Author Topic: Supreme Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage  (Read 112028 times)

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19417
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #75 on: May 18, 2008, 08:36:29 AM »
This cartoon is 4 years old... is it still relevant?  ::)

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19417
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #76 on: May 18, 2008, 11:30:41 AM »
California chief justice says same-sex marriage ruling was one of his toughest
Ronald M. George, a moderate Republican who voted with the majority, likens the case to civil rights battles.
By Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

May 18, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO — In the days leading up to the California Supreme Court's historic same-sex marriage ruling Thursday, the decision "weighed most heavily" on Chief Justice Ronald M. George -- more so, he said, than any previous case in his nearly 17 years on the court.

The court was poised 4 to 3 not only to legalize same-sex marriage but also to extend to sexual orientation the same broad protections against bias previously saved for race, gender and religion. The decision went further than any other state high court's and would stun legal scholars, who have long characterized George and his court as cautious and middle of the road.

But as he read the legal arguments, the 68-year-old moderate Republican was drawn by memory to a long ago trip he made with his European immigrant parents through the American South. There, the signs warning "No Negro" or "No colored" left "quite an indelible impression on me," he recalled in a wide-ranging interview Friday.

"I think," he concluded, "there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe."

Yet he described his thinking on the constitutional status of state marriage laws as more of an evolution than an epiphany, the result of his reading and long discussions with staff lawyers.

As he sometimes does with the most incendiary cases, George assigned the majority opinion to himself. He wrote and rewrote, poring over draft after draft. Each word change had to be approved by the other three justices joining him in the majority. Even the likely dissenters had to be told in "pink slips" of every word change.

On Wednesday, the long-awaited ruling was finally ready.

Court Clerk Fritz Ohlrich locked up stacks of the fat, stapled court opinions in his office to protect against leaks, and George's staff asked that security be beefed up. A fellow justice told George she would be at her desk in the morning because she wanted "to be part of history."

On Thursday, George was in his chambers, being interviewed for a documentary on death penalty administration. He said he wished he had canceled the interview.

He was on camera when he heard "a big roar" from the crowd outside.

George, who grew up in Los Angeles, said he counts gays among his friends. Four years ago, he peered out his chambers' windows across from San Francisco City Hall to watch gay couples lining up to marry. He saw the showers of rice, the popping of champagne corks, the euphoria of the couples.

He later joined four other justices in nullifying the marriage licenses, which the court deemed to have been granted illegally by San Francisco. The court refused to take up the constitutional questions of same-sex marriage then, insisting the cases work their way up through the courts.

A trial judge ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. A court of appeal overturned that ruling. And finally, the case was on George's desk.

'Very fatalistic'

George said he had voted to void the marriage licenses because he did not think they should be "in limbo" while the courts tackled the constitutional issues. Once he took up the constitutional challenge, he said he did not permit any consideration of political fallout.

"I am very fatalistic about these things," he said. "If you worry, always looking over your shoulders, then maybe it's time to hang up your robe."

Court rules bar George from discussing the ruling until it takes effect in 30 days or more.

During the two-hour interview with The Times, he refused to disclose anything about the court's internal deliberations and responded to a number of questions by reading aloud from the decision. His elegant and comfortable chambers had neat stacks of papers piled on the floor, all over his desk and on a long conference table.

Asked whether he thought most Californians would accept the marriage ruling, George said flatly: "I really don't know."

He indicated he saw the fight for same-sex marriage as a civil rights case akin to the legal battle that ended laws banning interracial marriage. He noted that the California Supreme Court moved ahead of public sentiment 60 years ago when it became the first in the country to strike down the anti-miscegenation laws.

California's decision, in a case called Perez vs. Sharp, preceded the U.S. Supreme Court's action on the issue by 19 years. Even after that ruling, Californians passed an initiative that would permit racial discrimination in housing. The state high court again responded by overturning the law, George said.

Rather than ignoring voters, "what you are doing is applying the Constitution, the ultimate expression of the people's will," George said.

By the time of the same-sex marriage oral argument in March, three other justices had tentatively decided to join George's opinion. They are Justices Joyce L. Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and (sole Democrat) Carlos R. Moreno, the court's more liberal wing.

George said the oral argument marked the "highest point" for the court, and he was "so glad" the session was televised. "I was incredibly proud of how we acquitted ourselves in such a difficult and well publicized case," he said.

Relations among the justices remained warm and cordial. George said he was even pleased with the dissents, which contended that a decision on same-sex marriage should be made by the people, not the court.

Some judges in other states that had considered same-sex marriage had written in ways that were "homophobic" and demeaning to lesbians and gays, statements "that you don't find" in California's dissenting opinions, George said. They were signed by Justices Marvin Baxter, Ming Chin and Carol A. Corrigan.

'A real conundrum'

"When is it that a court should act?" George mused. "When is it that a court is shirking its responsibility by not acting, and when is a court overreaching? That's a real conundrum. I have respect for people coming out on different sides of this issue."

George's reputation for caution is based on the court's tendency, under him, to decide cases narrowly, refusing to reach issues not necessary to the case at hand. Advocates thrust the central constitutional question of equality for gay people on the court; there was no way to avoid it.

George also had taken risks before. Shortly after Gov. Pete Wilson elevated him to chief justice in 1996, George obtained enough votes to change the court's stance on parental consent for abortion. He wrote the ruling that overturned the state's parental consent law, sparking a campaign by anti-abortion groups to oust him.

After a justice's appointment, voters are asked to retain him or her at the next gubernatorial election. At the time of the parental consent decision, some judges were just squeaking by their retention votes.

Eric George, 39, a Los Angeles lawyer and the chief's eldest son, decided to mount a full campaign to protect his father's seat. After George was reconfirmed by a healthy margin, Eric George said he gave his father some playful advice.

"Could you wait at least 10 years for another controversial decision like this?" he asked.

George said the only other decision that anguished him as much as same-sex marriage occurred at the beginning of his career, when as a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge he insisted that a serial killer known as the "Hillside Strangler" be prosecuted over the objections of the Los Angeles district attorney.

The district attorney's office said there wasn't enough evidence to win a conviction, so George asked the attorney general's office to prosecute it. The trial, expected to last a year, took two years. George remembers warning his wife, Barbara, "This may become known as George's folly." The jury eventually convicted on nine of 10 murder counts.

Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen, who has closely followed George's court tenure, said "the biggest surprise" of the marriage ruling was that George favored it. Uelmen said George must have done "some real soul searching."

The "very carefully written opinion" reflects that George "is very sensitive to how this will be perceived," Uelmen said. "He realized that this more than any other thing he does as chief justice will define his legacy. He'll certainly take a good deal of political heat over this."

Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, said he had long expected George to vote against same-sex marriage.

"His change from where I thought he would be is baffling," said Staver, whose group promotes traditional marriage.

UCLA law professor Brad Sears said, "Definitely what created the majority was George's support."

A proposed initiative that would amend the Constitution to again ban same-sex marriage is headed for the November ballot, but even if it passes, gays in California will enjoy heightened protections from discrimination as a result of Thursday's ruling. George will appear on the state ballot for retention in two years.

He went home Thursday night drained and discovered a card left by friends at his San Francisco apartment. It was a Japanese watercolor of a branch with red berries. His friends had written "Congratulations!" inside.

"Why not go out on a limb?" the greeting on the card read.


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #77 on: May 18, 2008, 11:35:50 AM »

calmus

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3867
  • Time is luck.
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #78 on: May 18, 2008, 12:17:09 PM »
Love it when judges get their appointments and then see the light.  ;D

California chief justice says same-sex marriage ruling was one of his toughest
Ronald M. George, a moderate Republican who voted with the majority, likens the case to civil rights battles.
By Maura Dolan, Los Angeles Times Staff Writer

May 18, 2008

SAN FRANCISCO — In the days leading up to the California Supreme Court's historic same-sex marriage ruling Thursday, the decision "weighed most heavily" on Chief Justice Ronald M. George -- more so, he said, than any previous case in his nearly 17 years on the court.

The court was poised 4 to 3 not only to legalize same-sex marriage but also to extend to sexual orientation the same broad protections against bias previously saved for race, gender and religion. The decision went further than any other state high court's and would stun legal scholars, who have long characterized George and his court as cautious and middle of the road.

But as he read the legal arguments, the 68-year-old moderate Republican was drawn by memory to a long ago trip he made with his European immigrant parents through the American South. There, the signs warning "No Negro" or "No colored" left "quite an indelible impression on me," he recalled in a wide-ranging interview Friday.

"I think," he concluded, "there are times when doing the right thing means not playing it safe."

Yet he described his thinking on the constitutional status of state marriage laws as more of an evolution than an epiphany, the result of his reading and long discussions with staff lawyers.

As he sometimes does with the most incendiary cases, George assigned the majority opinion to himself. He wrote and rewrote, poring over draft after draft. Each word change had to be approved by the other three justices joining him in the majority. Even the likely dissenters had to be told in "pink slips" of every word change.

On Wednesday, the long-awaited ruling was finally ready.

Court Clerk Fritz Ohlrich locked up stacks of the fat, stapled court opinions in his office to protect against leaks, and George's staff asked that security be beefed up. A fellow justice told George she would be at her desk in the morning because she wanted "to be part of history."

On Thursday, George was in his chambers, being interviewed for a documentary on death penalty administration. He said he wished he had canceled the interview.

He was on camera when he heard "a big roar" from the crowd outside.

George, who grew up in Los Angeles, said he counts gays among his friends. Four years ago, he peered out his chambers' windows across from San Francisco City Hall to watch gay couples lining up to marry. He saw the showers of rice, the popping of champagne corks, the euphoria of the couples.

He later joined four other justices in nullifying the marriage licenses, which the court deemed to have been granted illegally by San Francisco. The court refused to take up the constitutional questions of same-sex marriage then, insisting the cases work their way up through the courts.

A trial judge ruled in favor of same-sex marriage. A court of appeal overturned that ruling. And finally, the case was on George's desk.

'Very fatalistic'

George said he had voted to void the marriage licenses because he did not think they should be "in limbo" while the courts tackled the constitutional issues. Once he took up the constitutional challenge, he said he did not permit any consideration of political fallout.

"I am very fatalistic about these things," he said. "If you worry, always looking over your shoulders, then maybe it's time to hang up your robe."

Court rules bar George from discussing the ruling until it takes effect in 30 days or more.

During the two-hour interview with The Times, he refused to disclose anything about the court's internal deliberations and responded to a number of questions by reading aloud from the decision. His elegant and comfortable chambers had neat stacks of papers piled on the floor, all over his desk and on a long conference table.

Asked whether he thought most Californians would accept the marriage ruling, George said flatly: "I really don't know."

He indicated he saw the fight for same-sex marriage as a civil rights case akin to the legal battle that ended laws banning interracial marriage. He noted that the California Supreme Court moved ahead of public sentiment 60 years ago when it became the first in the country to strike down the anti-miscegenation laws.

California's decision, in a case called Perez vs. Sharp, preceded the U.S. Supreme Court's action on the issue by 19 years. Even after that ruling, Californians passed an initiative that would permit racial discrimination in housing. The state high court again responded by overturning the law, George said.

Rather than ignoring voters, "what you are doing is applying the Constitution, the ultimate expression of the people's will," George said.

By the time of the same-sex marriage oral argument in March, three other justices had tentatively decided to join George's opinion. They are Justices Joyce L. Kennard, Kathryn Mickle Werdegar and (sole Democrat) Carlos R. Moreno, the court's more liberal wing.

George said the oral argument marked the "highest point" for the court, and he was "so glad" the session was televised. "I was incredibly proud of how we acquitted ourselves in such a difficult and well publicized case," he said.

Relations among the justices remained warm and cordial. George said he was even pleased with the dissents, which contended that a decision on same-sex marriage should be made by the people, not the court.

Some judges in other states that had considered same-sex marriage had written in ways that were "homophobic" and demeaning to lesbians and gays, statements "that you don't find" in California's dissenting opinions, George said. They were signed by Justices Marvin Baxter, Ming Chin and Carol A. Corrigan.

'A real conundrum'

"When is it that a court should act?" George mused. "When is it that a court is shirking its responsibility by not acting, and when is a court overreaching? That's a real conundrum. I have respect for people coming out on different sides of this issue."

George's reputation for caution is based on the court's tendency, under him, to decide cases narrowly, refusing to reach issues not necessary to the case at hand. Advocates thrust the central constitutional question of equality for gay people on the court; there was no way to avoid it.

George also had taken risks before. Shortly after Gov. Pete Wilson elevated him to chief justice in 1996, George obtained enough votes to change the court's stance on parental consent for abortion. He wrote the ruling that overturned the state's parental consent law, sparking a campaign by anti-abortion groups to oust him.

After a justice's appointment, voters are asked to retain him or her at the next gubernatorial election. At the time of the parental consent decision, some judges were just squeaking by their retention votes.

Eric George, 39, a Los Angeles lawyer and the chief's eldest son, decided to mount a full campaign to protect his father's seat. After George was reconfirmed by a healthy margin, Eric George said he gave his father some playful advice.

"Could you wait at least 10 years for another controversial decision like this?" he asked.

George said the only other decision that anguished him as much as same-sex marriage occurred at the beginning of his career, when as a Los Angeles County Superior Court judge he insisted that a serial killer known as the "Hillside Strangler" be prosecuted over the objections of the Los Angeles district attorney.

The district attorney's office said there wasn't enough evidence to win a conviction, so George asked the attorney general's office to prosecute it. The trial, expected to last a year, took two years. George remembers warning his wife, Barbara, "This may become known as George's folly." The jury eventually convicted on nine of 10 murder counts.

Santa Clara University law professor Gerald Uelmen, who has closely followed George's court tenure, said "the biggest surprise" of the marriage ruling was that George favored it. Uelmen said George must have done "some real soul searching."

The "very carefully written opinion" reflects that George "is very sensitive to how this will be perceived," Uelmen said. "He realized that this more than any other thing he does as chief justice will define his legacy. He'll certainly take a good deal of political heat over this."

Mathew Staver, founder of Liberty Counsel, said he had long expected George to vote against same-sex marriage.

"His change from where I thought he would be is baffling," said Staver, whose group promotes traditional marriage.

UCLA law professor Brad Sears said, "Definitely what created the majority was George's support."

A proposed initiative that would amend the Constitution to again ban same-sex marriage is headed for the November ballot, but even if it passes, gays in California will enjoy heightened protections from discrimination as a result of Thursday's ruling. George will appear on the state ballot for retention in two years.

He went home Thursday night drained and discovered a card left by friends at his San Francisco apartment. It was a Japanese watercolor of a branch with red berries. His friends had written "Congratulations!" inside.

"Why not go out on a limb?" the greeting on the card read.



Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #79 on: May 19, 2008, 07:05:13 AM »
O.K.  I will let you humor me.  Lack of "concrete genetic factor"?  How about zero scientific proof.

It's obviously a choice.  From a scientific standpoint, there really isn't much to discuss.  The proof doesn’t exist.  If you want to rely on the overwhelming number of homosexuals you appear to know so intimately well, then go right ahead.  Doesn't really matter to me.   

So animals are making an obvious lifestyle choice?

"Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them," said Petter Bockman, project coordinator of the exhibition.
http://www.livescience.com/animals/061116_homosexual_animals.html

Purple Aki

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 1892
  • penisory contact with her volvo.
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #80 on: May 19, 2008, 07:17:19 AM »
Honestly, what's the big fucking deal? We've had civil partnerships for gays in the UK for a couple of years now and the sky hasn't fallen in or anything.

Just look how happy Nordic and Diesel1 are these days.

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19417
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #81 on: May 19, 2008, 07:46:14 AM »
So animals are making an obvious lifestyle choice?

"Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them," said Petter Bockman, project coordinator of the exhibition.
http://www.livescience.com/animals/061116_homosexual_animals.html

Ding! Ding! Ding!  We have a winner!

Anyone with even an associate’s degree in biology can tell you that diversity is written into the nature of biological systems; homosexuality is part of the diversity of nature’s portfolio.  It has been observed in animals for a long time.

For reasons (that do not really matter) Nature has decided that a certain percentage of the population (in man and animal) will have a homosexual orientation.  No amount of religious indoctrination, conservative thinking, or Constitutional amendments is ever going to change that.


Love That Dare Not Squeak Its Name
By DINITIA SMITH

Roy and Silo, two chinstrap penguins at the Central Park Zoo in Manhattan, are completely devoted to each other. For nearly six years now, they have been inseparable. They exhibit what in penguin parlance is called ''ecstatic behavior'': that is, they entwine their necks, they vocalize to each other, they have sex. Silo and Roy are, to anthropomorphize a bit, gay penguins. When offered female companionship, they have adamantly refused it. And the females aren't interested in them, either.

At one time, the two seemed so desperate to incubate an egg together that they put a rock in their nest and sat on it, keeping it warm in the folds of their abdomens, said their chief keeper, Rob Gramzay. Finally, he gave them a fertile egg that needed care to hatch. Things went perfectly. Roy and Silo sat on it for the typical 34 days until a chick, Tango, was born. For the next two and a half months they raised Tango, keeping her warm and feeding her food from their beaks until she could go out into the world on her own. Mr. Gramzay is full of praise for them.

''They did a great job,'' he said. He was standing inside the glassed-in penguin exhibit, where Roy and Silo had just finished lunch. Penguins usually like a swim after they eat, and Silo was in the water. Roy had finished his dip and was up on the beach.

Roy and Silo are hardly unusual. Milou and Squawk, two young males, are also beginning to exhibit courtship behavior, hanging out with each other, billing and bowing. Before them, the Central Park Zoo had Georgey and Mickey, two female Gentoo penguins who tried to incubate eggs together. And Wendell and Cass, a devoted male African penguin pair, live at the New York Aquarium in Coney Island. Indeed, scientists have found homosexual behavior throughout the animal world.

This growing body of science has been increasingly drawn into charged debates about homosexuality in American society, on subjects from gay marriage to sodomy laws, despite reluctance from experts in the field to extrapolate from animals to humans. Gay groups argue that if homosexual behavior occurs in animals, it is natural, and therefore the rights of homosexuals should be protected. On the other hand, some conservative religious groups have condemned the same practices in the past, calling them ''animalistic.''

But if homosexuality occurs among animals, does that necessarily mean that it is natural for humans, too? And that raises a familiar question: if homosexuality is not a choice, but a result of natural forces that cannot be controlled, can it be immoral?

The open discussion of homosexual behavior in animals is relatively new. ''There has been a certain cultural shyness about admitting it,'' said Frans de Waal, whose 1997 book, ''Bonobo: The Forgotten Ape'' (University of California Press), unleashed a torrent of discussion about animal sexuality. Bonobos, apes closely related to humans, are wildly energetic sexually. Studies show that whether observed in the wild or in captivity, nearly all are bisexual, and nearly half their sexual interactions are with the same sex. Female bonobos have been observed to engage in homosexual activity almost hourly...

http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html?res=9506EFD9113BF934A35751C0A9629C8B63&sec=&spon=&pagewanted=all

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #82 on: May 19, 2008, 08:07:37 AM »
So animals are making an obvious lifestyle choice?

"Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them," said Petter Bockman, project coordinator of the exhibition.
http://www.livescience.com/animals/061116_homosexual_animals.html

Decker - surely you're aware by now that Bum simply chooses to ignore anything that doesn't fit his pre-conceived beliefs on pretty much any topic.

 

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #83 on: May 19, 2008, 08:13:36 AM »
Decker - surely you're aware by now that Bum simply chooses to ignore anything that doesn't fit his pre-conceived beliefs on pretty much any topic.

 
I like Beach Bum.  He's tenacious. 

On the matter at hand, it will be interesting to see his response to the animal kingdom's lifestyle choice.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #84 on: May 19, 2008, 08:16:50 AM »
I like Beach Bum.  He's tenacious. 

On the matter at hand, it will be interesting to see his response to the animal kingdom's lifestyle choice.

It's simple, Those are animals.  Humans are different.   ;D

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #85 on: May 19, 2008, 08:21:05 AM »
It's simple, Those are animals.  Humans are different.   ;D
That's really good Ozmo.  I mean it.  That does resemble one of his responses.

I suppose if I were to answer that, I'd point out that human consciousness is more sophisticated than animal consciousnes.  If 'lifestyle choice' encompasses a reflective perspective where many lifestyles are considered but only one chosen, then I'd have to say that animals are not capable of that sort of mentation.

Therefore the notion that homosexuality, common to both the human and animal worlds, is not a lifestyle choice.

It's something else.

OzmO

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22688
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #86 on: May 19, 2008, 08:33:46 AM »
That's really good Ozmo.  I mean it.  That does resemble one of his responses.

I suppose if I were to answer that, I'd point out that human consciousness is more sophisticated than animal consciousnes.  If 'lifestyle choice' encompasses a reflective perspective where many lifestyles are considered but only one chosen, then I'd have to say that animals are not capable of that sort of mentation.

Therefore the notion that homosexuality, common to both the human and animal worlds, is not a lifestyle choice.

It's something else.
thanks  :)

BB is great guy, IMO, and I don't get why some people are all over him.   Although we don't agree on at least half of every thing we talk about he's seems to be a good family man with principles. 

But to the issue:

I've always wondered why someone would "choose" to do something that would make their skin crawl or not give them pleasure.

Sex with a woman for a man that's truly homosexual must be as revolting as sex with a man for a man who is heterosexual.

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #87 on: May 19, 2008, 08:39:09 AM »
thanks  :)

BB is great guy, IMO, and I don't get why some people are all over him.   Although we don't agree on at least half of every thing we talk about he's seems to be a good family man with principles. 

But to the issue:

I've always wondered why someone would "choose" to do something that would make their skin crawl or not give them pleasure.

Sex with a woman for a man that's truly homosexual must be as revolting as sex with a man for a man who is heterosexual.
With all that living in the closet, getting dragged to death behind a pickup truck and general second class citizenry, it's a wonder more people aren't clamoring to choose the lifestyle.

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #88 on: May 19, 2008, 08:46:15 AM »
I'd have more respect for Bum if he wouldn't avoid debate when confronted with his illogical and at times bigoted arguments.

It would be one thing if he just said that he doesn't approve of the lifestyle of gay people.   

Instead he continually uses patently flawed logic to pretend he's proven that being gay is a choice.

I also can't ignore the fact that he agrees with Dobson that you can "de-gay" your kid by taking a shower and letting him check out your junk and then showing him how to to pound square pegs in square holes.

wtf???

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #89 on: May 19, 2008, 08:50:44 AM »
I'd have more respect for Bum if he wouldn't avoid debate when confronted with his illogical and at times bigoted arguments.

It would be one thing if he just said that he doesn't approve of the lifestyle of gay people.   

Instead he continually uses patently flawed logic to pretend he's proven that being gay is a choice.

I also can't ignore the fact that he agrees with Dobson that you can "de-gay" your kid by taking a shower and letting him check out your junk and then showing him how to to pound square pegs in square holes.

wtf???
Rare is the time that chill runs down my spine from something I read on these boards. 

That de-gay shit just made the list.

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #90 on: May 19, 2008, 09:03:27 AM »
So animals are making an obvious lifestyle choice?

"Homosexuality has been observed in more than 1,500 species, and the phenomenon has been well described for 500 of them," said Petter Bockman, project coordinator of the exhibition.
http://www.livescience.com/animals/061116_homosexual_animals.html

Animals engage in abnormal/unnatural behavior too.  And abnormal/unnatural behavior occurring in the animal kingdom doesn't suddenly become normal when humans choose to engage in the same behavior. 

For example, infanticide. 

Infanticide (zoology)
 
A lioness may have her cubs destroyed if the pride's males are overthrown.In animals, infanticide involves the killing of young offspring by a mature animal of its own species, and is studied in zoology, specifically in the field of ethology. Ovicide is the analogous destruction of eggs. Although human infanticide has been widely studied, the practice has been observed in many other species throughout the animal kingdom. These include microscopic rotifers, insects, fish, amphibians, birds and mammals. Infanticide can be practiced by both males and females.
. . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology)

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #91 on: May 19, 2008, 09:06:17 AM »
Rare is the time that chill runs down my spine from something I read on these boards. 

That de-gay shit just made the list.

it's even creepier when you realize that Dobson is totally serious:

Meanwhile, the boy's father has to do his part. He needs to mirror and affirm his son's maleness. He can play rough-and-tumble games with his son, in ways that are decidedly different from the games he would play with a little girl. He can help his son learn to throw and catch a ball. He can teach him to pound a square wooden peg into a square hole in a pegboard. He can even take his son with him into the shower, where the boy cannot help but notice that Dad has a penis, just like his, only bigger.

http://www2.focusonthefamily.com/docstudy/newsletters/a000000264.cfm

BayGBM

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 19417
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #92 on: May 19, 2008, 09:15:03 AM »
thanks  :)

BB is great guy, IMO, and I don't get why some people are all over him.   Although we don't agree on at least half of every thing we talk about he's seems to be a good family man with principles. 

But to the issue:

I've always wondered why someone would "choose" to do something that would make their skin crawl or not give them pleasure.

Sex with a woman for a man that's truly homosexual must be as revolting as sex with a man for a man who is heterosexual.

Yep. :-[

Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #93 on: May 19, 2008, 09:48:59 AM »
Animals engage in abnormal/unnatural behavior too.  And abnormal/unnatural behavior occurring in the animal kingdom doesn't suddenly become normal when humans choose to engage in the same behavior. 

For example, infanticide. 

Infanticide (zoology)
 
A lioness may have her cubs destroyed if the pride's males are overthrown.In animals, infanticide involves the killing of young offspring by a mature animal of its own species, and is studied in zoology, specifically in the field of ethology. Ovicide is the analogous destruction of eggs. Although human infanticide has been widely studied, the practice has been observed in many other species throughout the animal kingdom. These include microscopic rotifers, insects, fish, amphibians, birds and mammals. Infanticide can be practiced by both males and females.
. . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology)
Make up your mind Beach Bum.  Is homosexuality an obvious lifestyle choice or is it deviant behavior?  By definition, homosexuality is not normal.  By 'normal' I mean the norm--what most people are doing.  Homosexuals make up, what, 10% of the population.  As far as sexuality goes, that is definitely not the norm.

Then again, to Freud, all sexual expression that is not coital is deviant.  So kissing, oral sex anal sex and the vast panoply of other sexual experiments/expressions is deviant.

Infanticide?  Why not try cannibalism?  Necrophilia is up there as well. 

How does any of that prove that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice or aberrant behavior?

Colossus_500

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3993
  • Psalm 139
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #94 on: May 19, 2008, 10:31:15 AM »

HAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA

Straw Man

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 41015
  • one dwells in nirvana
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #95 on: May 19, 2008, 10:40:34 AM »
Animals engage in abnormal/unnatural behavior too.  And abnormal/unnatural behavior occurring in the animal kingdom doesn't suddenly become normal when humans choose to engage in the same behavior. 

For example, infanticide. 

Infanticide (zoology)
 
A lioness may have her cubs destroyed if the pride's males are overthrown.In animals, infanticide involves the killing of young offspring by a mature animal of its own species, and is studied in zoology, specifically in the field of ethology. Ovicide is the analogous destruction of eggs. Although human infanticide has been widely studied, the practice has been observed in many other species throughout the animal kingdom. These include microscopic rotifers, insects, fish, amphibians, birds and mammals. Infanticide can be practiced by both males and females.
. . . .

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infanticide_(zoology)

Bum - you seem to be making a ethical judgement based on your own human standards.

Have you ever considered that there might be a biological imperative why this activity might occur within the animal kingdom?


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #96 on: May 19, 2008, 11:00:30 AM »
thanks  :)

BB is great guy, IMO, and I don't get why some people are all over him.   Although we don't agree on at least half of every thing we talk about he's seems to be a good family man with principles. 

But to the issue:

I've always wondered why someone would "choose" to do something that would make their skin crawl or not give them pleasure.

Sex with a woman for a man that's truly homosexual must be as revolting as sex with a man for a man who is heterosexual.

Thanks mang.   :)  It is really amusing to me how seriously some folks take this anonymous message board.  Some out-of-whack priorities. 


Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #97 on: May 19, 2008, 11:03:11 AM »
Make up your mind Beach Bum.  Is homosexuality an obvious lifestyle choice or is it deviant behavior?  By definition, homosexuality is not normal.  By 'normal' I mean the norm--what most people are doing.  Homosexuals make up, what, 10% of the population.  As far as sexuality goes, that is definitely not the norm.

Then again, to Freud, all sexual expression that is not coital is deviant.  So kissing, oral sex anal sex and the vast panoply of other sexual experiments/expressions is deviant.

Infanticide?  Why not try cannibalism?  Necrophilia is up there as well. 

How does any of that prove that homosexuality is a lifestyle choice or aberrant behavior?


Make up your mind Decker.  Does the fact that behavior occurs in the animal kingdom mean the same behavior is predetermined in humans or not?  You're the one who brought up animals.  Follow your analysis to its logical conclusion (which would include cannibalism, etc.).   

Dos Equis

  • Moderator
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 63566
  • I am. The most interesting man in the world. (Not)
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #98 on: May 19, 2008, 11:07:34 AM »
Bum - you seem to be making a ethical judgement based on your own human standards.

Have you ever considered that there might be a biological imperative why this activity might occur within the animal kingdom?



I think this might be why you get frustrated Straw Man.  You constantly bring up red herrings, straw men, etc.  (That's why I think you have a great name.)  I didn't say a word about ethics.

And no, I have never considered that abnormal/unnatural behavior in animals is a "biological imperative."  The sole purpose of sex in the animal kingdom is propagation of their species.  Animals don't engage in homosexual behavior to survive.     



Decker

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 5782
Re: California Court Affirms Right to Gay Marriage
« Reply #99 on: May 19, 2008, 11:14:51 AM »
Make up your mind Decker.  Does the fact that behavior occurs in the animal kingdom mean the same behavior is predetermined in humans or not?  You're the one who brought up animals.  Follow your analysis to its logical conclusion (which would include cannibalism, etc.).   
My mind is made up.  Homosexuality has been around since the dawn of time.  It was accepted and practiced as normal during Classical Antiquity.  I don't care how a man or woman lives their lives.  As long as they pursue life, liberty, and happiness in a manner that does not interfere with my own interests, I say live and let live.

This is not a slippery slope argument even though your trying to make it into one.  So the references to infanticide and cannibalism do not belong.

You are the one that called homosexuality an obvious lifestyle choice.

Animals do not create an array of choices on how they should live their lives.

Yet homosexuality does exist in the animal kingdom.

Therefore there must be another explanation other than conscious choice since animals are not capable, for the most part, of framing their existences and choosing a homosexual lifestyle.