California Supreme Court votes 6-1 to uphold gay marriage ban

[Tapeworm]

yeah, its because gays are a cross section of society.    inner city club kids really don't have too much in common with soccer moms.

Of course they do.  They're both being treated as second class citizens by unfair laws.  What kind of gay activist are you?! 

j/k man

[drkaje]

It's doubtful joe sixpack even cares about this.

Society has far more pressing issues.

[MCWAY]

domineering mother, absent father, etc, was the prevailing point of view in the 1960s.   hundreds of peer reviewed studies showed it to be false.

From what I've seen, the father isn't necessarily absent. Many Christian groups that works with homosexuals have found that a lack of bonding with a father present in the home or physical/sexual abuse by a father (or other male relative) were common factors.

In an article I posted, a former lesbian cites her father abusing her mother combined with her being molested by a male cousin and her brother as factors in her becoming a lesbian.

Christine Sneeringer states the reasons for her homosexual behavior included “sexual abuse, gender confusion, a breakdown in the relationship with my same-sex parent, an abusive father and peer rejection.”

She also emphasizes lack of emotional bonds, when describing a lesbian relationship she had in college. While she was seeking safety from abusive men, her lover longer for emotional intimacy that she did not receive from her workaholic husband.


http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=28789

http://www.exodus.to/content/view/248/148/

[bigdumbbell]

From what I've seen, the father isn't necessarily absent. Many Christian groups that works with homosexuals have found that a lack of bonding with a father present in the home or physical/sexual abuse by a father (or other male relative) were common factors.

In an article I posted, a former lesbian cites her father abusing her mother combined with her being molested by a male cousin and her brother as factors in her becoming a lesbian.

http://www.bpnews.net/BPFirstPerson.asp?ID=28789

http://www.exodus.to/content/view/248/148/

lol 

[MCWAY]

It's doubtful joe sixpack even cares about this.

Society has far more pressing issues.

Indeed!!

But, Joe Sixpack DOES care about this issue, when it infringes on his right to vote on public policy in his state, run his business as he sees fit, or have a say on his children's education.

[Cap]

But saying to someone "You're not entitled to the same rights as I am, because you wish to 'live gay'" is what it means to act like a bigot. 

I still go back to the taxation issue, though.  And one real important issue - at least from a few perspectives - is that, with a simple majority at the ballot box, *anyone's* rights can be taken away in California.  I have to argue that that's a fatal flaw in our system. 

The 'yes on 8' people keep playing the 'why isn't it ok to disagree with you?' card and that's not the point. 

Disagreeing with logic, common sense, and the love of Christ is everyone's right and that's fine by me.  BUT, what's not fine is attempting to dictate how others must live.  If YOU wish to live according to your beliefs, so be it.  That's what America is here for. 

But telling others they must live based on your beliefs?  Completely un-American, by every definition.

Marriage, by definition is between a man and a woman.  All these people want is the term marriage attached to them, but why?  What does it matter to them?  If their love is all that matters, then why cry about this if their unions are legal and mean the same thing?  What rights are really being violated?  

I don't think Coach is a bigot for disagreeing with gay marriage makes him a bigot.  The people have spoken as to what they think marriage, a misguided union between a man and woman, but one between a man and woman just the same.  No rights were taken away with the vote.

[Cleanest Natural]

why does every thread that contains the word "gay" in the title goes 4-5 pages minimum ?

[BayGBM]

why does every thread that contains the word "gay" in the title goes 4-5 pages minimum ?

I'll give you three guesses. 

One marriage thread here is 24 pages long... this one is already 8 pages long... 

[drkaje]

why does every thread that contains the word "gay" in the title goes 4-5 pages minimum ?

There are a lot of opinions on the matter. A few even make sense.

Of course some retards will argue anyone against the idea is either gay, homophobic, bigoted, a closet gay, religious zealot or secretly afraid of being rejected by gays.

[Deicide]

Damn, this topic is so insipid and boring.

[BayGBM]

I'm sure the forums that cover NFL football, cars, scuba diving, kite surfing, soccer, baseball, and all other forms of sports and entertainment have threads 32 pages long on gay marriage.

[Deicide]

I'm sure the forums that cover NFL football, cars, scuba diving, kite surfing, soccer, baseball, and all other forms of sports and entertainment have threads 32 pages long on gay marriage.

I don't get it either. The world economy is falling apart and this thread is amongst the longest around.

[BayGBM]

I don't get it either. The world economy is falling apart and this thread is amongst the longest around.

Getbiggers are a curious lot; they are very interested in certain, shall we say, "topics."  I participate in several forums online related to cars, surfing, computers, higher education, etc. Some of these boards have an Off Topic or Politics forum and this is the only board that has even mentioned gay marriage much less has 32 pages of discussion about it.  Very telling.   To borrow a line from my friend Doom "Bah ha ha ha ha ha ha"

[Deicide]

Getbiggers are a curious lot; they are very interested in certain, shall we say, "topics."  I participate several forums online related to cars, surfing, computers, higher education, etc. Some of these boards have an Off Topic or Politics forum and this is the only board that has even mentioned gay marriage much less has 32 pages of discussion about it.  Very telling.   To borrow a line from my friend Doom "Bah ha ha ha ha ha ha"

Too many fundies here.

[BayGBM]

Too many fundies here.

Too many Ted Haggards here. 

[Tre]

Too many Ted Haggards here. 

QFT

[Sir Humphrey]

We can't let gays get married. Next thing you know, they'll start thinking they're fully human or something. 

[Tre]

We can't let gays get married. Next thing you know, they'll start thinking they're fully human or something. 

My former spouse and her people think that gays have sex and this concerns them deeply. 

[bigdumbbell]

QFT

X2

[MCWAY]

Marriage, by definition is between a man and a woman.  All these people want is the term marriage attached to them, but why?  What does it matter to them?  If their love is all that matters, then why cry about this if their unions are legal and mean the same thing?  What rights are really being violated?  

I don't think Coach is a bigot for disagreeing with gay marriage makes him a bigot.  The people have spoken as to what they think marriage, a misguided union between a man and woman, but one between a man and woman just the same.  No rights were taken away with the vote.

If any rights were in jeopardy, that would be the legitimate rights of people of California to decide public policy and amend their own constitution.

Again, the nature of this suit was that the plaintiffs wanted to turn California into a NE state, where people can't amend the constitution without going through the Legislature, which just happens to side with them on gay "marriage".

All the court did was state that Prop. 8 was simply an amendment, not a revision (therefore, the people DO NOT have to go through the Legislature to pass it). And, as has already been established, defining marriage as a one-man-one-woman union DOES NOT BREACH the US Constitution. CA's court ruled that way in Lockmeyer v. San Francisco back in 2004. Therefore, the whole argument about taking rights away, by gay-"marriage" advocates rings hollow.

The CA court also stated that, if gay activists have a beef with the ease in which CA's constitution can be amended, they need to either take that up with the Legislature OR fix it themselves at the ballot box (ala Florida, which changed its policy, now requiring a 60% supermajority to pass future amendments).

[Deicide]

If any rights were in jeopardy, that would be the legitimate rights of people of California to decide public policy and amend their own constitution.

Again, the nature of this suit was that the plaintiffs wanted to turn California into a NE state, where people can't amend the constitution without going through the Legislature, which just happens to side with them on gay "marriage".

All the court did was state that Prop. 8 was simply an amendment, not a revision (therefore, the people DO NOT have to go through the Legislature to pass it). And, as has already been established, defining marriage as a one-man-one-woman union DOES NOT BREACH the US Constitution. CA's court ruled that way in Lockmeyer v. San Francisco back in 2004. Therefore, the whole argument about taking rights away, by gay-"marriage" advocates rings hollow.

The CA court also stated that, if gay activists have a beef with the ease in which CA's constitution can be amended, they need to either take that up with the Legislature OR fix it themselves at the ballot box (ala Florida, which changed its policy, now requiring a 60% supermajority to pass future amendments).

[MCWAY]

I'll give you three guesses. 

One marriage thread here is 24 pages long... this one is already 8 pages long... 

Tf I'm not mistaken, the 24-page thread is YOURS. And you keep it going every time something happens, regarding gay "marriage" (at least, when it's to your liking).

Not that there's anything wrong with that!!!   

[MCWAY]

Damn, this topic is so insipid and boring.

And yet, you keep popping up on threads, regarding this topic, to give your two cents (or the equivalent of such, whereever it is you are).

There are a lot of opinions on the matter. A few even make sense.

Of course some retards will argue anyone against the idea is either gay, homophobic, bigoted, a closet gay, religious zealot or secretly afraid of being rejected by gays.

So true!!!

And, as we’ve most recently seen, the canard that gay “marriage” doesn’t affect anyone else continues to be exposed for the lie that it is.

Funnier still, if gay “marriage” gets legalized in a certain state, those who support it claim that it’s time to move on to the “real” issues. Yet, when people vote to pass marriage amendments, that moving to the "real" issues suddenly takes a back seat.

[CastIron]

Mariage is for people who believe in God.  If you don't believe in god, why get married.  If you do, then you know that having sexual acts with the same sex is a sin and marriage to the same sex is not prohibited in the bible.  There are other ways of being committed to someone besides marraige.

[Tre]

And, as we’ve most recently seen, the canard that gay “marriage” doesn’t affect anyone else continues to be exposed for the lie that it is.

Hold on, that's the part I've missed.  What are the highlights of your argument as far as this claim is concerned?

If any rights were in jeopardy, that would be the legitimate rights of people of California to decide public policy and amend their own constitution.

Again, the nature of this suit was that the plaintiffs wanted to turn California into a NE state, where people can't amend the constitution without going through the Legislature, which just happens to side with them on gay "marriage".

All the court did was state that Prop. 8 was simply an amendment, not a revision (therefore, the people DO NOT have to go through the Legislature to pass it). And, as has already been established, defining marriage as a one-man-one-woman union DOES NOT BREACH the US Constitution. CA's court ruled that way in Lockmeyer v. San Francisco back in 2004. Therefore, the whole argument about taking rights away, by gay-"marriage" advocates rings hollow.

The CA court also stated that, if gay activists have a beef with the ease in which CA's constitution can be amended, they need to either take that up with the Legislature OR fix it themselves at the ballot box (ala Florida, which changed its policy, now requiring a 60% supermajority to pass future amendments).

I'm still not convinced that mob rule is the way to go on issues like these, but do agree that we play with the rules we have.

A lot of intellectually dishonest individuals on the pro-8 side argued that 'this is only about the definition of the term marriage', but I don't think there's much precedent for determining definitions of terms by popular vote.  Shouldn't they have taken the argument to Merriam-Webster instead?? 

Note: I wasn't able to have any conversations either during or after the campaign with secular supporters of the measure.  Everyone I encountered on the pro side was coming from a religious perspective, so that's why many of my statements have appeared to 'target' them. 

That being said, I don't know many religions that would be happy if non-religious or anti-religious people decided to vote on their right to worship as they please.