Way to go California Supreme Court
- Thread starter jmick
- Start date
renogaw
Active Member
I'm not going to go through the whole discussion, but here's my experiences and beliefs.
1) my sister in law is g.ay, is married in mass, and has a kid. I'm sorta disturbed by the kid thing because i'm a little afraid that that child is going to grow up thinking it's normal to have two mommies. They have friends who are g.ay, and who have kids. the oldest boy (about 2) was running around in a skirt at a recent birthday party for my neice...everyone was calling him pretty.
so, how good of a chance is he going to have to grow up straight? how about my neice?
2) a friend of mine of over 10 years told us recently that he (well, i guess she) is transgender. i still don't know how i'm going to deal with this one... but it really disgustded me, mainly because i didn't understand a lot of stuff. after reading a few emails from him, i understand a little more of his issues, but i still think it's wrong.
people say this doesn't happen in nature. id unfortunately have to disagree--look at clownfish...maybe we're more advanced intellectually, but we're really just animals who can think a little bit more, so our bodies/minds are still maybe under nature's rules. who knows.
i must admit though, that if you're going to use the "two consenting adults should be able to choose" argument, then you CANNOT be against in-cest or polygamy. the problem is g-ay/lesb-ian etc has become less taboo over the years, and it's becoming "normal" to be g/l. in-cest/polygamy is just too taboo to be legal yet.
i hate though that the state legislatures are too afraid to do state/country constitutional amendments. this is just paving the road to let judges make things legal based on their own agendas. don't blame the judges people, blame your legislature...vote people in who will stand up for "family values" who aren't afraid to tick off the minority of the voters who do care about samesex marriages. get the constitutions amended so the judges can't make the decisions.
1) my sister in law is g.ay, is married in mass, and has a kid. I'm sorta disturbed by the kid thing because i'm a little afraid that that child is going to grow up thinking it's normal to have two mommies. They have friends who are g.ay, and who have kids. the oldest boy (about 2) was running around in a skirt at a recent birthday party for my neice...everyone was calling him pretty.
so, how good of a chance is he going to have to grow up straight? how about my neice?
2) a friend of mine of over 10 years told us recently that he (well, i guess she) is transgender. i still don't know how i'm going to deal with this one... but it really disgustded me, mainly because i didn't understand a lot of stuff. after reading a few emails from him, i understand a little more of his issues, but i still think it's wrong.
people say this doesn't happen in nature. id unfortunately have to disagree--look at clownfish...maybe we're more advanced intellectually, but we're really just animals who can think a little bit more, so our bodies/minds are still maybe under nature's rules. who knows.
i must admit though, that if you're going to use the "two consenting adults should be able to choose" argument, then you CANNOT be against in-cest or polygamy. the problem is g-ay/lesb-ian etc has become less taboo over the years, and it's becoming "normal" to be g/l. in-cest/polygamy is just too taboo to be legal yet.
i hate though that the state legislatures are too afraid to do state/country constitutional amendments. this is just paving the road to let judges make things legal based on their own agendas. don't blame the judges people, blame your legislature...vote people in who will stand up for "family values" who aren't afraid to tick off the minority of the voters who do care about samesex marriages. get the constitutions amended so the judges can't make the decisions.
renogaw
Active Member
Originally Posted by bionicarm
http:///forum/post/2613625
I don't think any gay couple would care about getting married in a church under the current circumstances. Have you asked every single gay couple that if they had a choice to get legally married, but not get married in a church, they would refuse to get married at all? I think you would find the number of gay couples that are looking at bonding their relationship could care less if it occurred in a church. For that matter, they probably couldn't find a church that would let them have a religious ceremony, since 'they' think their relationships are so immoral. Like I said, put a poll together. Give them a choice. See what they say. That's the bottom line. They just want a choice. Now you find another way of trying to deny this right because you're afraid they may sue someone. Geesh, they couldn't sue a church even if they wanted to. Can't sue those non-profit organizations (Yea right. tell that to billionaires Oral Roberts, John Hagee, or any of these other televangelists).
you obviously have never heard of the unitarian universalist churches...
http:///forum/post/2613625
I don't think any gay couple would care about getting married in a church under the current circumstances. Have you asked every single gay couple that if they had a choice to get legally married, but not get married in a church, they would refuse to get married at all? I think you would find the number of gay couples that are looking at bonding their relationship could care less if it occurred in a church. For that matter, they probably couldn't find a church that would let them have a religious ceremony, since 'they' think their relationships are so immoral. Like I said, put a poll together. Give them a choice. See what they say. That's the bottom line. They just want a choice. Now you find another way of trying to deny this right because you're afraid they may sue someone. Geesh, they couldn't sue a church even if they wanted to. Can't sue those non-profit organizations (Yea right. tell that to billionaires Oral Roberts, John Hagee, or any of these other televangelists).
you obviously have never heard of the unitarian universalist churches...
jdl
Member
Now, the marriage is holy issue, raised by Sigmachris. Being Christian or any religion, for that matter, that holds marriage to be sacred does not make people perfect. People still get divorced. I don't condone divorce and believe there is no such thing as irreconcilable differences, but well meaning people still do it. Who created marriage? Was it not God? Is it then not holy? If you don't want God in your life that's fine, but don't drag His institution of marriage through the gutter. I believe marriage was created by God for a man and a woman as a holy thing.
If marriage is not holy to someone then why do it. It's like spitting in the face of those who do.
in 2008, marriage is not about being holy and god for many, many, many people. I will be married for the 2nd time soon. I love my gf and we have a great life together. But there are 2 reasons I am getting married. 1 = tax reasons. 2 = legal reasons/work benefit reasons. My love for her wont change married or not, but society has these laws and situations where marriage is required. Gay people do deserve these same benefits.
If marriage is not holy to someone then why do it. It's like spitting in the face of those who do.
in 2008, marriage is not about being holy and god for many, many, many people. I will be married for the 2nd time soon. I love my gf and we have a great life together. But there are 2 reasons I am getting married. 1 = tax reasons. 2 = legal reasons/work benefit reasons. My love for her wont change married or not, but society has these laws and situations where marriage is required. Gay people do deserve these same benefits.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by kikithemermaid
http:///forum/post/2613654
I'm not crowing. Okay votes aside, gay people deserve happiness as much as straight people. And if marriage makes them happy, then let them get married! Are all you Conservatives against gays in general, or just marriage?
I don't know if I am really a "conservative" but as I posted earlier in the thread this particular issue isn't a real hot button for me other than I don't like it when someone tries to shove an agenda down my throat. Doesn't make me a homophobe, mean spirited, red neck or any of the other attacks people use to push the agenda.
I personally don't think we need to be trying to make abnormal behavior mainstream.
http:///forum/post/2613654
I'm not crowing. Okay votes aside, gay people deserve happiness as much as straight people. And if marriage makes them happy, then let them get married! Are all you Conservatives against gays in general, or just marriage?
I don't know if I am really a "conservative" but as I posted earlier in the thread this particular issue isn't a real hot button for me other than I don't like it when someone tries to shove an agenda down my throat. Doesn't make me a homophobe, mean spirited, red neck or any of the other attacks people use to push the agenda.
I personally don't think we need to be trying to make abnormal behavior mainstream.
reefraff
Active Member
Originally Posted by JDL
http:///forum/post/2613917
in 2008, marriage is not about being holy and god for many, many, many people. I will be married for the 2nd time soon. I love my gf and we have a great life together. But there are 2 reasons I am getting married. 1 = tax reasons. 2 = legal reasons/work benefit reasons. My love for her wont change married or not, but society has these laws and situations where marriage is required. Gay people do deserve these same benefits.
My "holy" marriage was performed by a judge in my inlaws livingroom
Civil unions grant gays all the benefits marriage does.
http:///forum/post/2613917
in 2008, marriage is not about being holy and god for many, many, many people. I will be married for the 2nd time soon. I love my gf and we have a great life together. But there are 2 reasons I am getting married. 1 = tax reasons. 2 = legal reasons/work benefit reasons. My love for her wont change married or not, but society has these laws and situations where marriage is required. Gay people do deserve these same benefits.
My "holy" marriage was performed by a judge in my inlaws livingroom
Civil unions grant gays all the benefits marriage does.
renogaw
Active Member
Originally Posted by renogaw
http:///forum/post/2613875
I'm not going to go through the whole discussion, but here's my experiences and beliefs.
1) my sister in law is g.ay, is married in mass, and has a kid. I'm sorta disturbed by the kid thing because i'm a little afraid that that child is going to grow up thinking it's normal to have two mommies. They have friends who are g.ay, and who have kids. the oldest boy (about 2) was running around in a skirt at a recent birthday party for my neice...everyone was calling him pretty.
so, how good of a chance is he going to have to grow up straight? how about my neice?
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2613934
All things being equal a child is better off being raised by a man and a woman but I see nothing wrong with allowing gay couples to adopt as long as the kid is cool with the situation.
you didn't read this i'd guess
http:///forum/post/2613875
I'm not going to go through the whole discussion, but here's my experiences and beliefs.
1) my sister in law is g.ay, is married in mass, and has a kid. I'm sorta disturbed by the kid thing because i'm a little afraid that that child is going to grow up thinking it's normal to have two mommies. They have friends who are g.ay, and who have kids. the oldest boy (about 2) was running around in a skirt at a recent birthday party for my neice...everyone was calling him pretty.
so, how good of a chance is he going to have to grow up straight? how about my neice?
Originally Posted by reefraff
http:///forum/post/2613934
All things being equal a child is better off being raised by a man and a woman but I see nothing wrong with allowing gay couples to adopt as long as the kid is cool with the situation.
you didn't read this i'd guess
jdl
Member
Originally Posted by renogaw
http:///forum/post/2613875
so, how good of a chance is he going to have to grow up straight? how about my neice?
Not that i know a ton of gay people, but the ones i do say it is 'genetic'. I claim it is a choice, but i'll never know for sure.
http:///forum/post/2613875
so, how good of a chance is he going to have to grow up straight? how about my neice?
Not that i know a ton of gay people, but the ones i do say it is 'genetic'. I claim it is a choice, but i'll never know for sure.
renogaw
Active Member
personally, i feel it may be a mix of genetics AND environment... i grew up with a strong male rolemodel as a dad, and a strong female presense as a mom. kids born/adopted into a gay relationship won't have the opportunity to know what a guy or a girl is supposed to act like, cause all they will see is two women or two guys kissing, living together etc.
all their parents friends are going to be gay, kissing/living together.
i just don't see how they can get the notion of what is normal (man/woman) when they aren't exposed to it.
as for the genetics, the brain is a little screwy. the "reasons" behind my friend going transgender really shows me he was completely screwed up before his decision that he's really a she. now, he (grr, she?) is less destructive, less angry, etc. there's research showing that his brain may have been washed with estrogen too much while in the womb, which would be causing his brain to crave estrogen, and making him have womanly tendancies.
all their parents friends are going to be gay, kissing/living together.
i just don't see how they can get the notion of what is normal (man/woman) when they aren't exposed to it.
as for the genetics, the brain is a little screwy. the "reasons" behind my friend going transgender really shows me he was completely screwed up before his decision that he's really a she. now, he (grr, she?) is less destructive, less angry, etc. there's research showing that his brain may have been washed with estrogen too much while in the womb, which would be causing his brain to crave estrogen, and making him have womanly tendancies.
aquaknight
Active Member
That does make some sense with the kid and the skirt. Enforcing negative behavior, just like feeding hand scraps to your dog at the table/teaching him to beg.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by crimzy
http:///forum/post/2613381
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?
Because it isn't live and let live. Remember the photographer that was fined because she or he refused to shoot the cerimony?
You don't feel that those who oppose the ban are forcing their belief stucture into our government and the 60% of people who supported the amendment?
As we discussed earlier now if a same gender couple goes to hire a photographer who feels that shooting that event would violate her religious beliefs, now she is forced to shoot the wedding. Or lie. There is no live and let live.
http:///forum/post/2613381
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
Because it isn't live and let live. Remember the photographer that was fined because she or he refused to shoot the cerimony?
You don't feel that those who oppose the ban are forcing their belief stucture into our government and the 60% of people who supported the amendment?
As we discussed earlier now if a same gender couple goes to hire a photographer who feels that shooting that event would violate her religious beliefs, now she is forced to shoot the wedding. Or lie. There is no live and let live.
rylan1
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2613999
Because it isn't live and let live. Remember the photographer that was fined because she or he refused to shoot the cerimony?
You don't feel that those who oppose the ban are forcing their belief stucture into our government and the 60% of people who supported the amendment?
As we discussed earlier now if a same gender couple goes to hire a photographer who feels that shooting that event would violate her religious beliefs, now she is forced to shoot the wedding. Or lie. There is no live and let live.
I don't agree with it... I am open to civil unions.. but let the voters decide.
The photographer has the right to deny the business, but I think a resonable amount of time should be given to let the people who hired him know...but I also think that the couple needs to provide full disclosure before hiring him..
http:///forum/post/2613999
Because it isn't live and let live. Remember the photographer that was fined because she or he refused to shoot the cerimony?
You don't feel that those who oppose the ban are forcing their belief stucture into our government and the 60% of people who supported the amendment?
As we discussed earlier now if a same gender couple goes to hire a photographer who feels that shooting that event would violate her religious beliefs, now she is forced to shoot the wedding. Or lie. There is no live and let live.
I don't agree with it... I am open to civil unions.. but let the voters decide.
The photographer has the right to deny the business, but I think a resonable amount of time should be given to let the people who hired him know...but I also think that the couple needs to provide full disclosure before hiring him..
salty blues
Active Member
Are some of you typing "gay" instead of "homosexual" because gay is shorter to type or because gay is a more politically correct term? I mean, "homosexual" justs sounds kinda' not so good, don't it?
Thinking in reverse, it reminds me of how some abortionists will say anti-choice when referring to pro-lifers to diminish them.
Thinking in reverse, it reminds me of how some abortionists will say anti-choice when referring to pro-lifers to diminish them.
geridoc
Well-Known Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2614021
The photographer has the right to deny the business, but I think a resonable amount of time should be given to let the people who hired him know...but I also think that the couple needs to provide full disclosure before hiring him..
Don't be so sure about the right to deny business. We need a lawyer here, but I seem to recall that there is a general business law that says that once you offer your business service to the public, any member of the public is entitled to purchase the service. You can't decline to sell gas to some people, while selling to others. I'm sure it is more complicated than that, which is why we need a lawyer's comments.
http:///forum/post/2614021
The photographer has the right to deny the business, but I think a resonable amount of time should be given to let the people who hired him know...but I also think that the couple needs to provide full disclosure before hiring him..
Don't be so sure about the right to deny business. We need a lawyer here, but I seem to recall that there is a general business law that says that once you offer your business service to the public, any member of the public is entitled to purchase the service. You can't decline to sell gas to some people, while selling to others. I'm sure it is more complicated than that, which is why we need a lawyer's comments.
rylan1
Active Member
Originally Posted by GeriDoc
http:///forum/post/2614028
Don't be so sure about the right to deny business. We need a lawyer here, but I seem to recall that there is a general business law that says that once you offer your business service to the public, any member of the public is entitled to purchase the service. You can't decline to sell gas to some people, while selling to others. I'm sure it is more complicated than that, which is why we need a lawyer's comments.
I'm sure it is too... because it has to be something in the law that gives business the right to refuse based on safety, comfort, or any other reasonable explanation.
http:///forum/post/2614028
Don't be so sure about the right to deny business. We need a lawyer here, but I seem to recall that there is a general business law that says that once you offer your business service to the public, any member of the public is entitled to purchase the service. You can't decline to sell gas to some people, while selling to others. I'm sure it is more complicated than that, which is why we need a lawyer's comments.
I'm sure it is too... because it has to be something in the law that gives business the right to refuse based on safety, comfort, or any other reasonable explanation.
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2614021
I don't agree with it... I am open to civil unions.. but let the voters decide.
The photographer has the right to deny the business, but I think a resonable amount of time should be given to let the people who hired him know...but I also think that the couple needs to provide full disclosure before hiring him..
I don't remember exactly what happened, but this same gender couple came in asked for this photographer to shoot the wedding. The photographer refused for moral reasons. They sued, the photographer lost because homosexuality due to 3 judges once again forcing their belief system on everyone else falls under civil rights legislation. And had to pay a fine, (although this wasn't a normal court it was something wierd)
btw the voted did decide, and 4 judges didn't like the decision so they overturned the law.
http:///forum/post/2614021
I don't agree with it... I am open to civil unions.. but let the voters decide.
The photographer has the right to deny the business, but I think a resonable amount of time should be given to let the people who hired him know...but I also think that the couple needs to provide full disclosure before hiring him..
I don't remember exactly what happened, but this same gender couple came in asked for this photographer to shoot the wedding. The photographer refused for moral reasons. They sued, the photographer lost because homosexuality due to 3 judges once again forcing their belief system on everyone else falls under civil rights legislation. And had to pay a fine, (although this wasn't a normal court it was something wierd)
btw the voted did decide, and 4 judges didn't like the decision so they overturned the law.
rylan1
Active Member
Originally Posted by stdreb27
http:///forum/post/2614035
I don't remember exactly what happened, but this same gender couple came in asked for this photographer to shoot the wedding. The photographer refused for moral reasons. They sued, the photographer lost because homosexuality due to 3 judges once again forcing their belief system on everyone else falls under civil rights legislation. And had to pay a fine, (although this wasn't a normal court it was something wierd)
btw the voted did decide, and 4 judges didn't like the decision so they overturned the law.
I think he has the right to refuse, especially if the job makes him uncomfortable.. which would be an uncomfortable workplace... the only problem I think would be a question is if they booked him weeks in advance, and he showed up on the day and refused to shoot... leaving them w/o a photographer...
And what about the ban... if there was a ban on it, why should he participate
?
http:///forum/post/2614035
I don't remember exactly what happened, but this same gender couple came in asked for this photographer to shoot the wedding. The photographer refused for moral reasons. They sued, the photographer lost because homosexuality due to 3 judges once again forcing their belief system on everyone else falls under civil rights legislation. And had to pay a fine, (although this wasn't a normal court it was something wierd)
btw the voted did decide, and 4 judges didn't like the decision so they overturned the law.
I think he has the right to refuse, especially if the job makes him uncomfortable.. which would be an uncomfortable workplace... the only problem I think would be a question is if they booked him weeks in advance, and he showed up on the day and refused to shoot... leaving them w/o a photographer...
And what about the ban... if there was a ban on it, why should he participate
?
stdreb27
Active Member
Originally Posted by Rylan1
http:///forum/post/2614055
I think he has the right to refuse, especially if the job makes him uncomfortable.. which would be an uncomfortable workplace... the only problem I think would be a question is if they booked him weeks in advance, and he showed up on the day and refused to shoot... leaving them w/o a photographer...
And what about the ban... if there was a ban on it, why should he participate
?
You can get married all your want, it just won't be recognized legally. (like those cultist in texas were basically married but did not get legally married) But there is no law stopping me and anyone or anything from renting a church or something putting a dress on and putting someone or something in a tux and saying wedding vows. I have no clue what the cerimony was, I don't think it was in mass. Journey posted an article for it earlier in this thread.
Back in the day judges decided that the civil rights acts applied to homosexuals. So you can't deny service based on gender preference just like you can't deny service based on color.
http:///forum/post/2614055
I think he has the right to refuse, especially if the job makes him uncomfortable.. which would be an uncomfortable workplace... the only problem I think would be a question is if they booked him weeks in advance, and he showed up on the day and refused to shoot... leaving them w/o a photographer...
And what about the ban... if there was a ban on it, why should he participate
?
You can get married all your want, it just won't be recognized legally. (like those cultist in texas were basically married but did not get legally married) But there is no law stopping me and anyone or anything from renting a church or something putting a dress on and putting someone or something in a tux and saying wedding vows. I have no clue what the cerimony was, I don't think it was in mass. Journey posted an article for it earlier in this thread.
Back in the day judges decided that the civil rights acts applied to homosexuals. So you can't deny service based on gender preference just like you can't deny service based on color.