California Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Same-Sex Marriage

[Allen Farlow]

Yes, it does seem a bit crazy to keep suing when there are other states they can move to that are more legally-friendly for them (and Lord knows, easier on the taxes than California).

If I'm not wanted, I'm not going to keep beating my head against the wall trying to prove how wrong everyone else is. I can take my money and buying power elsewhere.

Gays can legally marry in Vermont when the law goes into effect in September.

[StrongInTheArm]

I think different species marriage should be banned. Same species seems OK to me. Its just that pigs marrying cows thing that bothers me. Although strictly speaking they are both mammals, and indeed farm animals, so ... OK, I think I better not eat any more of that cheese.

[juliensimon]

I know you are not supposed to copy entire articles but heck, here it is:

Frustration has been rainbow-coloured since the California Supreme Court ruled on Prop 8, upholding the ban of same-sex marriage in the Golden State.

The announcement, made last Tuesday, means the roughly 18,000 couples who married in the short window they were legally able — from mid-June to early November 2008 — will not be affected. Other same-sex couples who want to swap rings from here on out, however, are SOL.

It’s a little disheartening that in an era of change and renewed optimism such prejudice is still legally enforced, no?

Here in Canada, same-sex marriage was legalized province-by-province since 2003, until it was recognized nationwide two years later. It is currently legal in six other countries and is expected to be legal in six U.S. states by the end of the year.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, cyborg assassin from the future and a longtime Republican who upheld the court’s decision, conceded that one day “either the people or courts will recognize gay marriage.” Even former U.S. vice-president Dick Cheney, another killer automaton, voiced his support.

“I think that freedom means freedom for everyone,” Cheney said at the National Press Club earlier this week, echoing statements he made in 2004. “I think people ought to be free to enter into any kind of union they wish, any kind of arrangement they wish.”

Some opponents say it hinders procreation and tarnishes the sanctity of marriage, but people in “traditional” marriages aren’t required to have kids and us straight folks have been ruining the sanctity of marriage for as long as marriages have existed.

Some states offer domestic partnerships and civil unions — a major step in the right direction — but stopping there is akin to the “separate but equal” doctrine under the Jim Crow laws of the late 1800s and early 1900s that had blacks drinking from separate water fountains than whites.

Slavery was legal in the U.S. just 150 years ago, some women couldn’t vote just 100 years ago and the reality of a black president seemed far away just two years ago. It is my belief that we will one day look back on the banning of same-sex marriage — perhaps the last legally-enforced prejudice in North America — with the same humility and quiet shame.

http://www.metronews.ca/vancouver/Co...a-shame-on-u-s

It expresses my thoughts better than I could.

[Allen Farlow]

Allow me to illustrate something.

I am a White male. I once dated a Black female. We met at work, became good friends and went out to dinner one night. Then we began a relationship, just like any two people of the same race.

Funny thing about love, I didn't see her as a Black woman. I seen her as a woman. Plain and simple. Race had nothing to do with the way I felt about her.

Could it not be the same for gays? Might they not see their partner as someone of the same sex but simply as someone they love?

I fail to understand why our lawmakers feel they must stick their noses in people's relationships, while at the same time they do little to discourage homosexual relationships within the American prison system...

People should have the right to love who they wish, without interference from others who mistakenly think they know what's best for everyone just because they have a law degree and happen to wear a black robe.

[krahmaan]

There you guys go again, linking homosexuality with race. There's no connection between the two. They are two completely different things. We can choose either to have sex, or not. No matter if it's hetero sex or homo sex. But one can't choose what race he'll be born.

Now that's a fact that doesn't need any articles.

[ranter]

Originally Posted by krahmaan

There you guys go again, linking homosexuality with race. There's no connection between the two. They are two completely different things. We can choose either to have sex, or not. No matter if it's hetero sex or homo sex. But one can't choose what race he'll be born.

Now that's a fact that doesn't need any articles.

The point he’s trying to make, that love is blind and that race doesn’t make any difference after you got glass or two of good vino and furthermore, under certain circumstances he might fall in love with guy if his parole hearing, for example 10years from now and light conditions in his cell just right.

Just kidding AF, just kidding

But K-man you’re missing the point here.
You personally have NO say with what color of skin you will be born the same way as the gay person on the mercy of conditions that made him/her who they are when they were born.

Deep inside of Amazon’s Rain Forrest tribe completely isolated from civilization has proportional to our civilized society amount of gays whereas the only difference between them and us, premature man doesn’t care or to be exact believes that if their tribe has man who engage in sex with another man then this is the way it should be and treat that man as equal. Something we all can learn from cave men.

[krahmaan]

Originally Posted by Atom

What's that got to do with the price of tea in China? This is about gays, not celibacy.

In reference to my last posts:

I was commenting on how (even in the media), many people display hypothetical reasoning that gays may be born that way. Even though known science still has yet to find a cognitive 'gay gene'.

http://borngay.procon.org/viewanswers.asp?questionID=18

"What is clear, however, is that the scientific attempts to demonstrate that homosexual attraction is biologically determined have failed. The major researchers now prominent in the scientific arena-themselves gay activists-have in fact arrived at such conclusions.

There is no support in the scientific research for the conclusion that homosexuality is biologically determined."

-A. Dean Byrd, PhD

Originally Posted by ranter

But K-man you’re missing the point here.
You personally have NO say with what color of skin you will be born the same way as the gay person on the mercy of conditions that made him/her who they are when they were born.

My point is clear ranter. As with my reply to Atom, there's still no concrete evidence there is a 'gay gene'. But there are tons of evidence that men can be born of African descent.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv.../blackmen.html

So we know one is scientifically sound, that some men have/had no control of being born black (no duh). Then a comparison with a 'hypothetical reasoning' that some people 'may' or 'may not' have any control over being gay.

So thus my point is clear. There is no sound scientific evidence that there's a correlation here between being born with melanin, or 'possibly' and 'highly hypothetically speaking' being born gay. Skin color, is a completely different thing than a sexual preference. Look it up.

Lastly, since this is a discussion on if we feel that it is right for the CA Supreme Court to allow 18,000 gay marriages to be legal. I feel that those marriages should be annulled for the people had voted on law. Those break the law and are in err. Many supporters of gay marriage often make it seem as if those who oppose are somehow oppressing gays.

Then they do things like make a correlation with that to the 400 years of oppression on blacks. Some stating that "gays are born this way". But my point was/is that even science doesn't prove that statement - "they're born gay". But it is true and sound that some men are born black. Research and evidence on this is surprisingly clear.

[Atom]

Originally Posted by krahmaan

In reference to my last posts:

I was commenting on (...)

I know what the hell you were commenting on, you were spewing your celibacy nonsense, if you want to do that, start a topic on the subject, don't do it here.

[Atom]

In fact I think you should have your own thread like I myself have had in the past, you can call it K-dog's Holy Corner or something. I had one entire sub-forum called Atom's Nuthouse about 5/6 years ago. Seriously.



Edit: nope, it was a forum, I remember it now, not a sub-forum. True story.

And, I was an admin!! Holy crap. True story.

Damned memory's been needin some serious kickstartin lately. I take Valtrex for that.

[krahmaan]

Originally Posted by Allen Farlow

krahmaan, you must have missed what I wrote. Let me bold it for you:

I wrote, "Funny thing about love, I didn't see her as a Black woman. I seen her as a woman. Plain and simple. Race had nothing to do with the way I felt about her.

Could it not be the same for gays? Might they not see their partner as someone of the same sex but simply as someone they love?"

I was not saying that homosexuality and race are connected. I was saying nothing of the sort.

But you do draw a correlation in your illustration:

Originally Posted by Allen Farlow

Allow me to illustrate something.

I am a White male. I once dated a Black female. We met at work, became good friends and went out to dinner one night. Then we began a relationship, just like any two people of the same race.

This is where you start the correlation of race and sexual preference.

Originally Posted by Allen Farlow

Funny thing about love, I didn't see her as a Black woman. I seen her as a woman. Plain and simple. Race had nothing to do with the way I felt about her.

Could it not be the same for gays? Might they not see their partner as someone of the same sex but simply as someone they love?

And here you finish that your 'love' for that woman (African), was purely beyond her race. Then you link that with a 'conceived love' that gays may have for someone of the same sex. So here you've just made the correlation on race and sexual preference.

So with your experience you say it was a while ago. But are you still with this woman (African)? Did you really love her? Because if it was truly real love, then I would expect that you'd still be with her. But your words say as if it wasn't really love -because the relationship was in the past, and did not last 'till death do you both part'. So your example is not really even valid, you did not marry her -now did you?

People must ask themselves 'are they really in love, or are they really in lust?' This is the main reason why most marriages/relationships don't last.

Originally Posted by Atom

I know what the hell you were commenting on, you were spewing your celibacy nonsense, if you want to do that, start a topic on the subject, don't do it here.

Don't do what here? This is a discussion on how we feel about the decision by the CA Supreme Courts -isn't it? And that decision is based on the legality of marriage concerning homosexuals -right? A homosexual marriage does have to do with an 'unusual' sex preference that comes with it -no? So my arguments of the option of celibacy does concern and relate to sex practices -does it not? So what makes being chaste irrelevant to this discussion, closely relating to certain sex practices?

I feel your debating tactic here is extremely unfair to those who may lead celibate lives. They are people too -are they not? Let's see here, let me name all the sexual practices I can come up with: Heterosexual, homosexual, zoophilie, necrophiliac, asexual, celibate. All are valid sexual preferences -am I not right? But not all of these are a normal practice -agree not?

Some of these are extremes! Why? Because they stray from the practical use of sex and marriage. That which is man and woman intercourse/marriage/union, thus creating family by the natural act of reproduction. Is this not a sound scientific find?

In my opinion, to argue against how you were actually born is a futile argument to present. Even for gays. I think it's time to wake up and accept who we were born as (male or female), and take responsibility onward. And quit trying to shirk our responsibilities as men and women. We fall farthest when we stray from that which is naturally known. Such as how reproduction comes from sex. If not for that, even the gays would not be born (by a male and a female).

[krahmaan]

Originally Posted by Allen Farlow

"People assume it's boy and girl, but it's so much more than that. There's a whole world out there full of different genders."

This is wrong.

People don't assume gender. It was there before people can assume. Science, biology anatomy, and nature assume genders. Male physiology is identified by certain markers, such as a penis and testicles. While a female's is identified by vagina, ovaries, and breast mainly to feed offspring. But I though this was already widely known?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Human_anatomy

[removed]

As for the topic at hand, I also made my position clear:

Originally Posted by krahmaan

Lastly, since this is a discussion on if we feel that it is right for the CA Supreme Court to allow 18,000 gay marriages to be legal. I feel that those marriages should be annulled for the people had voted on law. Those break the law and are in err.

Perhaps I should step back, and allow others to post how they feel? When some here still haven't done so -clearly. Please carry on.

[Allen Farlow]

Originally Posted by krahmaan

There you guys go again, linking homosexuality with race. There's no connection between the two. They are two completely different things. We can choose either to have sex, or not. No matter if it's hetero sex or homo sex. But one can't choose what race he'll be born.

Now that's a fact that doesn't need any articles.

krahmaan, you must have missed what I wrote. Let me bold it for you:

I wrote, "Funny thing about love, I didn't see her as a Black woman. I seen her as a woman. Plain and simple. Race had nothing to do with the way I felt about her.

Could it not be the same for gays? Might they not see their partner as someone of the same sex but simply as someone they love?"

I was not saying that homosexuality and race are connected. I was saying nothing of the sort.

[krahmaan]

I get tired when people link the struggles of being from the black race, with the struggle of homosexuals. When one could choose to be celibate, but the other cannot choose not to be born of African origin. He would have to be God to do this...

[Atom]

Originally Posted by krahmaan

I get tired when people link the struggles of being from the black race, with the struggle of homosexuals. When one could choose to be celibate, but the other cannot choose not to be born of African origin. He would have to be God to do this...

Choosing to be celibate does not make a gay person not gay.

[krahmaan]

Originally Posted by Atom

Choosing to be celibate does not make a gay person not gay.

But it does make them a celibate, now doesn't it? Thus, controlling the lust for sex -that's all that matters. Now then, if a 'born gay person' was a virgin who chose to be celibate and still was. Then they would not yet be gay. They would still be a celibate.

I've never stated that heterosexuals are not bound by the laws of lust. I guess homosexuals could try and control the sex habit. But without the ultimate goal of sex in mind (reproduction), this would be such a hard feat. Because the understanding of what sex is meant for, would be null and void -thinking that sex is only for pleasure. This perspective is highly wrong, and creates sin. Whether in heterosexual or 'homo' relationships.

I truly believe that there actually is no such thing as 'homosexuality'. Only promiscuity, sexual curiosity, defiance, rebelliousness, & addictiveness to lust for sex. Thus, creating the unnatural terms of say: homosexuality, zoophilia, and necrophilia. All which stray from the understanding of what sex between men and women is ultimately for (reproduction).

This is too simple to not understand this fact. Only the rebellious will choose not to accept it. Now is someone here going to argue that 'necrophilia' is natural as well? And that people are 'born' with a gene to try mating with the dead?

Please, rebuttal.

[Atom]

Originally Posted by krahmaan

But it does make them a celibate, now doesn't it? (...)

What's that got to do with the price of tea in China? This is about gays, not celibacy.

[krahmaan]

How about we just link homosexuals with the European race? I wonder how that would fair in a debate?

[krahmaan]

Necrophiliacs and Zoophiles are people too -no?

[Cricket]

Actually it is about "California Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Same-Sex Marriage"
The fact is the people of California said NO.

Shouldn't their vote count? The California Supreme Court said, yeah, it does count.

[Atom]

Originally Posted by Cricket

Actually it is about "California Supreme Court Upholds Ban on Same-Sex Marriage Upholds Ban on Same-Sex Marriage"

The fact is the people of California said NO.

Shouldn't their vote count? The California Supreme Court said, yeah, it does count.

My point with Krahmaan was that this is not about celibacy.