California Overturns Gay Marriage

[Chukpike]

So let me get this straight. Sexual preference is a right.
Therefore if I have a preference for multiple partners I should be able to marry as many partners as I want. Sounds good to me.8)

Seems the Mormon's have suffered for along time now in a monogamous society. Muslims in the the United States also.

When societies were developed, in order to have some way to get a long, rules (later called laws) were developed to give groups a chance to live in harmony. People who preferred to steal instead of work for a living where ostracised. This would seem unfair in a society that a believes that preferences are rights.

 

[senojekips]

Back while I was living overseas just the fact that we were married secured a sizable tax write off and I think it is this recognition gay couples are looking for (and I support), as far as the kids side of things go well I probably lean more toward your argument in that instance but that is a seaparte debate.

My opinion is formed as a result of all the implications not merely the one I am highlighting here. Put simply, I see recognition of Homosexual (They are not "Gay")* unions as a grab for money to which they are not entitled. I have similar feelings about other people falsely claiming benefits. It's a grab for cash.


Gay is a word used by homosexuals and the politically correct to divert peoples attention from the fact that they are no more than homosexuals. The word homosexual quite rightly having historically had distateful connotations. The very fact that this word has been introduced in this matter is a defacto admission that the homosexual lifestyle is abnormal.

Homosexual = Gay
Lunatic = Mentally Ill
And most recently here in Australia we are not having a Drought, we are experiencing a "Dry".

Spin it any way you like, these distateful terms describe distasteful, things and not without good reason .

Of course now i will be accused of being a "homophobe". I don't like Brocolli either does that make me a Broccoliphobe.

 

[The Other Guy]

My opinion is formed as a result of all the implications not merely the one I am highlighting here. Put simply, I see recognition of Homosexual (They are not "Gay")* unions as a grab for money to which they are not entitled. I have similar feelings about other people falsely claiming benefits. It's a grab for cash.

I've met and talked to several couples and if they're not actually in love and are just in it for the cash they're doing one heck of a job of faking it.

 

[senojekips]

That is probably so. Depending on one's definition of "Love". I Love most animals, but that doesn't entitle me to any special priveleges or government benefits.

Over the years, I have been asked (several times) why I did not like homosexuals. I compared it with my distaste at watching someone pick their nose and eat it.

The person doing it is not harming anyone else, and obviously they enjoy it.
Mucous is a perfectly natural bodily fluid, almost exactly the same as saliva which we swallow by the pint daily.
When we "sniffle" we swallow that same mucous, and no one bats an eyelid.
Logically there is little if any reason why we shouldn't actually do it. But like homosexuality the thought of it, makes my skin crawl.

Pretty simple really.

 

[The Other Guy]

That is probably so. Depending on one's definition of "Love". I Love most animals, but that doesn't entitle me to any special priveleges or government benefits.

There's a difference. It's more than a Dog-Human Relationship.

 

[senojekips]

Well, once again that depends on one's view of the matter. I don't really count sexual gratification as a qualification for government benefits.

 

[Chief Bones]

Extended marriage ...........

So let me get this straight. Sexual preference is a right.
Therefore if I have a preference for multiple partners I should be able to marry as many partners as I want. Sounds good to me.8)

Seems the Mormon's have suffered for along time now in a monogamous society. Muslims in the the United States also.

When societies were developed, in order to have some way to get a long, rules (later called laws) were developed to give groups a chance to live in harmony. People who preferred to steal instead of work for a living where ostracised. This would seem unfair in a society that a believes that preferences are rights.

Sorry -C- ...........
Marriage wasn't a "rule" or "law" that was written to "get along" ... it was an invention of religious dogma, where "marriage" was designed to give man dominion over woman. At the time of this invention, women were considered second class citizens and a possession by a patriarchal but religious society. It was an invented contrivance that allowed man to place an artificial stamp of ownership on their women (normally there was more than one woman in the household of those who could afford them). It was only through a relatively recent "decree" of the Christian church, that marriage was a contract between one man and one woman. Anything else, was then deemed to be a "sin" (another artificial moral judgement). The Crusades forced this mold on most of the world with a very few exceptions (Most Muslim and Mormon societies were recent converts - some parts of the world still observe the old ways).

A relatively cursory observation of the animal kingdom, discloses that monogamy is a rare occurrence ... thus man's 'artificial' contrivance of 'marriage', is a rare occurrence in nature.

Personally, I have no problem with an "extended" marriage contract where there are multiple partners to the marriage. As far as I am concerned, it can take any cotton picking format that can be imagined {same sex partners, one man and multiple wives or one woman and multiple husbands. etc etc etc}.

Paraphrasing The Other Guy ...

Let 'em marry any cottin picken way they like. Why shouldn't they be as miserable as the rest of us?​

 

[senojekips]

There's a difference. It's more than a Dog-Human Relationship.

Well, that being the case, define the word "love". If I was to live with a really good male friend, is that love? What makes a homosexual relationship "love", yet my relationship is just a good friendship. The only difference that i can see being that we don't use one another for sexual gratification.

I think we could be off on the merry go round here, which is why i have tried to leave such terms as " love" out of it. My point being all along that homosexuals shouldn't qualify for benefits the same as married heterosexual couples, for the reasons given earlier.

 

[BritinBritain]

I agree totally with senojekips on this issue. It might be right legally, but to my mind homosexuality goes totally against the laws of nature. I don't like homosexuality, I never have and I never will. As you are all aware, in the military men have a closeness never found in civilian life, you'd share your last cent, your last cigarette and put your life on the line for a mate. That doesn't make them homosexuals, just bloody good mates. Another thing that really gets up my nose, homosexuals DEMAND that heterosexuals accept their way of life and aren't beyond ramming their sexuality down peoples throats.

I remember the days when “gay” meant happy, cigarette's cost two bob for 20 and homosexuals got thrown in jail.

Just my opinion.

 

[A Can of Man]

Actually I'd put homosexuality not as a right but s a privilege.
Actually, marriage itself is also a privilege. Don't believe me? Imagine a world as depicted in "Brave New World." Wouldn't be so much of a right then would it?
Homosexuality is obviously a loser in terms of reproduction, but maybe with 6 billion people on earth, that's exactly the point of its existence. There is a false assumption that homosexuality occurs in large numbers only in developed countries. This is actually not true. You won't believe the number of homosexuals in Indonesia. And that's a Muslim country as well.

 

[Ted]

Doesn't privilege mean something like: given for a certain time and it can be stripped at any given time? The fact that in the ancient times it was common practice must mean that it wasn't a privilege then. And who decided it was unnatural and had to be forbidden? It is all so relative and insignificant.
An aspect I missed in this thread is "love". Senojekips talks about loving an animal but marrying it. I reckon that the aspect love is grossly understated in this whole thread. Is the main reason for marrying the unconscious urge to procreate? I can procreate with any female (given that she is fertile) but I will marry only one. Why? Because she is the only woman that matters to me and the one I love unconditionally. Why will we get married? Because we want to make the official vow that we mean to stay together for the rest of our lives. And if she can't give birth, well I'll still stay with her. It doesn't revolve around procreation at all!
In my opionion marriage is a promise made to all that two people vow to stay together for better of worse. It is a promise recognized by state legislation. Why shouldn't two people of the same sex being given that opportunity? It is a personal thing that is of no concern to others. Any two people can feel such a love for one another, so why deny it to some?

 

[senojekips]

Read my posts Ted. Others started about Love and marriage, my argument is about homosexuals getting benefits that were meant for couples who raise kids of their own.

Explain to me what love is then, in respect to the difference between two or more straight males living together and two Homos living together, why is one "friendship" and the other "love", is it the fact that homos use one another for sexual gratification? That's the only difference.

 

[Ted]

My argument is that if people really want to get married, financial gains are of second importance. I want to get married and couldn't care less if this bumps me into a better tax scale.
I.m.o. wanting to get married is making an official promise to all other people in the world that you and your partner want to share their lives without any constraint. It is a personal endeavour. Since it is a personal thing and should be treated so. If two gays really want to get married they should not care if they get special financial gains. You ought not to get married for money. If they would turn down any financial support, would you still oppose to such a marriage?

 

[A Can of Man]

Actually the aims of many of the tax benefits is probably to make the lives of married couples a little easier financially so they are encouraged to have children. I don't think it's a congratulations gift from the government.
And yes by your definition Ted, it is a privilege and not a right. If your country falls to another or is heavily influenced by another to the point where it is made illegal, the privilege to that activity has been stripped of.

 

[Ted]

And yes by your definition Ted, it is a privilege and not a right. If your country falls to another or is heavily influenced by another to the point where it is made illegal, the privilege to that activity has been stripped of.

But my own ratio; isn't any right a privilege then? Because all rights can be stripped at any given time once a government is changed or influenced. I reckon that I should have used a different definition

 

[Chukpike]

I think this discussion has gone pretty much the way the opposition to Proposition 8 people wanted the vote to go. Make the issue a "rights" issue only.

As Senator Feinstein said in her ad opposing Proposition 8 "no matter how you feel about marriage".

I found this insulting. She wanted to reduce marriage to nothing more than two people joining together. Skip any thought about marriage being about family.

Growing up in Southern California I have known many gays and lesbians and I could care less about their sexual preference. But when asked or told to validate their life choice I preferred not too.

If preference is a right then I chose to exercise my right to not affirm their choice.

 

[Wolf]

I'm with Spike on this one.

 

[A Can of Man]

But my own ratio; isn't any right a privilege then? Because all rights can be stripped at any given time once a government is changed or influenced. I reckon that I should have used a different definition

There are no rights. Only privileges.

 

[5.56X45mm]

I voted against the Florida State Constitutional Amendment that would describe marriage a union only between a Man and Women. No Domestic Partnerships, no Gay Unions, nothing....

Personally I don't agree with gay marriage. I'm not against homosexuals but I cannot stand what some parts of homosexual culture has become. Such outwards display of sexual acts, demanding to be treated special, etc... I truly do believe that it should only be between a man and a women but I still voted against it for one reason.

GOVERNMENT INTRUSION

The government should have no right in saying what happens int he privacy of someone's home and whom they wish to have a relationship with. If you want to get screwed in the pooper or you want to munch some carpet fine... do it in the privacy of your own home and please act respectful in public. The government should have no right in saying what you can and can't do when it comes to two consenting adults wishing to have sexual relations or if they want to have a domestic union of one sort or an other.

 

[The Other Guy]

I voted against the Florida State Constitutional Amendment that would describe marriage a union only between a Man and Women. No Domestic Partnerships, no Gay Unions, nothing....

Personally I don't agree with gay marriage. I'm not against homosexuals but I cannot stand what some parts of homosexual culture has become. Such outwards display of sexual acts, demanding to be treated special, etc... I truly do believe that it should only be between a man and a women but I still voted against it for one reason.

GOVERNMENT INTRUSION

The government should have no right in saying what happens int he privacy of someone's home and whom they wish to have a relationship with. If you want to get screwed in the pooper or you want to munch some carpet fine... do it in the privacy of your own home and please act respectful in public. The government should have no right in saying what you can and can't do when it comes to two consenting adults wishing to have sexual relations or if they want to have a domestic union of one sort or an other.

*gasp* I partially agree with you on something! :-D