California Overturns Gay Marriage

[mmarsh]

im getting in late on this one but let me just put my views in for the heck of it:
I admit I am homophobic. Dont like looking at two man kissing, dont like to hear about that, dont like the whole festival around the gay community.

HOWEVER, and this is a big one- Marriage is a personal decision to live with the person you love. Its not anyones, espcially the states, buissines who people marry. As long as both sides are mature adults that is.

Also as far as adoption...I dont think having two dads or two moms is the geatest thing, but its not the worse. There are plenty of things that go wrong in hetrosexual families, that **** up the kids for good. I will never stop feeling the mental results of my parents ugly divorce. Adoption should be based on the people- are they kind, can they support the kid finnancialy, etc. If you think a fully functional 16 year old will become gay inspite of his natural instincts, you are strange to me. Gay people are born gay they are not made gay.

Sherman,

I don't think that's homophobia, you don't agree with the gay lifestyle style, (neither do I for that matter) but that's not being homophobic.

Homophobia is an irrational fear or hatred of gay people. A homophobic person would never support gay-adoption or marriage under any circumstance and who commits themselves to anti-gay persecution.

I have never been to Israel, but I cannot imagine their are too many true homophobes in Israel since the Jews know a thing or two about what its like being persecuted themselves.

 

[SHERMAN]

lol we have a huge ultra religous community...

 

[mmarsh]

lol we have a huge ultra religous community...

But do they actively preach an anti-gay agenda like the Christian religious right does in America? I am not saying they are not anti-homosexuality because the old testament/torah is pretty clear on that, but is there a movement to oppress gay people like certain do back home (USA)?

Many people are anti gay marriage as a camouflage for being anti-gay.

 

[SHERMAN]

yes they do.

 

[The Other Guy]

Why should the bible get a say in this?! I dont really get it, ok people are religious, but the whole world aint! And the world shouldn't be run on a religious base! It was in the middleages in Europe and we all know what happened there! And the bible was written a long, long, long time ago, and is belived to be the "word of God", and we're really so stubid that we let stuff from the bible get into politics?! Religion and politics has nothing to do with each other! And in Genesis it stands that to daugthers got their dad drunk and slept with him, is that right? Since it stands in the bible I mean..

But since you've gotten into it it says in the bible that noone is different, not the men or the women, theyre all the like in the ecclesia (somewhere in one of Pauls letters), so dosen't that mean that no one is diffrent or to be trated that way?

Exactly! I believe the seperation of Church and State is written into the US constitution. Why should a religious view on marriage be the final word on the nation's views?

Marriage stemming more from religious roots than government, the question more rightly should be why is the state involved.
Amendment I

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.

It seems the government has gotten involved where it has no business. Obviously not the first time, as Utah and the Mormon's where forced to give up certain religious freedoms to become a state.



Part 1. Yeah, Cliff Notes will do that to you.

Part 2. Not against marriage. Just gay and lesbian marriage. Might go to the reception as "those people" know how to party!

The whole strategy of the No on Proposition 8 campaign was to make it an issue about "rights". They did not want voters to think about family values or what marriage is really about. They new there was not even a slim chance of defeating it if people considered marriage as the issue. The majority of the public was not fooled.

Even the majority of the responders to this topic only seem interested in discussing the issue as pro or anti gay rights. If it was really a rights issue don't you think the pro group would be rushing to the US Supreme Court.

I agree, the state should not be involved in making laws reguarding same sex marriage. Not their business, let it happen!

1-That's below the belt.

2-Marriage, as your religion sees it. My religion may see it differently. Someone else's may see it differently than both of us. But since there is a seperation of church and state I see no way that your family values are infringed upon by letting someone else get married.

im getting in late on this one but let me just put my views in for the heck of it:
I admit I am homophobic. Dont like looking at two man kissing, dont like to hear about that, dont like the whole festival around the gay community.

HOWEVER, and this is a big one- Marriage is a personal decision to live with the person you love. Its not anyones, espcially the states, buissines who people marry. As long as both sides are mature adults that is.

Also as far as adoption...I dont think having two dads or two moms is the geatest thing, but its not the worse. There are plenty of things that go wrong in hetrosexual families, that **** up the kids for good. I will never stop feeling the mental results of my parents ugly divorce. Adoption should be based on the people- are they kind, can they support the kid finnancialy, etc. If you think a fully functional 16 year old will become gay inspite of his natural instincts, you are strange to me. Gay people are born gay they are not made gay.

:bravo:

lol we have a huge ultra religous community...

Really? I never would have guessed... :-D

 

[wolfen]

Well here is a question for you:
If the religious right is right then do you want to agree with them in order to spend an eternity with them?

Personally the thought of spending an eternity with all these self-righteous pricks would be enough for me to volunteer for hell.

Lets see an eternity in Heaven with people like Pat Robertson and Billy Graham or work for Satan. Gee Monty thats a tough question, do I want a red pitch fork or a black pitchfork?

 

[wolfen]

im getting in late on this one but let me just put my views in for the heck of it:
I admit I am homophobic. Dont like looking at two man kissing, dont like to hear about that, dont like the whole festival around the gay community.

HOWEVER, and this is a big one- Marriage is a personal decision to live with the person you love. Its not anyones, espcially the states, buissines who people marry. As long as both sides are mature adults that is.

Also as far as adoption...I dont think having two dads or two moms is the geatest thing, but its not the worse. There are plenty of things that go wrong in hetrosexual families, that **** up the kids for good. I will never stop feeling the mental results of my parents ugly divorce. Adoption should be based on the people- are they kind, can they support the kid finnancialy, etc. If you think a fully functional 16 year old will become gay inspite of his natural instincts, you are strange to me. Gay people are born gay they are not made gay.

Sherman, that makes sense, althought I don't understand the homophobic part, but thats just me, I'm not afraid of anybody or anything alive or dead.

 

[Chukpike]

In 2002 a majority of people in California voted to ban gay marriage.
In 2008 5 people on the California Supreme Court decided to overturn the ban. (State employees).
In 2008 the majority of people in California voted to make marriage between a man and a women.

From these votes it should be clear that the moral values of the majority of people in California is such that gay marriage is not acceptable. Each individual made a decision based on their own personal reasons. Some could be homophobes, some religious right zealots, others because of believe in traditional marriage, etc. The bottom line is a majority consensus was reached that in today's society gay marriage is wrong.

A number of posts believe it is wrong for the government to get involved in who can marry. So they must think it was wrong for the California Supreme Court (representing the State) to overturn the will of the people in the first place. (The people of California sure did).

Here is an abbreviated news item from the original post. Below that a recap of previous in opposition to the ban.

http://www.reuters.com/article/newsOne/idUSTRE4A454K20081105
(REUTERS)

By Peter Henderson and Jim Christie
SAN FRANCISCO (Reuters) - California and two other states voted in Tuesday's elections to ban same-sex marriage, dealing a blow to gays and lesbians in the left-leaning, trend-setting state months after they won their case in state court.
"What lost last night was the Republican Party, but it was not a rejection of traditional or moral values, because you have two states that voted for Barack Obama -- Florida and California -- that also passed the marriage amendments," Perkins told Reuters in a telephone interview.
California's Supreme Court had declared same-sex marriage a right in May, unleashing a flood of weddings, but the state's voters changed the Constitution to rescind the right after one of the most expensive ballot campaigns in history.
Florida and Arizona joined California in Tuesday's elections, adding to the list of dozens of states banning same-sex marriages with similar laws.

CLOSELY WATCHED
Of the three measures to ban gay marriages, California's was the most closely watched as the state is the most populous and is perceived as a political and cultural leader.

(Reporting by Peter Henderson, Alexandria Sage, Jim Christie and Ed Stoddard, editing by Vicki Allen)

--------------------------------------------------------------------

As much as I'm not a fan of homosexuality I think they should have the right to get married.

Thank goodness you were not a California voter.

TOG ........
Boy-o-boy can I ever agree with your comments.
This is one of the reasons I have such a heart-on for so-called Christians who's doodoo don't stink. They can crucify others (because others don't share their extremist religious beliefs), then turn around and tell you they are "born again" ... "consecrated in the blood of the lamb" ... Cristian practioners. Talk about bigoted hypocritical losers. This is just one of the reasons I left the church.

As far as I am concerned, these kind of bigots can serve a life sentence in the nether regions that they call purgatory.

Not really on topic.

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. 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).

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?

Although he believes marriage is a religious institution, he doesn't believe religion should play apart in who can get married. What's up with that.

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.

Apparently, he did not understand what he was voting on. He wasn't voting to keep the government from intruding on peoples privacy. He was voting on marriage, a very public affair. In voting at all, he was deciding in which direction the government would intrude.

I have yet to see one solid fact why giving gay couples equal rights is a bad idea, I have heard moral reasons which in reality are purely subjective and for many more an indication of closed minded dogma, I have heard religious reasons which are no different in fact I find it ironic that an institution that preaches tolerance is the primary institute leading the segregation charge.​

1) Churches should be allowed to marry who ever they like.
2) Gays should be allowed to marry who ever they like but not where ever they like, see point 1.​

3) It should all be recognised by the state as legal.

2) point. Gays should be allowed to marry but not where ever the want. Smacks of denial of equal rights

I said it before ... and I'll say it again .......

Being against gay marriage ... is (plain and simple), homophobia at it's worst .....​

{This is the part of religion that turns me off}.​

More off topic babble.

lol we have a huge ultra religous community...

Apparently at least the size of the majority votes for California, Florida, Arizona and the dozens of other states with gay marriage bans.​

But do they actively preach an anti-gay agenda like the Christian religious right does in America? I am not saying they are not anti-homosexuality because the old testament/torah is pretty clear on that, but is there a movement to oppress gay people like certain do back home (USA)?

Yes, it is called the majority. Very ominous group​

Many people are anti gay marriage as a camouflage for being anti-gay.​

I think you will find the majority of people buying camouflage for the Holiday's this year.

Exactly!

I agree, the state should not be involved in making laws reguarding same sex marriage. Not their business, let it happen!​

2-Marriage, as your religion sees it. My religion may see it differently. Someone else's may see it differently than both of us. But since there is a seperation of church and state I see no way that your family values are infringed upon by letting someone else get married.​

When gays go about their business and do not try and force their family values on me by going to court and trying to have the state shove them down my throat I will show them more tolerance.​

 

[senojekips]

A person having a dislike is indeed not a bigot, that is why I left it outside the discussion. What I would like to know is: on what grounds do you call it anti-social behaviour? Because you dislike something doesn't make it anti-social.

What about when it is not just me who has a dislike of it, but the majority of persons as is the case here? See Chuckpike's post above.

Forget religion or individual opinions, community rejection is the ultimate decider in saying whether an act is anti-social or not.

 

[The Other Guy]

2) point. Gays should be allowed to marry but not where ever the want. Smacks of denial of equal rights

You know what he means by that. If a church won't marry someone, they won't marry them. No ifs ands or buts about it.

Apparently, he did not understand what he was voting on. He wasn't voting to keep the government from intruding on peoples privacy. He was voting on marriage, a very public affair. In voting at all, he was deciding in which direction the government would intrude.

How is the government stepping out of the situation and allowing something to happen without interfering to stop it causing intrusion? And for as much as I disagree with most things that 5.56 says, you're saying that the only one who truly grasps the situation at hand is you, and that everyone else is uninformed.

When gays go about their business and do not try and force their family values on me by going to court and trying to have the state shove them down my throat I will show them more tolerance.​

Are they trying to make you gay? Their family values show them together, not you. Are they making you marry another man? No.

Do note that in 1965 the majority of the country would have voted in favor of segregation. Despite that legislation made it through congress do get rid of it. Should the State of Mississippi, say, have put forth a referendum to restart segregation? It would have undoubtedly passed with flying colors.

We can't just live in the moment. There is a future, and we need to move toward it and out of the past. I don't mean ignore the past, but learn from it.

 

[senojekips]

We can't just live in the moment. There is a future, and we need to move toward it and out of the past. I don't mean ignore the past, but learn from it.

My point precisely, as noted in my earlier post, those degenerate civilisations that supported or allowed overt homosexuality in the past degenerated and failed. We must learn from this.

Homosexuality was not the only cause of these failures, but was an indicator of the decline in the moral standards typical of a failing society.

When the wishes of a minority are allowed to over rule the majority, society per se is on a slippery slope.

 

[MontyB]

My point precisely, as noted in my earlier post, those degenerate civilisations that supported or allowed overt homosexuality in the past degenerated and failed. We must learn from this.

Homosexuality was not the only cause of these failures, but was an indicator of the decline in the moral standards typical of a failing society.

When the wishes of a minority are allowed to over rule the majority, society per se is on a slippery slope.

Name one civilisation that can attribute "support of homosexuality" to its primary causes of failure?

Before you trundle out Rome I think it worth pointing out that homosexuality was more accepted in Rome during its early and most successful years, by the time Rome collapsed it had been thoroughly "Christianised" and was far less tolerant.

 

[Chukpike]

You know what he means by that. If a church won't marry someone, they won't marry them. No ifs ands or buts about it.

How is the government stepping out of the situation and allowing something to happen without interfering to stop it causing intrusion? And for as much as I disagree with most things that 5.56 says, you're saying that the only one who truly grasps the situation at hand is you, and that everyone else is uninformed.

Are they trying to make you gay? Their family values show them together, not you. Are they making you marry another man? No.

Do note that in 1965 the majority of the country would have voted in favor of segregation. Despite that legislation made it through congress do get rid of it. Should the State of Mississippi, say, have put forth a referendum to restart segregation? It would have undoubtedly passed with flying colors.

We can't just live in the moment. There is a future, and we need to move toward it and out of the past. I don't mean ignore the past, but learn from it.

"You know what he means by that. If a church won't marry someone, they won't marry them. No ifs ands or buts about it."TOG

Not true, The Boy Scouts (a Christian organization) has been harassed for years to except gays. Forced from using government sites for meetings etc. Gays trying to force their views on what amounts to a religious organization.

Currently California is, through legislation, forcing fertility Doctors to help with lesbians wishing to have children. If a Dr. wishes to keep his CA license he has to help regardless of his personal convictions. (I can't understand why a lesbian would want to use a Dr. that wasn't 100% in the patients corner).

Read 5.56 post. He saw the issue as "Government Intrusion". I don't know if I am the only one "who grasps the situation", but I read his post.


"Are they trying to make you gay? Their family values show them together, not you. Are they making you marry another man? No."TOG

Read my Post. "They" are trying to force their values on to me. Along with the majority of the voters in California I exercised my right to reject their values. On this forum I have been called a homophobes, a religious right fanatic, and a bigot along with the majority of voters in California. That shows nothing but ignorance and intolerance.

The pro gay activists targeted California because they thought it was the most liberal state in the Union and they were still rejected.

What you can't seem to grasp is the Country including California is not ready to except Sexual Preference as a right. Since we don't know the future, we can not know if this will ever change. Only thing we do know, it is not now.

 

[wolfen]

per se[/I] is on a slippery slope.

If thats the case the whole world is screwed

 

[wolfen]

When the wishes of a minority are allowed to over rule the majority, society per se is on a slippery slope.

then wwe as a people on this planet are all screwed

 

[The Other Guy]

Not true, The Boy Scouts (a Christian organization) has been harassed for years to except gays. Forced from using government sites for meetings etc. Gays trying to force their views on what amounts to a religious organization.

BSA is NOT a religious organization. Not sure how it could possibly "amount to one" either.

Currently California is, through legislation, forcing fertility Doctors to help with lesbians wishing to have children. If a Dr. wishes to keep his CA license he has to help regardless of his personal convictions. (I can't understand why a lesbian would want to use a Dr. that wasn't 100% in the patients corner).
[/quote]
I really don't see how that could be any of the doctor's business. I mean, a docor's job is to aid the patient, not talk politics or religion with them. Though I do agree with part II of your statement.

Read 5.56 post. He saw the issue as "Government Intrusion". I don't know if I am the only one "who grasps the situation", but I read his post.

I read his post too. And I fail to see your point. The government telling you who to marry or not marry would be a government intrusion on most planets.

Read my Post. "They" are trying to force their values on to me. Along with the majority of the voters in California I exercised my right to reject their values. On this forum I have been called a homophobes, a religious right fanatic, and a bigot along with the majority of voters in California. That shows nothing but ignorance and intolerance.

Not sure how being called names is forcing values on you. Or how allowing something that doesn't affect you forces values.

What you can't seem to grasp is the Country including California is not ready to except Sexual Preference as a right. Since we don't know the future, we can not know if this will ever change. Only thing we do know, it is not now.

Like I said before, the Country was not realy do accept racial equality in the 1960s, and there are parts of the country still not ready for it now. But it happened anyway, and America is better for it.

"...with liberty and justice FOR ALL."

 

[senojekips]

Name one civilisation that can attribute "support of homosexuality" to its primary causes of failure?

Before you trundle out Rome I think it worth pointing out that homosexuality was more accepted in Rome during its early and most successful years, by the time Rome collapsed it had been thoroughly "Christianised" and was far less tolerant.

C'mon Monty, are you on the "soup" again or did you just make a guess at what I said.

Please read my post. I never said a single thing you have attributed to me, in fact I went so far as to say that it was NOT the only cause, but was a behaviour indicative of a failing society. Moral decay is the precursor or indicator of a failing society.

The cause and effect of the moral decline of the Roman Empire have been well documented. http://www.studyworld.com/newsite/ReportEssay/Science/Social%5CMoral_Decline_and_its_Effect_On_the_Collapse_of_Nations_-3462102.htm

 

[MontyB]

Monty, are you on the "soup" again or did you just make a guess at what I said.

Please read my post. I never said a single thing you have attributed to me, in fact I went so far as to say that it was NOT the only cause, but was a behaviour indicative of a failing society. Moral decay is the precursor or indicator of a failing society.

You are using a rather round about argument, if you are going to use it as a precursor, indicator or any other defining term you must first be able to show us some proof of its effect on "A" civilisation that has failed otherwise you are making blanket statements.

How much of an effect on the fall of Rome did Nero rogering Brutus in 50AD have compared to say the over stretched military, collapsed economy and say the 100,000 Vandals and Visigoths beating down the gates in 535AD?

Or if you would prefer I will be blunt and say... Prove it, back the argument with some fact.

 

[senojekips]

Did you read the source I quoted?

No.....

I could find a dozen more if I wanted. But I'm sure you get the idea, I'm not going to reinvent the wheel for you. All this has been documented for a thousand years, Google it for yourself I'm far too busy.

Either way, none of this discredits my original argument about homosexuality being an anti social act.

 

[MontyB]

Umm yes I did and at no stage does it mention homosexuality as a factor and for good reason, in 380AD Rome adopted Christianity as its official religion which promptly clamped down on such "vices".