originally Posted by kikithemermaid
http:///forum/post/2612985
...wow. Reading that just made me sick.
I don't have a mother. So what are you implying?
Like I said there is going to be an exception to the rule.
What i am implying is that it is UNATURAL to raise children in a homosexual relationship. It is also horible that a few judges would overturn the will of the people.

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2613110
Our nation did its part to destroy the native people of our land didn't it or is that a part of our history you've decided to forget?
Well, the photographer is guilty of discrimination isn't she? Wasn't she found guilty and fined? What if it had been an Indian couple or a Muslim couple and the photographer didn't want to participate in a non Christian ceremony? What would you say if a doctor refused them care because they were gay? Would this be alright?
I'm certainly not saying our history is perfect. That is not the argument.
The original point was that legalization of non-traditional marriages doesn't affect anyone else. I'm simply pointing out the fallacy of that belief.

 

[jmick]

Originally Posted by GrouperGenius
http:///forum/post/2613178
I need to keep this litle tidbit for the next big political debate. Who would guess? The few making the decisions, because the many are too stupid.

Was it the will of the people when the supreme court said blacks were equal to whites and deserved the same educational opportunities? When the will of the people is unconstitutional then the courts need to step in and protect the minority group. Also, do we want courts that will bend to the will of the people?

 

[1journeyman]

Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2613112
You're using that frivoulous lawsuit to make some lame point. It could have easily been two black people, two Mexicans, two Islams, pick one, that could have made the very same lawsuit. It's sad you want to inject religion into whether two individuals should have a legal union. You seem to want to go back to a time that is 180 degrees from today's world to make some theological point. Our Founding Fathers never imagined the country would turn out the way it did. Religious zealots continually want to amend the basic rights of the Constitution to fit their ideological agendas. I don't agree or appreciate any group pushing their beliefs on me. Just because a group of people wrote a book claiming there's this one and true powerful being that controls everything we do and say in this world, doesn't mean I have to believe in it. So those of you who do, have no right pushing your beliefs down the throats of individuals who just want to make a good life for themselves.
Where did I come up with 90%? It's just a number out of a hat. Yes, I've read the multitude of posts you've made on this board, and it appears you're an individual who has to have hard-coded facts to believe anything is true. Which is amusing, since you seem to believe in the entity known as God, when you have no physical or hard-coded facts he/she exists. If you don't think it's 90%, have someone do a poll. I'm sure you can find many homosexuals that would be happy to comply. You may find out it's higher than 90%

Frivolous lawsuits set precedents...
Heaven forbid when discussing laws, the future of the Nation, historical facts, etc. I challenge fictitious statistics.
Bionicarm, your premise was that the legalization of Non-Traditional marriages does not affect anyone else if they don't want it to. I showed your original premise is incorrect. Sorry.

 

[mie]

The most unbeliveable part in all of this is like stated before, is how a few people with power can overturn the decision of the people.
And in MOST cases people with problems in life are raised in messed up situations, i.e no mom or dad, or --- abuse problems.

 

[mie]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2613215
Was it the will of the people when the supreme court said blacks were equal to whites and deserved the same educational opportunities? When the will of the people is unconstitutional then the courts need to step in and protect the minority group. Also, do we want courts that will bend to the will of the people?
The ONLY difference is in blacks and white is skin color, thats it.
Blacks were forced into a horrible situation and tried there best to overcome it.
Gays choose to be in there situation and expect everyone else to accept it and make it a part of our culture.

 

[groupergenius]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2613215
Was it the will of the people when the supreme court said blacks were equal to whites and deserved the same educational opportunities? When the will of the people is unconstitutional then the courts need to step in and protect the minority group. Also, do we want courts that will bend to the will of the people?
Revisit your history books please. YES, it was the will of the MASSES.
Check, US Civil War. The masses fought against the few and won.
All men are created equal.......can't put my finger on that, but I know I heard it somewhere.

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by mie
http:///forum/post/2613224
Gays choose to be in there situation and expect everyone else to accept it and make it a part of our culture.
Where did you ever get the impression that gay individuals simply choose to be gay? The biological data are quite clear - there is an environmental component, and there is also a genetic component to sexual preference. It is certainly not a case of a person waking up one day and "deciding" to be gay.

 

[teresaq]

Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2613270
Where did you ever get the impression that gay individuals simply choose to be gay? The biological data are quite clear - there is an environmental component, and there is also a genetic component to sexual preference. It is certainly not a case of a person waking up one day and "deciding" to be gay.

In most cases they are just born this way.

 

[lovethesea]

Originally Posted by mie
http:///forum/post/2613222
And in MOST cases people with problems in life are raised in messed up situations, i.e no mom or dad, or --- abuse problems.

more the reason not to care what sexual orientation the parents are. If they are providing a loving, caring, environment with education, roof over their heads and teaching them to be good decent human beings.
If it weren't for some of these individuals there would be more foster kids/ kids in "the system"

 

[bionicarm]

Originally Posted by 1journeyman
http:///forum/post/2613216
Frivolous lawsuits set precedents...
Heaven forbid when discussing laws, the future of the Nation, historical facts, etc. I challenge fictitious statistics.
Bionicarm, your premise was that the legalization of Non-Traditional marriages does not affect anyone else if they don't want it to. I showed your original premise is incorrect. Sorry.

I'm not sure how or where you suggested my original premise is incorrect. If you're implying the ridiculous photographer lawsuit, as I stated, that could apply to any race, gender, or even religion. Look at the overall picture. Don't just recite one faulty incident to justify your thought process.
People don't understand how "four people can decide what 61% of the people disagree with"? It's called the legal system. How many controversial cases has the US Supreme Court overturned or decided where the majority disagreed? Thank The Constitution and the Founding Fathers for that...

 

[lovethesea]

Originally Posted by mie
http:///forum/post/2613224
Gays choose to be in there situation and expect everyone else to accept it and make it a part of our culture.

you actually believe that these people choose this. They chose to be hated upon, beaten up even killed? They have to generally hide from people like you and many million others and most likely fear for their lives/livelyhood/families etc.

 

[oscardeuce]

Originally Posted by Jmick
http:///forum/post/2612478
What happened to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness?
Abortion rules out the right to life
The gov't has taxed away liberty
Happiness is not garaunteed
What's next, NAMBLA? This is a slippery slope folks. I wish happiness to all, but ramming your morality down my throat leaves a bitter taste, and opens the doors to other groups like NAMBLA.

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2613351
I wish happiness to all, but ramming your morality down my throat leaves a bitter taste, and opens the doors to other groups like NAMBLA.
I think this is the bottom line here. It really makes no difference what you think about gays or gay marriage. The problem is that you think that your moral/religious view should be required and legislated for all people. Bestiality aside

, what's wrong with live and let live?

 

[geridoc]

Originally Posted by oscardeuce
http:///forum/post/2613351
Abortion rules out the right to life
Happiness is not garaunteed
Happiness is NOT guaranteed, only the pursuit of happiness! That's a big difference.

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by katiev
http:///forum/post/2612618
Ugh.
What, exactly, does in-cest have to do with the article I posted? That article was about homosexuality occurring in nature. Not about incestuous human relationships. Pro-gay? ...Yeah. The zoologists and such who study these species probably just made up all of that to spread gay propaganda. <-- Sarcasm.
Actually, there is a BIG difference between romantically loving someone of the same s-ex, and romantically loving one's own sibling. The biggest difference of all (just from a scientific standpoint): Same s-ex couples cannot reproduce. Incestuous couples can. Incestuous relationships = Potentially f'ed up gene pool. Same s-ex relationships = No effect on gene pool. Neither make a positive contribution to diversifying the gene pool, but one certainly makes a negative impact.

That article was written with a pro gay slant on it whether you want to admit it or not. To try to compare the way animals for bonds to human relationships is rediculous in the first place. Put in the right situations animals will form the same bonds with their human keepers as they would with a mate.
The siblings thing was just thrown in as another point.
As far as

[hr]
goes the argument for allowing gay relationships period is that two consenting adults have the right to do what they want. Are not adult siblings consenting adults? It is absolutly no different than allowing same --- couples to hook up. Why would you assume to have the right to judge one and not the other?

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by katiev
http:///forum/post/2612627
...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.
Frequently? That is not even close to accurate

 

[reefraff]

Originally Posted by kikithemermaid
http:///forum/post/2612633
I'm proud of my state for letting people be happy, no matter their sexual orientation, thank you very much.
But 61 percent of your state voted to define marriage as one man one woman.

 

[crimzy]

Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2613425
But 61 percent of your state voted to define marriage as one man one woman.
So 61% of the population is free to marry someone of the opposite gender. No one's trying to impose a certain value system on them.

 

[reefreak29]

Originally Posted by reefreak29
http:///forum/post/2612853
sorry but if you are going to allow same s ex marriage then you need to allow brothers and sisters ,cousins and anyone else get married to someone they have strong feelings for . any how its like beeting a dead horse , its inevitable the bible tells us in the end times this will happen so I guess im happy were getting there sooner then later

like i said before