[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
If you followed oral arguments, this is not much of a surprise. And, it was the right decision - it wasn’t a decision “for” gay marriage or “against” gay marriage, but rather a decision on the more important question of “who decides?”.
Not only was the court right on the merits, I sense they knew that a ruling striking down Prop 8 would certify California as a banana republic. And it would have. No doubt we will see a political initiative attempting to reverse Prop 8 - precisely as it should be.
This issue remains a tempest in a teacup - I can think of 25 other issues that deserve priority over this political battle, and I am being charitable with that number. But, it is interesting that New York and now California - both liberal vanguards among states in the Union - recognize that the issue is a political one.[/quote]
Cali is bankrupt, taxes are through the roof, and Arnold’s tax proposals got shitcanned by the voters. And all the Hollywierd crowd blows a gasket (and lots of other things) over this stupidity.
They have all the rights of marriage but its just not called that too. They are all a bunch of dumb fucks.
Pray for the whole shitpile to fall into the Pacific.
However, the North is far from being “liberal”…and contrary to popular belief, Latinos and Blacks tend to vote very conservatively when it comes to issues like Gay Marriage.
[/quote]
Well, I don’t agree with one part of your statement. California tends to be divided politically between North and South. The North tends to be Liberal and the South is where you have the Republican bastions…though there does tend to be some corporate support of the Republicans here in Silicon Valley (suburb of San Francisco).
I think the second part of your statement is true, though. It has been noted-perhaps correctly-that the blacks who got out in record numbers for Obama ironically probably carried Prop 8.
I’m genuinely curious about this. Under California Family Code, Section 297-297.5, registered domestic partners have the same rights as spouses. This law was enacted in 2005. If two people, regardless of sexual orientation, fail to take the necessary legal steps to secure their rights, what is the state supposed to do? Whether the route is state-sanctioned marriage or state-sanctioned domestic partnership, the proper hoops must be jumped through.
[/quote]
This is what pisses me off — gays HAVE all the fucking rights but just want to call it marriage to be fucking turds about the whole thing. Doing that just makes their case harder and actually encourages a backlash.
Why they have to take marriage and wipe their collective asses with it may actually show that gays are crazy and/or evil.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
thunderbolt23 wrote:
If you followed oral arguments, this is not much of a surprise. And, it was the right decision - it wasn’t a decision “for” gay marriage or “against” gay marriage, but rather a decision on the more important question of “who decides?”.
Not only was the court right on the merits, I sense they knew that a ruling striking down Prop 8 would certify California as a banana republic. And it would have. No doubt we will see a political initiative attempting to reverse Prop 8 - precisely as it should be.
This issue remains a tempest in a teacup - I can think of 25 other issues that deserve priority over this political battle, and I am being charitable with that number. But, it is interesting that New York and now California - both liberal vanguards among states in the Union - recognize that the issue is a political one.
Cali is bankrupt, taxes are through the roof, and Arnold’s tax proposals got shitcanned by the voters. And all the Hollywierd crowd blows a gasket (and lots of other things) over this stupidity.
They have all the rights of marriage but its just not called that too. They are all a bunch of dumb fucks.
Pray for the whole shitpile to fall into the Pacific.
[/quote]
I might not mind if we fell off into the Pacific, I might end up with beach front property
[quote]forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
You are basically claiming that because homosexuals cannot marry they are promiscuous.
No. You cannot accurately conclude anything about the stability of gay relationships, while denying gays the right to marry. Why? Because marriage is specifically designed to improve stability, by virtue of the legal responsibilites and privileges it entails. It’s not rocket science. How do you expect to compare the stability of gay and straight relationships, without controlling for the influence of marriage on these relationships?
[/quote]
We can easily conclude that homosexual men are the most promiscuous group in America and perhaps the world. Even in societies which have gay marriage! If your argument is they are so promiscuous because they cannot marry it is a poor defense indeed given those pesky facts.
You want us to believe that if homosexuals were given the right to marry each other that they would suddenly become a less promiscuous group? Are you are saying that all of the other udgly categories that they lead in relative to health stats would suddenly change?
They lead in:
STD’s
Alcoholism
Anal warts
Suicide
Depression
Anxiety
Drug Usage
(Oh, I can’t really list them all but you get the idea)
All that would suddenly change if they were given the right to marry? Yet, in countries where they are allowed to marry the stats pretty much stay the same.
Hmm
Also, poll after poll shows that most gay men would NOT marry even if given the opportunity. In fact, in places where it is legal the overwhelming majority choose NOT to marry. It seems that most (not all) would rather live a lifestyle of debauchery. Homosexual marriage has been legal in Canada for about four years now and the overwhelming majority choose not to marry.
Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night forlife, that’s what is really important.
[quote]ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
You are basically claiming that because homosexuals cannot marry they are promiscuous.
No. You cannot accurately conclude anything about the stability of gay relationships, while denying gays the right to marry. Why? Because marriage is specifically designed to improve stability, by virtue of the legal responsibilites and privileges it entails. It’s not rocket science. How do you expect to compare the stability of gay and straight relationships, without controlling for the influence of marriage on these relationships?
We can easily conclude that homosexual men are the most promiscuous group in America and perhaps the world. Even in societies which have gay marriage! If your argument is they are so promiscuous because they cannot marry it is a poor defense indeed given those pesky facts.
You want us to believe that if homosexuals were given the right to marry each other that they would suddenly become a less promiscuous group? Are you are saying that all of the other udgly categories that they lead in relative to health stats would suddenly change?
They lead in:
STD’s
Alcoholism
Anal warts
Suicide
Depression
Anxiety
Drug Usage
(Oh, I can’t really list them all but you get the idea)
All that would suddenly change if they were given the right to marry? Yet, in countries where they are allowed to marry the stats pretty much stay the same.
Hmm
Also, poll after poll shows that most gay men would NOT marry even if given the opportunity. In fact, in places where it is legal the overwhelming majority choose NOT to marry. It seems that most (not all) would rather live a lifestyle of debauchery. Homosexual marriage has been legal in Canada for about four years now and the overwhelming majority choose not to marry.
Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night forlife, that’s what is really important.
Dam those facts.
[/quote]
Have you actually posted the sources for these “facts” elsewhere? Or do you just think that claiming something is makes it so? In particular I’d love to see the “facts” about how “[quote]in countries where they are allowed to marry the stats pretty much stay the same.[/quote]” and “[quote]poll after poll shows that most gay men would NOT marry even if given the opportunity.[/quote]” Are these “facts” coming from NOM per chance?
[quote]forlife wrote:
False. There is no proof that genetics account for 100% of the variance in sexual orientation, any more than it accounts for 100% of the variation in any other human characteristic. However, there is substantial proof that genetics account for a statistically significant portion of the variance in sexual orientation. Biology absolutely plays a role, and saying it doesn’t is uneducated at best and dishonest at worst.
[/quote]
Actually, longitudinal twin studies have shown that about 1/4 of chronic disease is attributable to genetic factors. So if we can extrapolate from that at best you could say that 1/4 of gays are so by genetics. However, you could also say that for any antisocial/deviant behavior as well.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
You are basically claiming that because homosexuals cannot marry they are promiscuous.
No. You cannot accurately conclude anything about the stability of gay relationships, while denying gays the right to marry. Why? Because marriage is specifically designed to improve stability, by virtue of the legal responsibilites and privileges it entails. It’s not rocket science. How do you expect to compare the stability of gay and straight relationships, without controlling for the influence of marriage on these relationships?
We can easily conclude that homosexual men are the most promiscuous group in America and perhaps the world. Even in societies which have gay marriage! If your argument is they are so promiscuous because they cannot marry it is a poor defense indeed given those pesky facts.
You want us to believe that if homosexuals were given the right to marry each other that they would suddenly become a less promiscuous group? Are you are saying that all of the other udgly categories that they lead in relative to health stats would suddenly change?
They lead in:
STD’s
Alcoholism
Anal warts
Suicide
Depression
Anxiety
Drug Usage
(Oh, I can’t really list them all but you get the idea)
All that would suddenly change if they were given the right to marry? Yet, in countries where they are allowed to marry the stats pretty much stay the same.
Hmm
Also, poll after poll shows that most gay men would NOT marry even if given the opportunity. In fact, in places where it is legal the overwhelming majority choose NOT to marry. It seems that most (not all) would rather live a lifestyle of debauchery. Homosexual marriage has been legal in Canada for about four years now and the overwhelming majority choose not to marry.
Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night forlife, that’s what is really important.
Dam those facts.
Have you actually posted the sources for these “facts” elsewhere? Or do you just think that claiming something is makes it so? In particular I’d love to see the “facts” about how “in countries where they are allowed to marry the stats pretty much stay the same.” and “poll after poll shows that most gay men would NOT marry even if given the opportunity.” Are these “facts” coming from NOM per chance? [/quote]
He’s posted and sourced this many times.
Most gay men are that way because they couldn’t get a woman anyway, at least one who wouldn’t peg 'em.
First, I never said my friend lived in Cali and in fact, I don’t remember where he lived when this happened, would have to ask. Second, there are a lot more “protections” and “privileges” provided to married couples than domestic partners, most of them are federal. Third, I can’t believe anyone would think a man is gay because he couldn’t find a woman. That is outright ignorance and homophobia, right there. And why is homosexuality considered debauchery? Just because you don’t believe it’s right doesn’t mean it’s wrong. Debauchery, according to Webster’s dictionary, is defined as: extreme indulgence in sensuality or seduction from virture or duty.
Homosexuality, does not fit into that definition. Orgies are debauchery, maybe swingers’ parties are debauchery. Threesomes are debauchery. Homosexuality, in and of itself, is NOT debauchery. And, yes, I know gay males are promiscuous…but so are straight males. I knew a guy in college who was not even 21 and had slept with over 30 women. And most guys I know are in the double digits. If that’s not promiscuous, I’d like to know what is. And the STD thing? 3 out of 4 sexually active people have genital herpes, in fact I know of 5 of my acquaintance and all of them are straight.
My first gynecologist had a huge military patient base, being near Great Lakes Naval Base, and he said at least 2/3rds of his military patients, either wives or enlisted women, had herpes. Syphillis is making a come back, and not just in the gay community. STDs are not exclusive to the gay community, no matter what people want to believe.
Anyway, I think the reason we’re arguing, Zeb, is that you don’t believe in homosexuality, or at least believe it’s ok, while some of us do. I don’t care what you do in your bedroom as long as it doesn’t involve a minor, animal, or unconsenting adult. We should just agree to disagree and move on to something else.
But there is no proof that anyone is born gay. Does that tip you off to something?
So you think there is proof that people are “born straight,” huh? Let’s see this miraculous proof you have!
[/quote]
I have a penis and it is specifically designed to enter a womans vagina and release sperm, where the sperm then travels to her fallopian tubes to hopefully fertilize her egg cell and viola a new life is conceived. So by basic intuition I am pretty sure I can say with 100% accuracy that humans are born with a genetic disposition to have sex with other humans of the opposite sex. I don’t really like the tagwords of “gay” and “straight”. So i’ll just say in my own way that I just “proved” biologically speaking that humans are in fact born to have sex with the opposite sex. And also the flamboyant gays, who talk with the lisp and strutt around, that is 100% learned behavior. No one is born that way.
On a side not, my cousin is gay. He was straight all through HS and college and had girlfriends, then he got into bodybuilding big time and that culture he delved into so deeply that he was bisexual for a while and then became gay. So regardless of what some people say here I know for a fact that my cousin was turned or chose to be gay by his environment. He will not contest the idea either.
[quote]Gambit_Lost wrote:
ZEB wrote:
forlife wrote:
ZEB wrote:
You are basically claiming that because homosexuals cannot marry they are promiscuous.
No. You cannot accurately conclude anything about the stability of gay relationships, while denying gays the right to marry. Why? Because marriage is specifically designed to improve stability, by virtue of the legal responsibilites and privileges it entails. It’s not rocket science. How do you expect to compare the stability of gay and straight relationships, without controlling for the influence of marriage on these relationships?
We can easily conclude that homosexual men are the most promiscuous group in America and perhaps the world. Even in societies which have gay marriage! If your argument is they are so promiscuous because they cannot marry it is a poor defense indeed given those pesky facts.
You want us to believe that if homosexuals were given the right to marry each other that they would suddenly become a less promiscuous group? Are you are saying that all of the other udgly categories that they lead in relative to health stats would suddenly change?
They lead in:
STD’s
Alcoholism
Anal warts
Suicide
Depression
Anxiety
Drug Usage
(Oh, I can’t really list them all but you get the idea)
All that would suddenly change if they were given the right to marry? Yet, in countries where they are allowed to marry the stats pretty much stay the same.
Hmm
Also, poll after poll shows that most gay men would NOT marry even if given the opportunity. In fact, in places where it is legal the overwhelming majority choose NOT to marry. It seems that most (not all) would rather live a lifestyle of debauchery. Homosexual marriage has been legal in Canada for about four years now and the overwhelming majority choose not to marry.
Hey, whatever helps you sleep at night forlife, that’s what is really important.
Dam those facts.
Have you actually posted the sources for these “facts” elsewhere?[/quote]
Over the years I’ve posted a plethora of facts, figures and statistics numerous times on this very site. However, it is my mistake to assume that you or anyone else actually read them.
"less than one-in-20 gays took advantage of Canada’s decision to legalize marriage in June 2005, according to a census a year later.
Gays make up just 0.1% of all married couples, a proportion which is consistent with other countries that permit same-sex marriage.
In other words, the definition of the most important heterosexual institution was changed to satisfy one couple in one thousand.
The vast majority of homosexuals don’t want gay marriage. It is being foisted on them and on society by elite social engineers using the media, government and a few activists. The goal is to undermine heterosexual marriage by obscuring its true character. The purpose is to destroy the family and render society more vulnerable to world government dictatorship by the central bankers."
" 1.9 to 4.7 percent of Belgium’s gay population had married, 5.9 to 16.7 percent of Massachusetts’ gay population and 2.6 to 6.3 percent of Dutch gays had married.
Australia?
"When actually asked, for instance, as they were during the Private Lives Report produced by La Trobe University in 2006, most of the gay partners surveyed indicated that they had no intention of ever “formalising’ their relationships.”
“But the number of gay marriages there have been since the approval of the law is tiny, almost ridiculous. A handful of gay marriages when compared with the Spanish gay population. For example, in my region, which gathers a population of two million people (gay people are estimated between 5% and 10% of the population), there have been only two gay marriages during the two years and a half passed since the approval of the gay marriage law (June 2005). Yes. Two gay marriages. One and one. This is between 0,002% and 0,004% of the possible gay marriages.”
Gay marriage is for, well other gays right?
"Although Burton said she is strongly in favor of allowing gay couples to form legal unions and enjoy all of the civil and social benefits previously reserved for married heterosexuals, she stressed that she wanted these rights for “other gay couples.”
You (meaning the general populace) watch and read what the main stream media wants you to see that’s why you are not aware of these facts. Would it be politically correct to call attention to the fact that the overwhelming majority of homosexuals couldn’t care less about marriage? No, they would be “hate mongering” wouldn’t they?
There are certain things that the media elite are not going to report on regardless of the facts.
Truth is always the first victim when certain speech is prohibited.
Nope, Vegita,
I could as well point out that every male comes into this world with two mammary glands.
And your following argument: “but it’s not functioning!” fails, too, since
primo: many guys have non functioning genitals as well. Are they nonmales? (Attention, slippery slope waiting!)
secundo: hormones will activate proper functionality. In both genders.
So a physiological dispostion means dick without the hormonal framework.
[quote]Grneyes wrote:
First, I never said my friend lived in Cali and in fact, I don’t remember where he lived when this happened, would have to ask. Second, there are a lot more “protections” and “privileges” provided to married couples than domestic partners, most of them are federal. [/quote]
Well, to be fair, the thread is discussing Prop 8, although it seems to have wandered off now. And the California statute that I cited directly addresses your specific fact pattern for those residing in California, so Prop 8 did not affect your example. The domestic partnership rights are still applicable.
I doubt that Prop 8 will be around for long anyway, due to the simple majority required to change it and the small percentage with which it was passed.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Nope, Vegita,
I could as well point out that every male comes into this world with two mammary glands.
And your following argument: “but it’s not functioning!” fails, too, since
primo: many guys have non functioning genitals as well. Are they nonmales? (Attention, slippery slope waiting!)
secundo: hormones will activate proper functionality. In both genders.
So a physiological dispostion means dick without the hormonal framework.[/quote]
Thankfully our genetic code takes care of this for us. I mean can you imagine if mommy had to rub our right butt cheek 100 times on our 50th day out of the womb to develop into a man, and rub the left buttcheek 100 times on the 46th day out of the womb for a girl. I mean what if she forgot! LOL your argument is rediculous, with absolutely no intervention at all, 99.9999999 percent of all humans who are born male or female, develop into functional (sexually) adults of thier respective genders. You could perhaps be arguin that the Physiology is not what triggers the hormonal framework, but then you would be wrong, since the testes in men, secrete large amounts of testosterone which shrinks the mamary glands and does other nifty things to the remnant female sex organs while the womans ovaries secrete estrogen which does the exact opposit in them, so the basis of thier homonal secretions is thier gender.
To further make your argument stoopid, the genetic survival of the species depends on men and women having sex, Biologically speaking it is what we are designed and pre-dispositioned to do. You can not argue with mother nature, you can pretend she doesn’t exist or that she must hate you, but she does in fact exist. Also there are the physiological things which happen in normal people when they have sex. Men get erections when aroused, and women get wet in the vagina, now we all know the wind can blow and give him an erection, but I very highly doubt any gay mans ass is secreting lubricating liquids when he is turned on by his partner.
All this being said, I do not give two fucks about gay marriage or people being gay, I’m fine with my cousin being gay it doesn’t bother me at all, but I would really like for gay people to own up to the fact that it is a choice they made, wheather subconsciously or not, they were born straight. I really think it would help thier movement as well because people hate copouts, people hate excuses, if you want to be gay and you want to have gay marriage, say I am now gay and I would like to have gay marriage. You don’t need to go through all this well I was born this way so I can’t help it bullshit. It is distracting, and entirely non-relavant to the issue. If Charles Manson was born “wired” to be a serial killer it doesn’t mean we should let his behaviors go just because he was born that way. The behaviors need to be judged on thier own merit, regardless of thier origin.
But there is no proof that anyone is born gay. Does that tip you off to something?
That you cannot prove a negative?
Well, yes, I cannot prove that God does not exist.
You cannot prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.
He cannot prove that people are not born gay.
Oh, the things we cannot prove…
I’m sorry I confused you on that one. If homosexuality was in fact genetic there should be proof to that end, there is none.
[/quote]
Well then how do we prove “straightness” is genetic? And so what if it’s genetic or learned, how does that change how we are to treat other human beings?
But there is no proof that anyone is born gay. Does that tip you off to something?
That you cannot prove a negative?
Well, yes, I cannot prove that God does not exist.
You cannot prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.
He cannot prove that people are not born gay.
Oh, the things we cannot prove…
I’m sorry I confused you on that one. If homosexuality was in fact genetic there should be proof to that end, there is none.
Well then how do we prove “straightness” is genetic? And so what if it’s genetic or learned, how does that change how we are to treat other human beings?[/quote]
I just proved “straightness” was genetic. The human species is depandant on only one thing, reproduction. We need to make with the opposite sex to do that, so we a physiolocically, and biologically “set up” to have intercourse with the opposite sex. I don’t like the word straight or gay though because they infer absolutism. As I pointed out in my “how gay are you” thread, for a very large sum of money, I would most likley engage in a homosexual act. So i guess i’m not 100% straight if a circumstance exists that would cause me to have sex with another man. But that act would be a choice I made, I was not born gay because under that circumstance I had sex with a man. For many gay people perhaps a bad relationship with a woman caused them to decide that having sex with the same sex was an option. Who knows, but the biological, bor with it argument is completely whacked. I can’t even believe it still has legs.
I mean it’s as simple as this, your penis is designed to deliver your sperm to a womans vagina to meet with her egg and create a new human. Regardless of the pleasure involved, that is the primary purpose for that appendage. Simply having a penis means you are supposed to have sex with a vagina on a biological level. I don’t know how much more clear cut we can get.
But there is no proof that anyone is born gay. Does that tip you off to something?
That you cannot prove a negative?
Well, yes, I cannot prove that God does not exist.
You cannot prove that the Flying Spaghetti Monster does not exist.
He cannot prove that people are not born gay.
Oh, the things we cannot prove…
I’m sorry I confused you on that one. If homosexuality was in fact genetic there should be proof to that end, there is none.
Well then how do we prove “straightness” is genetic? And so what if it’s genetic or learned, how does that change how we are to treat other human beings?[/quote]
To your other point I agree completely, it should not matter one bit if a person is straight or gay, all people should be treated with respect and kindness, at least untill thier actions dictate otherwise.
[quote]Vegita wrote:
he got into bodybuilding big time and that culture he delved into so deeply that he was bisexual for a while and then became gay.
V[/quote]
Umm…hey there big boy…bodybuild long enough and you go GAY!!!
[quote]Vegita wrote:
As I pointed out in my “how gay are you” thread, for a very large sum of money, I would most likley engage in a homosexual act. So i guess i’m not 100% straight if a circumstance exists that would cause me to have sex with another man. But that act would be a choice I made, I was not born gay because under that circumstance I had sex with a man.[/quote]
Homosexuality is, ultimately, an attraction to the same sex.
You can engage in a homosexual act without this attraction.
Duh.
Oh, and your cousin was definitely gay back in high school and college. If you asked, you would most likely learn that he always had homosexual urges and was probably trying to just fake it until he made it… and ultimately failed.
I’m not saying that sexual appetites can’t be learned… just that I have a strong feeling bodybuilding wasn’t the cause of your cousin catching teh ghey.
