California Gay Marriage Ban Lifted

Sovvolf

New member
Mar 23, 2009
2,341
0
0
Audioave10 said:
You are not a bigot if you believe in what Nature intended. Some of the problem here is that everyone is being selfish. What about the children? What about a real (by blood) father & Mother? What about the next generation? Do YOU know what's best for them?
"just sayin"
What about free will?. What about the right to choose?. What about their own personal freedoms?. Do homosexuals not have the right to say they don't want to have kids?.
 

LordWalter

New member
Sep 19, 2009
343
0
0
Konrad Curze said:
Ahh its a dark day for democracy.
Even worse since this already happened and Prop 8 had to come along to fix it.
Majorities cannot vote away the rights of minority groups. That is exactly what the courts are designed (and supposed) to defend against.

L 2 American Government.
 

Audioave10

New member
Mar 24, 2010
509
0
0
Sovvolf said:
Audioave10 said:
You are not a bigot if you believe in what Nature intended. Some of the problem here is that everyone is being selfish. What about the children? What about a real (by blood) father & Mother? What about the next generation? Do YOU know what's best for them?
"just sayin"
What about free will?. What about the right to choose?. What about their own personal freedoms?. Do homosexuals not have the right to say they don't want to have kids?.
No problem, but someone will have kids. I wonder who & how.
 

crudus

New member
Oct 20, 2008
4,415
0
0
Audioave10 said:
You are not a bigot if you believe in what Nature intended. Some of the problem here is that everyone is being selfish. What about the children? What about a real (by blood) father & Mother? What about the next generation? Do YOU know what's best for them?
"just sayin"
Debate Powers Activate!

What about the children? What about the next generation? Famous ancient civilizations accepted homosexuality and even encouraged it. The biggest one being the Spartans. What qualifications do you have to know the effects of a homosexual accepting society on children?
 

HyenaThePirate

New member
Jan 8, 2009
1,412
0
0
Sovvolf said:
Here in America, the reason things are legal in some states and not others is that we believe that a part of "freedom" is having the freedom to choose to live with like-minded individuals. We have the opportunity for things to be decided on a more local level, each state fashioning it's own laws (within reason). This way, if you don't like where you live, you have the option of going somewhere else where such things are more accepted.

It certainly is NOT a perfect system though. As I stated in an earlier post, the downside to all of this is that we end up with Jim Crow laws and such, where groups of people are unjustly discriminated against by a majority of citizens. Blacks, Women, Gays... depending on where you lived in the past, there were some pretty harsh laws that were oppressive to these people.

This california law also falls into that category depending upon your perspective. To gays its discriminatory and unfair, and the only reason it exists is because a majority of people in the state decided collectively that they didn't want "gays" to have the same thing they have. Is it right? Is it wrong? Depends on who you ask. I'll admit though, I don't think EITHER side is right or wrong... because I think people are entitled to their beliefs and opinions. So I save such arguments for those petty enough to care about it.

What I DO concern myself with is when things grow dangerously close to a powderkeg.. when people start taking matters into their own hands and innocent people get caught in the crossfire. California for all its claims of liberalism sure has a hard-on for dividing itself into little angry groups who feel the need to go express their "freedoms" all over other people, often in offensive and even frightening ways. On one hand, we'll have a bunch of idiots in masks raid a gay night club and deliver a sound beating to anyone they find inside.. on the other hand we'll have gays openly mock Christians with a naked Jesus performing sex acts in a cage during a gay festival (I'm not kidding, this happened).

I guess bottom line is, discussing things is always welcome because if we are to grow as a society we HAVE to keep dialogue open and respectful. You can't gain ANYTHING if no one is willing to a.) compromise and b.) Listen.
However, we must be careful in our defense of things not to go to the extreme so much that WE become the offenders or oppressors, forcing people into corners... cornered groups of people with closed minds are dangerous and being gay does not automatically mean you have an open mind.
When these closeminded groups have had enough, thats when bad things happen. Bad.. BAD things..
 

-Drifter-

New member
Jun 9, 2009
2,521
0
0
Audioave10 said:
You are not a bigot if you believe in what Nature intended.
Well, since a) being gay is not a choice and b) it occurs in animals too, I say that it is as nature intended.
 

Extraintrovert

New member
Jul 28, 2010
400
0
0
While I'm enjoying this thread immensely, I'm rather dissappointed in the trolls. Perhaps I should return to YouTube; they are far more persistent, elaborate and hilarious there. Oh well, at least the butthurt conservatives are funny.
 

Sovvolf

New member
Mar 23, 2009
2,341
0
0
Audioave10 said:
Sovvolf said:
Audioave10 said:
You are not a bigot if you believe in what Nature intended. Some of the problem here is that everyone is being selfish. What about the children? What about a real (by blood) father & Mother? What about the next generation? Do YOU know what's best for them?
"just sayin"
What about free will?. What about the right to choose?. What about their own personal freedoms?. Do homosexuals not have the right to say they don't want to have kids?.
No problem, but someone will have kids. I wonder who & how.
Good, if Homosexuals aren't doing much breeding then it's helping reduce over-population. If they want to have kids in other ways like adopting or artificial insemination... Well that's between them and the kid to decide.
 

Shadowkire

New member
Apr 4, 2009
242
0
0
HyenaThePirate said:
Decabo said:
Score one for people who AREN'T biggots. Maybe 100 years from now, the United States will be up to date with the rest of the world. Probably not, if Fox News watchers continue reproducing.
Oh, the rest of the world doesn't have bigots? Really?
How many nations outside of Africa have had a black LEADER or Prime Minister? England? France? The Netherlands? Canada?
How long until we see a black or gay (or black AND gay) Doctor Who or James Bond?

Don't go around accusing other countries of being backwards about things unless your own country is a shining beacon of civilization. TO which, there aren't ANY.
I know the character of James Bond is british, but I thought the movies were made by an American company(too lazy and apathetic to check).

There have been some bisexual Doctors, as well as a VERY gay Captain Jack who got his own spin-off.
 

Shadowkire

New member
Apr 4, 2009
242
0
0
kickyourass said:
Ok just a question why is it that an ENGLISH news orginization is running this story before of an American one does, when this is happening in AMERICA? It doesn't invalidate it I just find it odd that the Guardian, a newspaper that TO MY KNOWLEDGE is not printed outside of the UK, is running a story that does not involve the UK in anyway (At least that I am aware of).

Any OT, almost everything I was going to say has already been said by this guy below (And probably many others) so I'll just quote him and say that this was a triumph on the part of the judge.
*snip*
Our 24 hour news channels suffer from "what is that other channel reporting on? cover that" syndrome, a condition characterized by every source of news reporting the exact same thing all day and ignoring anything else of importance.
 

ShadowsofHope

Outsider
Nov 1, 2009
2,623
0
0
Sovvolf said:
Audioave10 said:
Sovvolf said:
Audioave10 said:
You are not a bigot if you believe in what Nature intended. Some of the problem here is that everyone is being selfish. What about the children? What about a real (by blood) father & Mother? What about the next generation? Do YOU know what's best for them?
"just sayin"
What about free will?. What about the right to choose?. What about their own personal freedoms?. Do homosexuals not have the right to say they don't want to have kids?.
No problem, but someone will have kids. I wonder who & how.
Good, if Homosexuals aren't doing much breeding then it's helping reduce over-population. If they want to have kids in other ways like adopting or artificial insemination... Well that's between them and the kid to decide.
Do also note the phrase "As nature intended" is complete bull. Nature doesn't intend anything, nature goes as nature goes. Wherever it ends up, is where it ends up. The only natural thing about human beings is our ability to live and reproduce. Homosexual individuals can still reproduce, they just don't find sexual/romantic satisfaction in the act of sex with the opposite sex. Henceforth, there is nothing "unnatural" about the sexuality. Or them.

If reproduction makes people "natural", then apparently every virgin teenager on the planet is an abomination of nature. Who knew! /sarcasm
 

Canid117

New member
Oct 6, 2009
4,075
0
0
Matt_LRR said:
zehydra said:
I'm American, and while I generally dislike the Federal government telling the states what to do, I support this, as it was a breach of the constitution. Now, what's more important, is that people need to realize that any definition or tax breaks for marriage, by any government under the U.S. flag, is unconstitutional.
In what way are tax breaks for married couples unconstitutional?

-m
One could argue that seeing as how federal tax breaks for married couples is not mentioned in the constitution then it is technically not constitutional because as I recall from my high school history class the federal government has only the powers outlined in the constitution so unless the bill of rights was amended it would be unconstitutional. Granted no one gives a shit about that particular passage and the federal government takes actions not outlined in the constitution all the time but you could argue that.
 

One of Many

New member
Feb 3, 2010
331
0
0
Decabo said:
One of Many said:
AndyFromMonday said:
A victory for human rights! Hurrah!
But what of the human rights of the majority that voted to live in a state without gay marriage?


Anyways, I really don't care about the so called "Gay Marriage" or any marriage really. The government should keep their nose out of marriage and simply have people sign Civil Partnership Licenses, to provide legal protection and tax brakes.
Whether or not to oppress a large group of people isn't something to be voted on in the first place.
Oppression you say? Was there a clause that would allow the police to arrest homosexuals for being homosexual? Or to force them to wearing identifying badges on the fronts of their shirts? You know, I think we have laws that punish people for attacking or harassing homosexuals (or other minorities).

No what I think we have here is a population which does not want to change the definition of a legal institution (first from church law to civil law) that has existed for thousands of years. This change could be good or bad but the population does not want it.
 

smurf_you

New member
Jun 1, 2010
234
0
0
Blueruler182 said:
It's about damn time. Canada welcomes you to the future.
*highfive* nice to see fellow Canadians on here :) also... damn right ^.^

Edit: *chants to self* I will not get into a flame war, I will NOT get into a flame war >.<....
 

Biosophilogical

New member
Jul 8, 2009
3,264
0
0
Blueruler182 said:
It's about damn time. Canada welcomes you to the future.
Do you have a free-future-pass? Because Australia really needs to get its arse into gear with that whole 'natural progression through time' thing, what with our massive temporal failures.

OT: Good for them
 

Sovvolf

New member
Mar 23, 2009
2,341
0
0
HyenaThePirate said:
Sovvolf said:
Here in America, the reason things are legal in some states and not others is that we believe that a part of "freedom" is having the freedom to choose to live with like-minded individuals. We have the opportunity for things to be decided on a more local level, each state fashioning it's own laws (within reason). This way, if you don't like where you live, you have the option of going somewhere else where such things are more accepted.
So to be free... you (as in the state laws) have to deny the freedoms of others. That seems awful unfair... Sort of the opposite of free. Your freedoms are decided by popular vote rather than being granted to you. Goes against the whole land of the free or land of opportunity promises. But as you said it's not a perfect system.


HyenaThePirate said:
I get what your saying... You feel that we need to be moderate with our views, no mater which side we take. Other wise we risk becoming straw men or worse... "Vigilantes".

Though the problem is that neither side want to compromise. To one it's against there religious believe to which they will got to extreme lengths to defend. To the other it's against there own personal freedoms... Which is the side I take on this matter... Though not to an extreme extent.
 

NoNameMcgee

New member
Feb 24, 2009
2,104
0
0
therookie95 said:
I am straight and A guy but I am happy that this ban has been lifted, I respect if someone chooses to be gay and I believe that there should be no laaws to prevent it (its your choice) Anyone who says "Its going against God, your going to hell" really needs to start looking at the actual views of their people.
It's not..... a choice.

Just have to point that out because it annoys the shit out of me. Otherwise good post dude!
 

Sovvolf

New member
Mar 23, 2009
2,341
0
0
ShadowsofHope said:
Sovvolf said:
Audioave10 said:
Sovvolf said:
Audioave10 said:
You are not a bigot if you believe in what Nature intended. Some of the problem here is that everyone is being selfish. What about the children? What about a real (by blood) father & Mother? What about the next generation? Do YOU know what's best for them?
"just sayin"
What about free will?. What about the right to choose?. What about their own personal freedoms?. Do homosexuals not have the right to say they don't want to have kids?.
No problem, but someone will have kids. I wonder who & how.
Good, if Homosexuals aren't doing much breeding then it's helping reduce over-population. If they want to have kids in other ways like adopting or artificial insemination... Well that's between them and the kid to decide.
Do also note the phrase "As nature intended" is complete bull. Nature doesn't intend anything, nature goes as nature goes. Wherever it ends up, is where it ends up. The only natural thing about human beings is our ability to live and reproduce. Homosexual individuals can still reproduce, they just don't find sexual/romantic satisfaction in the act of sex with the opposite sex. Henceforth, there is nothing "unnatural" about the sexuality. Or them.

If reproduction makes people "natural", then apparently every virgin teenager on the planet is an abomination of nature. Who knew! /sarcasm
Noted, but don't worry I know it's all a load of bull. Which is why I said it's up for them to decide. I know homosexuals can still reproduce and I know some do. Though if they want to take a different route, still owning a child without having to do what they really don't like. They can always adopt. Though I think artificial insemination would work out well for both. They can reproduce and have children without having to do the deed with the opposite sex.