Thread: California Supreme Court Legalizes Gay Marriage

The Governator isn't happy about this, but he's smiling and carrying on because he knows it would be re-election suicide to speak against the Supreme Court at this point.

Yep, I'm packing off somewhere else in a few years.

I think it's good on two levels, one being states rights and one being individual rights.
I personally think that homosexuality is useless and I don't agree with it, but I also don't think I should be able to tell someone how to live their life.

So for rights.

Originally Posted by Sagea

I personally think that homosexuality is useless

I don't understand what you mean? What use does heterosexuality have? Oh they can have babies...so is loving a woman with ovarian cancer or otherwise being infertile (or loving an infertile man) is useless?

So essentially, unless you have a baby love is useless.

Originally Posted by Sagea

and I don't agree with it

Don't agree with what? What is there to agree on?

[quote=Sandform;805695]I don't understand what you mean? What use does heterosexuality have? Oh they can have babies...so is loving a woman with ovarian cancer or otherwise being infertile (or loving an infertile man) is useless?

So essentially, unless you have a baby love is useless.

Originally Posted by Sagea

and I don't agree with it
[/qoute]

Don't agree with what? What is there to agree on?

I personally don't think it is natural (unless there is a gene for it in case of overpopulation, which I have read about). That's the basis for my reasoning.
It's just my personal belief that homosexual=not helping diversify the gene pool. Whether or not it is right should be left to the individual.

I heard people actually want to make an admendment to the Bill of Rights to 'protect' marriage.
Firstly, its' a Bill of RIGHTS, and that achochol thing didn't go so well did it?
Secondly, if you want to protect marriage, why not ban divorces.
Also I'm sick of people saying its unatural likes its a bad thing. Soooooo many things humans do are unnatural. Birth controll is unatural. Houses are unnatural. If we shunned everything that was unnatural we would all be living in caves. I like your avatar btw Sagae. And I really don't blame other guys for going gay, women can be real bitches, and boobs are ugly.

Somehow, I knew this would come on here. With that said, I support it.

Originally Posted by justme

and boobs are ugly.

I don't find boobs ugly =P.

As for the amendment...

No amendment has ever been made that takes AWAY a right...lol, except for of course, like you mentioned, prohibition. It would be ludicrous to ban someone from a right.

The only kind of marriage is between a man and a woman, the only kind of transportation device is a camel, and the only kind of home is a cave. What is traditional is what is forever right. We can't open the doors to new ways of doing things. Equal rights take a back seat to that philosophy.

Whats traditional isn't even traditional, originally marriage was made so that a woman would be a mans property, then families started making arranged marriages, it wasn't until recently that marriage became for "love."

Originally Posted by Sandform

Whats traditional isn't even traditional, originally marriage was made so that a woman would be a mans property, then families started making arranged marriages, it wasn't until recently that marriage became for "love."

Really? I did not know that. Then, marriage is between a man and his slave. That's how it is defined, dammit!

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

Really? I did not know that. Then, marriage is between a man and his slave. That's how it is defined, dammit!

Aye, in the past a women was nothing other than his thing that housed his baby for the 9 months of pregnancy.

Originally Posted by Sandform

Aye, in the past a women was nothing other than his thing that housed his baby for the 9 months of pregnancy.

Well hell, I sure wouldn't want to break tradition!

Kill the queers!!!



Seriously, sex without procreation(aka, sodomy) is the best form, IMO, I mean how many times have you not been able to find a parking space? It's cause Joe Jesus down the street keeps pumping out babies every year.
Next time you get a good parking space, buy a gay guy a beer.

There should be billboards for an economic plan.
"Take one in the fanny, save money on a nanny."

Originally Posted by Elis D.

Next time you get a good parking space, buy a gay guy a beer.

Awesome! That one goes to favorite quotes.

Originally Posted by Vance

Yep, I'm packing off somewhere else in a few years.

You're moving away from California because gay people have the right to civil unions now?

Originally Posted by Sagea

I personally don't think it is natural (unless there is a gene for it in case of overpopulation, which I have read about). That's the basis for my reasoning.
It's just my personal belief that homosexual=not helping diversify the gene pool. Whether or not it is right should be left to the individual.

You seem to misunderstand what is "natural." First, you assume everything about you that is physical is determined by your genetics. That is false. Second you assume that everything genetic about you MUST be something that is good, or beneficial. That is false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Angelman_syndrome

Is this a very helpful thing?

Then there is the fact that an egg in the womb starts out as female(or rather both female and male start out the same)...and then grows into a male...Though the sperm determines the sex.

There is no reason to think that physical things can't happen that make a person homosexual while in the womb.

Also there is no reason to believe that under harsh training you could change your body to desire the opposite preference. A naturally scrawny person can gain muscles if he tries. Though a natural muscular person has trouble becoming scrawny...

Originally Posted by Sagea

I personally don't think it is natural (unless there is a gene for it in case of overpopulation, which I have read about). That's the basis for my reasoning.
It's just my personal belief that homosexual=not helping diversify the gene pool. Whether or not it is right should be left to the individual.

If its not natural, then why do people do it?

In the words of Sam Kinison, "I know homosexuality is not a choice because how can one man look at another man's hairy ass and find love?"

If it wasn't natural no one would do it. We don't choose to be attracted to the same sex, or both, we just are. Cause thats how our synapses fire.

Originally Posted by Elis D.

If its not natural, then why do people do it?

In the words of Sam Kinison, "I know homosexuality is not a choice because how can one man look at another man's hairy ass and find love?"

If it wasn't natural no one would do it. We don't choose to be attracted to the same sex, or both, we just are. Cause thats how our synapses fire.

Weak argument. Alarm clocks aren't natural, but people still use them.

I agree with you though. Homosexuality does exist in nature, which makes me percieve homosexuality as a natural defect. A mistake in animal nature. Nature makes mistakes all the time.

There is also the theory of homosexuality being caused by sexual and gender confusion at a young age, brought on by early life events (like homosexual molestation). Any way you look at it, just because it exists doesn't mean its supposed to exist.

As to the main topic, hooray for California. I think its awesome.

"A defect and a mistake."
It's wording like that that confuses the hell out of young children that are already questioning their sexuality.
It causes a lot of problems mentally, man. My parents talked like that and it made me hate myself for years until I realized that I was right, and they were wrong.
I know you have your own opinions and freedom of speech, but I'm just saying, I wish people wouldn't talk like that.
I don't buy into the homosexual molestation theory. I was never molested by anyone, gay or straight. And to my knowledge, none of my gay/bi friends were either, and we're all very open with each other.
I don't agree with you on the last point either, just cause it's different doesn't mean it's wrong. It exists because it exists, who are you, or I, or anyone to say what should, or should not exist?


And yes... hooray for California.

:peace:

Sexual attraction in all animals exists so mating and reproduction take place. Pleasure is a side effect and exists to encourage mating. Pleasure sits backseat to reproduction. Being attracted to the same sex cannot possibly end in reproduction, so therefore the attraction itself is useless. But thats just my opinion.

So tell me, Elis. What is your explaination for the existence of homosexuality, and what purpose it has.

Originally Posted by Half/Dreaming

Sexual attraction in all animals exists so mating and reproduction take place. Pleasure is a side effect and exists to encourage mating. Pleasure sits backseat to reproduction. Being attracted to the same sex cannot possibly end in reproduction, so therefore the attraction itself is useless. But thats just my opinion.

So tell me, Elis. What is your explaination for the existence of homosexuality, and what purpose it has.

As Sandform brought up, this argument implies that attraction with a woman with ovarian cancer or who had their uterus removed or otherwise cannot have a baby is "useless" (as well as heterosexual attraction with a man who "shoots blanks" or is otherwise infertile). Furthermore, if you use a condom with your girlfriend, is the attraction therefore useless? If you simply do not intend to have babies, is the attraction useless?

Why does something have to have a specific biological purpose to exist?

I'm waiting to see what happens when a gay couple tries to get joint anything in a backwards state after getting married in CA. States are by federal law obligated to recognize each other's legal contracts, including marriage.

Originally Posted by wasup

As Sagea brought up, this argument implies that attraction with a woman with ovarian cancer or who had their uterus removed or otherwise cannot have a baby is "useless" (as well as heterosexual attraction with a man who "shoots blanks" or is otherwise infertile). Furthermore, if you use a condom with your girlfriend, is the attraction therefore useless? If you simply do not intend to have babies, is the attraction useless?

Sometimes I think about I'm a psycic. I knew somebody would say this.

We're not talking about condoms, birth control, or people not being able to reproduce. We're talking about the reason sexual attraction exists. To reproduce. Recreational sex and homosexuality are only extras of the ability.

I am not saying that sex is soley for reproduction. I am not a religious zealot. I am saying that some sex, including gay sex and sex with a condom, serves no purpose beyond that of pleasure, and that sex does not exist for pleasure, but for reproduction. Do you follow?

also, don't think of me as homophobic, because I'm not.