Dear California... really?

**drewmandan** · 11-21-2008 09:37 PM

Originally Posted by Jeff777

I seem to remember in history class our teacher telling us that in the middle ages, enormously fat women were thought of as icons of beauty/sex and petite thin women were abhored and thought of as sickly. If society en mass were operating from those earlier set of beliefs today, that woman featured above would be cited as an unworthy mate. Interesting how times have changed. I think the thought in question isn't so much "Do we choose who we are attracted to?" but "Does society/media dictate what we are to be attracted to?" And if so, "Are we aware of it's prominent effect on our decision making process when choosing mates?" Now there's the rub.

I think it was more the case of ancient culture dictating that being unhealthily obese was attractive rather than our culture today dictating that being healthy is attractive. Back in ancient times, food was usually quite scarce, but now that's not true. It seems to me that the truer, more natural form of attraction would be the one that isn't being coloured by personal starvation.

As for thin being attractive, I will tell you that I personally don't think it is. I like people who look like they will indeed survive to their next meal.

**Universal Mind** · 11-21-2008 09:41 PM

Originally Posted by drewmandan

As for thin being attractive, I will tell you that I personally don't think it is. I like people who look like they will indeed survive to their next meal.

I second that. Women who look like they are starving make me want to drive them to hit the Shoney's buffet.

**Wolfsbane** · 11-22-2008 04:17 AM

Ugh, I hate when women starve themselves. Jutting rib cages are not attractive, no matter how many Victoria's Secret stores display anorexic mannequins with D-cup boobs. I'm a sucker for hourglass figures. I love hips and curves and fat in all the right places. I like women who aren't afraid to eat (but aren't gluttons). Women are supposed to have fat. I don't know why people can't seem to understand that.

I really can't help it that I'm attracted to women. I mean, can you blame me? :]

Another thing about attraction is that it doesn't always have to be sexual.
When I see a beautiful woman, my first thought is not about getting her in bed. I can even look at a naked woman and appreciate the beauty of the figure without turning to sexual thoughts. I can still appreciate when a guy is attractive, just like straight people (who are comfortable with their sexuality) can appreciate an attractive member of the same gender. It doesn't mean that they want to have any sort of romantic encounter with them.

As much as I would like to, I'm not even going to comment on the earlier posts.

**Idolfan** · 11-22-2008 10:08 AM

CURSE THE CLOUDS OVER CALIFORNIA!

No, seriously though, I 100% believe that gay marrige should be legal. I honestly don't have a clue how prop 8 got through.

**Bearsy** · 11-22-2008 04:45 PM

According to Fox News it was the blacks.

According to reality it was the Mormon Church paying over $2 million to get it passed.

**drewmandan** · 11-22-2008 04:49 PM

This is why laws should be perennial. Think about it: you can put pretty much anything on the ballot, and no matter what it is, chances are almost half the people will vote yes. People are stupid. What we need is either politicians who can exercise good judgment in what they let get onto the ballot (not likely), or laws that, if passed, only burden the people for a preset period of time, like 2 years.

**ninja9578** · 11-22-2008 05:04 PM

It's supposed to be 60% to make an amendment, when did that get changed?

**Sandform** · 11-22-2008 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by Elis D.

According to Fox News it was the blacks.

According to reality it was the Mormon Church paying over $2 million to get it passed.

Um, well people who are black did vote overly in favor of of prop 8 in California. Unreliable wiki says it was a 2 to 1 in favor of passing the prop ratio. Meanwhile the Mormon church actually did pay millions of dollars to endorse prop 8. I've been hearing claims of either 15 million or 20 million dollars.

Originally Posted by ninja9578

It's supposed to be 60% to make an amendment, when did that get changed?

I think in California all it takes is a majority vote.

Have they counted all the absentee votes yet?

**Wolfsbane** · 11-22-2008 11:42 PM

In the words of my sister...

"I think the thing that pissed me off the most was the amount of support prop 8 got from out of state. Like, how hateful do you have to be to try to ban people from being happy on the other side of the country? Fuck off already. Or are you just afraid that if gay marriage is legal here, you'll have to legalize it there? Or the gays are going to come and get you? ARGH."

**Snowy Egypt** · 11-23-2008 12:12 AM

I love you sister.

I mean REALLY! How is gay marriage going to affect you or your marriage?!! Stop being such a homophobe.

**Sandform** · 11-23-2008 05:46 PM

Originally Posted by Wolfsbane

In the words of my sister...

"I think the thing that pissed me off the most was the amount of support prop 8 got from out of state. Like, how hateful do you have to be to try to ban people from being happy on the other side of the country? Fuck off already. Or are you just afraid that if gay marriage is legal here, you'll have to legalize it there? Or the gays are going to come and get you? ARGH."

The ones from out of state recognize that if gay couples move from California to another state they get to stay married. But...I think they already made a thing saying states don't have to recognize same sex marriages from other states if they don't want to.

**ninja9578** · 11-23-2008 06:07 PM

Originally Posted by Sandform

The ones from out of state recognize that if gay couples move from California to another state they get to stay married. But...I think they already made a thing saying states don't have to recognize same sex marriages from other states if they don't want to.

As soon as someone moves to one of those states that will go to the supreme court. States are obligated by the constitution to honour each others' legal documents.

**Sandform** · 11-23-2008 06:47 PM

Originally Posted by ninja9578

As soon as someone moves to one of those states that will go to the supreme court. States are obligated by the constitution to honour each others' legal documents.

Unfortunately I'm pretty sure when it comes to same sex marriage that isn't true.

1. No state (or other political subdivision within the United States) need treat a relationship between persons of the same sex as a marriage, even if the relationship is considered a marriage in another state.
2. The Federal Government may not treat same-sex relationships as marriages for any purpose, even if concluded or recognized by one of the states.

I mean they could argue, but the state is, unfortunately, under no obligation to give them their rights.

**WakataDreamer** · 11-23-2008 08:51 PM

Originally Posted by ninja9578

California, which is supposed to be the most progressive state in the union, has a proposition to abolish gay marriage

It's called Proposition 8 and many many people and companies have started a campaign against it. How did something like that even get onto the ticket in California?

Bigotry has no place in legislation. Why is the country going backwards?

It passed.

**ninja9578** · 11-24-2008 04:43 PM

Yeah, we know. That's why the last few pages are all of us complaining.

**Universal Mind** · 11-24-2008 04:46 PM

I guess Temperamental realized that that best way to play dodgeball is to disappear completely.

**Wolfsbane** · 11-24-2008 06:26 PM

Originally Posted by Universal Mind

I guess Temperamental realized that that best way to play dodgeball is to disappear completely.

I just find it funny that her sig says "taste the rainbow." It really doesn't get any gayer than that. That happens to be the name of a lesbian/bi guild I'm in on another forum.

Originally Posted by Temperamental

Because Gay marriage is WRONG! California is not just the most progressive state, but the most smartest state too.

I also find her grammar amusing. (and why is "gay" capitalized?)